Laws, Codes and Eligibility – A Civics Lesson

By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on

cru 1After yesterday’s article, “Cruz Makes it Official – The Race is ON!!!” I believe there are more than just a few out there who need a civics lesson.

Ted Cruz, as a matter of LAW and U.S. Codes…IS indeed qualified AND eligible to run for the office of president.

The Constitution, clearly states that to serve as president, one must be 35 years of age, one must have resided in the United States for at least 14 years and that one must be a Natural Born Citizen. Just as clearly, the Constitution never defines Natural Born Citizen nor do any of our founding documents but…later laws and codes DO.

The Supreme Court, which has NEVER entertained a case based on NBC and therefore, never issued any DECISION regarding NBC has, for a very long time, held that a Natural Born Citizen or…NBC…is one who is a Citizen at Birth or…CaB.

Further…the SCOTUS has long held that NBC includes those born in the United States or abroad to parents of a U.S. citizen.

Now don’t go all plural on me here as I will explain this.

British Common Law held that children, whether born on British soil or abroad were subjects of the crown if their parents were subjects of the crown and our founders and cru 2framers certainly recognized this.

The First Congress stated as a matter of law via The Naturalization Act of 1790 “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

Yes…I know that Ted Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen but…this is not the end of the line in our civics lesson. Far from it in fact. The Naturalization Act of 1790 also included children whose MOTHERS were U.S. citizens so long as the FATHER had, at least, been a RESIDENT of the United States…so as not to follow British patriarchy standards used for the purpose of the monarchy.

Later, congress would strike the differentiation so that any child, born in the U.S. or abroad, with the residency requirement intact and A parent being a U.S. citizen would be legally…a Natural Born Citizen.

cru 3This is backed up by the Nationality Act of 1940 which clearly states: “In the absence of such legitimation or adjudication , the child, whether born before or after the effective date of this Act, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of the child’s birth , and had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, shall be held to have acquired at birth her nationality status.”

The Nationality Act of 1940 also shows that those born either within the United States or outside the United States (the latter being of note to Ted Cruz) to at least one parent (at least ONE parent) who was a United States citizen at the time of that child’s birth allows the conveying of that citizen parent’s United States citizenship to the child.

And as I stated yesterday…”While the Act of 1940 has been amended several times…the particular law in effect between 1952 and 1986 which covers Ted Cruz’s birth in 1970 shows that a child born either inside or outside the United States must have a (that would be “A” and not two) citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

Congratulations Mrs. Cruz…you are the proud mother of a U.S. Natural Born Citizen baby boy.

But wait…there’s more…

I refer you to §1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

You can read it by CLICKING HERE.

So…congress, backed by long-standing recognition of the United States Supreme Court has held that being a Citizen at Birth is one and the same as being a Natural Born Citizen and since that recognition has also been held by the Harvard Law Review as well as cru 6Constitutional scholars and numerous law professors as well as valid U.S. laws and Codes…

Ted Cruz, because his mother, meeting every requirement, conveyed HER citizenship on her son Ted…at birth…and every law on the books both then and today along with existing U.S. code IS…INDEED…ELIGIBLE to run for and hold the office of President of the United States of America.

The fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada has absolutely NO legal bearing on this whatsoever. None. Zilch. ZERO. His birth certificate is a legal document showing the time and location of his birth but does NOTHING to establish his citizenship in any way.

U.S. laws and U.S. code…some of it going all the way back to the founders and framers who served in the First Congress of the United States makes this VERY clear. And for those who continue to scream “CONSTITUTION…THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SAYS”…please remember THIS part of it…“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

It may not be what some folks want to hear…it may not be what they want to know or admit but…while you may not LIKE the laws…you must ABIDE by the laws. Support whocru 7 you like but…Ted Cruz’s eligibility is a matter of U.S. LAW and U.S. CODES…not the stuff of false libertarian or liberal talking points.

During yesterday’s little nonsense firestorm, I implored those citing the “CRUZ AIN’T ELIGIBLE” nonsense to provide links to ANY U.S. laws or codes that would back them up.

None could…simply because no such laws or codes exist. All they did was repeat the same false narrative over and over again and, they continued to cite SCOTUS cases that had not one single thing to do with NBC at all…again…because no such case has ever been heard by the Supreme Court.

Here’s just one more little but important tidbit…

Since Cruz’s father had been a resident of the United States…Ted would have, by the cru 8Naturalization Act of 1790…been considered a Natural Born Citizen in accordance to the words of the Constitution and thus eligible to run for and hold the office he currently seeks. And by the way… One last thing in answer to all those who desperately and falsely try to compare Cruz to Obama…because they consider Cruz a threat to their one and only candidate of choice…the exact same laws and codes that make Cruz eligible…make Obama INELIGIBLE because Obama’s mother did NOT meet the requirements outlined here.

Thus ends our civics lesson.


mudar promoTODAY, March 25th, from 2 to 4pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig and Diane present a very special show with their special guest ‘common sense’ Palestinian leader Mudar Zahran who will sound the last call for peace before impending disaster with the presenting, for the first time anywhere, of his peace plan known as ‘Operation David.’ Also being discussed will be the issue of Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

Hope you can tune in:
And chat with us live at:

15 thoughts on “Laws, Codes and Eligibility – A Civics Lesson

  1. Since Obama became President I have spent hours and hours reading and researching everything I can find on eligibility to be President. I think I know the intent of the framers but they did not define Natural Born Citizen. At that time they thought that it must have been understood. Since then the term has still not been defined and the sad truth may be that anyone born in the US or anyone born outside the US with a citizen parent is considered a Natural Born Citizen. Ted Cruz qualifies. Not by the intent but by the non-definition. For the better part of his life he held dual citizenship. The framers denied anyone with foreign allegiance to be President. So dual citizenship should deny Ted Cruz from eligibilty. So for over 35 years Ted Cruz held both US and Canadian citizenship. The knowing that he could not become President while being a Canadian citizen, he renounces his Canadian citizenship and problem solved. To me this is like a person saying or doing anything to remove an obsticle to become President.
    My question is just because you renounce citizenship, are you still not that person? If you were a Canadian citizen does it matter that you renounce citizenship to become President. Does the constitution mean that if you were foreign born with foreign allegiance as Cruz was that you can’t become President? If this is true then Cruz is not eligible. Your thoughts please.

  2. “The Supreme Court, which has NEVER entertained a case based on NBC and therefore, never issued any DECISION regarding NBC has, for a very long time, held that a Natural Born Citizen or…NBC…is one who is a Citizen at Birth or…CaB.

    Further…the SCOTUS has long held that NBC includes those born in the United States or abroad to parents of a U.S. citizen.”

    If SCOTUS has NEVER entertained a case based on NBC, how can SCOTUS hold that NBC includes those born in the United States or abroad to parent to parents of a U.S. citizen? Contradictory. No cases cited.

    The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

    The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

    “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    “The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.” The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought, a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection.”
    Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146-148, pp. 220-222 Author: Breckinridge Long (1881-1958) Lawyer; Constitutional scholar

    • Kris Sorem Sr…and yet that definition, read into the record, is out of line with the definition provided by the 1st Congress in 1790 nor is it in line with later laws and codes on the subject. By the way…reading something into the record doesn’t make it law…if it did then names of honored guests visiting the House would be laws and this was nothing but a statement…not something upon which a vote was taken but…nice try.

  3. The 1790 act had that error in it and it was repealed. And do note, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was a NATURALIZATION law and it would thus make those covered by it NATURALIZED citizens at birth by act of Congress. And do note, a subsequent Congress corrected that error made in declaring those born overseas of parents who were citizens to “be considered” as “natural born Citizens” and deleted the “natural born ” words completely for children born overseas to parents who were citizens in the replacement 1795 Naturalization Act. Both laws were signed by George Washington. They learned their error and that they could not make “natural born Citizens”. The Congress can only make “Citizens” at Birth, not “natural born Citizens” at Birth by acts of Congress. Thus the 1795 law fixed their error and made them only Citizens. The presidential eligibility clause in Article II clearly differentiates when one only has to be a Citizen to be eligible. You had to be alive back then when the Constitution was adopted. After the founding generation had past one had to be a “natural born Citizen” People continue to engage in disinformation by omission of the 1795 law – which repealed and replaced the 1790 law. See the two early laws here: CDR Kerchner (Ret) –

    • cfkerchner…That is why that language was removed from the 1790 Act…not because the Congress was mistaken in their definition of NBC but because they determined that the definition didn’t belong in the NATURALIZATION Act. The definition itself stands as the ONLY definition of NBC ever offered by those who were with the Founders and Framers.

  4. A Natural Born Citizen is a citizen who is born on the soil from parentS who are themselves citizens.
    The goal of this being that a Natural Born Citizen has no dual citizenship, (i.e. dual allegiances) and that is why it is required for the President and the Vice-President.
    At the time of the Framers, EVERYBODY knew what a Natural Born Citizen was, as it had been defined in the Law of Nations (“naturel’ or “indigène”) which was part of EDUCATION at that time, which is the reason it was not defined anywhere. .
    It is in the interest of all those who want to destroy this country to spin this so that anybody can accede to the WH. Just look where this has gotten us now!

    • usfrog…
      You’re wrong and the proof is in the article…here it is again…“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

      THAT is a DIRECT quote from the First Congress in 1790 and provides THE definition of the FOUNDERS and FRAMERS of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

      There ya go.

      • IF that is the case, and the act of 1940 explained everything (and it doesn’t matter if one is born outside the U.S.); then why did congress (senate) have to vote in order to deem McCain eligible? BOTH of his parents were U.S. citizens; and the dad was in the military at the time… I was under the impression they had to pass the bill, becuz McCain wasn’t born on a military base (which is considered the same as u.s. soil, overseas). the vote wouldn’t have been necessary, if the naturalization act of 1940 covers this…

        oh; and, btw… there are some of us out here who actually like ted cruz; but are against this… and, we don’t consider cruz a “threat” to our candidate of choice (not like there’s much out there to select from). I’ve been against cruz, Rubio & Jindal since day one; and, it doesn’t matter how anybody wants to spin the civics lesson…

        • Monica…this civics lesson isn’t spin…it is a matter of US law and US codes. It is what it is and by the laws and codes, Cruz IS eligible. Also, it wasn’t necessary for congress to have passed a thing in order for McCain to have been eligible…but they did it anyway.

  5. No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun. See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition which was edited and published by Dumas and was much used by the founders and framers: Read: and and CDR Kerchner (Ret) –

    • Sorry cfkerchner but…Vattel’s Laws of Nations is not nor has ever been the law of the land. As many of our founders and framers were part of the First Congress and the First Congress defined NBC very differently from Vattel…I’ll go with them…not your theory which, by the way, is completely lacking in ANY established law to back it.

      • Vattel was even made fun of by some at the time. The Founders never referred to him about NBC. His book was translated into English after the Constitution was adopted.

        We should learn the Founders sense of humor too. A naturally born human: not Caesarian.

  6. Our Framers did not specify the “natural born citizen” phrase as a “to be determined” phrase. They had a firm understanding of what they meant by their phrase. The used Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as a reference and understood that

    A ‘natural born citizen’ is a person born of citizen parents.

    In 1896, there was a very understandable explanation published by “The People’s Lawyer” in the Boston Daily Globe: “A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.”

  7. I find this article interesting as it generally supports my own conclusions. I have one question. You say the rules that make Cruz eligible also make Obama ineligible. Which specific rule does this? Thank you, SJH.

    • Stan…

      Obama’s mother did not meat the age or time requirements to confer her citizenship to Obama.

Comments are closed.