Cruz, Rubio, Vattel and the Ineligibility Lies

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

Obviously, it is once again time to address a certain issue that has, thanks to Trumpers, elig 1been brought to the forefront because they are scared that their one and only candidate…who is by all indications, running for the position of dictator…is on the verge of being overtaken in some key states.

Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen and so too, is Marco Rubio.

Oh, I know that’s not the scuttlebutt coming from butt-scuttlers but it is true nonetheless.

Now, if you want me to climb aboard the crazy train of so-called ‘birthers,’ there are only a few things you need to do. Just show me a law, or a definition from our Constitution that makes either Cruz or Rubio Constitutionally ineligible and not only will I ride the crazy train, I’ll sell tickets to it.

Trumps Trump-drunk trolls are all over the place spewing their, and his brand of nonsense regarding this issue and not a single one of them has ever produced a shred of real evidence against the eligibility of Cruz or Rubio.

elig 2They spread this balderdash because someone else shared it from a Facebook post they saw on somebody else’s timeline and that person got it from someone who believes it came from Vattel’s ‘Laws of Nations,’ and if Vattel says it’s so, than it’s the law of our land.

Yes, I am aware that our Founders and Framers were aware of Vattel’s book and I am also aware that John Jay loaned a copy of it to George Washington. I am also aware that it was Washington who advised that the term, ‘Natural born” be used rather than simply, ‘citizen.’

I am just as aware of the fact that our Constitution states that “none but a natural born citizen,” shall be eligible for the office of either president or vice president and having read the entire Constitution, I an equally aware that within it can be found absolutely NO definition OF…natural born citizen.elig 3

Oh, the Trumpers and birthers will all try to convince you, as they have tried to convince ME that our Founders and Framers were ALL so in tune with the definition of NBC that they simply didn’t feel there was a NEED to include that definition in our founding documents because, just as THEY knew what it meant, so too did everybody else and therefore, no explanation was necessary.

What a load of crap.

Our Founders and Framers spelled out for us MANY things that were of much more common knowledge to the general populous of the day than NBC, like our unalienable, God given right to keep and bear arms for instance. Hell, everybody had guns and always had. You couldn’t swing a dead Red Coat without knocking over a stack of guns back then yet, in 1789, that right was indeed spelled out in the Bill of Rights which was ratified in 1791.

Those dates, by the way, will become very important very shortly.

There are always those who will try to twist things to fit their own agenda and try to convince others by stating that they employ the 1) textual meaning of the words at the time; confirmed by 2) review of the Founders original intent in their use of those words, if there are any authenticated documents revealing that intent.” The result is a good new, bad news scenario and the bad news is for those who attempt the twisting as there is one, very important document, one they would rather not be discussed, that does show the intent of the Founders and framers.

As per the Trumpers and birthers, EVERYBODY back then, in the time of our nation’s elig 4founding, knew the definition of NBC, and it was exactly as Vattel wrote it so…the contemporaries OF our Founders and Framers would have known it as well…right? Well…between 1789, when those very contemporaries wrote the 2nd Amendment and 1791, when that Amendment along with 10 others were ratified…those same contemporaries of the Founders and Framers did something astounding…they wrote their definition OF NBC and made it the law in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and here is what they wrote and passed into law…word for word…

“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.”

There are some words that neither the Trumpers nor birthers dare subject to theirtextual meaning of the words,” or “review of the Founders original intent ” test as seen above lest they learn something that simply doesn’t fit with their agenda, as will be seen below.

Now then…contrast that to what Vattel wrote…

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their elig 5fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Obviously, there are remarkable differences.

Where Vattel states that NBC is transferred ONLY via the FATHER of the child…the contemporaries of our Founders and Framers made NO such definition at all and while Vattel clarified HIS definition as per the PERPETUATION of a SOCIETY…the contemporaries of OUR Founders and Framers did no such thing.

In fact, by the definitielig 6on of NBC provided by the contemporaries of OUR Founders and Framers…the only restriction regarding the father of a child was that said father be a RESIDENT of the United States. A RESIDENT…not a CITIZEN and for the record, both Ted Cruz’s and Marco Rubio’s fathers WERE, indeed…LEGAL RESIDENTS of the United States at the time of Ted’s and Marco’s birth.

There is a very good reason for the difference between what Vattel wrote and what the contemporaries of our Founders and Framers wrote because our Founders, Framers and their contemporaries were setting up a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC while Vattel, much to the consternation of the mentally constipated Trumpers and birthers, wrote a how to book regarding European monarchies and how to maintain them.

News flash…our Founders and their contemporaries didn’t want a European style monarchy…therefore…Vattel’s ‘Laws of Nations,’ or as I like to call it…’European Monarchies for Dummies’ was not used as a matter of United States law for had it been, there would have been little use for the founding documents we hold so dear.

Yes, I know that after a few years, the Naturalization act of 1790 underwent alterations and that the NBC part of it was not included in subsequent versions however, I also know that elig 7subsequent versions also made clear that both Cruz and Rubio are eligible to hold the office of President. In fact, the Nationality Act of 1940 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,” and that the version of the 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.

Check into U.S. Code 8:1401 and you will find the law as it exists today.

Now then, as to Marco Rubio…

I am sick and tired of this crap about him being an ‘anchor baby.’ Anchor babies are those whose mothers were pregnant and illegally came to the United States to HAVE their babies so that those babies would then become American citizens in the hopes that they, the elig 8mothers, would then not be deported. Were this the case with regard to Marco Rubio, as his mother came to the U.S. in 1957…she would have had to have been pregnant for the better part of 14 YEARS rather than the customary 9 months as Marco wasn’t born until 1971.

Furthermore…both of Marco’s parents were United States legal residents, awaiting citizenship when Marco was born and they both then BECAME United States citizens and, according to the Congressional Research Service, a group far more trustworthy on such matters than either the Trumpers or birthers, Rubio’s parents, having come to the U.S. by LEGAL means, having been awarded the status of LEGAL RESIDENTS and having been in the process of becoming LEGAL CITIZENS, which they did in 1975, makes Marco Rubiol, who was born in Miami, Florida, a Natural Born Citizen fully eligible to hold the office of President.

Further clarification regarding the eligibility of both Cruz and Rubio can be found from a report issued by the Harvard Law Review as well.

But Trumpers and birthers will all start yelling about the Supreme Court which issued rulings based on Vattel’s definition of NBC.elig 9

Uh, no…they have not. What the SCOTUS has done is render written OPINIONS in a few cases where they REFERENCE Vattel but…the SCOTUS has never…has NEVER…heard a case on NBC and therefore, has never rendered a DECISION on NBC but…in other cases, again to the consternation of the mentally constipated…the SCOTUS has backed the long-standing recognition that being a Citizen at Birth is one and the same as being a Natural Born Citizen and since that recognition has also been upheld by the Harvard Law Review as well as by Constitutional scholars, numerous law professors and is a matter of U.S. laws and Codes so out the window goes that particular effort to win the Trumper and birther argument by burying the truth in bullcrap.

As for Obama…not only did his mother NOT meet the age requirement to pass along her citizenship at the time of his birth, he, by Indonesian law, was an Indonesian citizen, as per his school records, in order to attend school there and there is no legal record of him repatriating as a U.S. citizen after the age of 18 so…he, as far as the law is concerned, elig 10should NOT be eligible to hold the office.

I first wrote of this in November, 2011 and you can read that article by clicking here…and even in that article, I made clear that using the written opinions attached to decisions rendered by the SCOTUS were a false notion, as applied to Obama and those same opinions are equally false when applied to either Cruz or Rubio today.

While there exists NO definition of NBC as per our Constitution, there DOES exist a mountain of legal and U.S. law that says both Cruz and Rubio ARE eligible to hold the office of President and no amount of panty wadding by those who claim otherwise, based on their support for another candidate disguised in attempts to use Vattel’s “European Monarchies for Dummies’ will change that.

Cruz and Rubio ARE eligible and the agenda of the Trumpers and birthers is transparent.elig 12

There will be, of course, those who will vote a 3rd party or write in based on their false opinion of NBC but in reality, they are not doing it because either Cruz or Rubio are ineligible. They will do it because they want us to march straight through the gates of hell into full-on socialism by ensuring a liberal/socialist wins because they have convinced just enough voters to split the vote based on their lies.

4 thoughts on “Cruz, Rubio, Vattel and the Ineligibility Lies

  1. “there DOES exist a mountain of legal and U.S. law that says both Cruz and Rubio ARE eligible to hold the office of President”

    I would love to see this mountain of legal documents.

  2. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that what I said about the line “be considered as” found in the Naturalization Act of 1790 is absolutely true and a fact. On June 14, 1967, Representative John Dowdy introduced an unpublished article to the U.S. House of Representatives. The unpublished article was written by Pinckney G. McElwee, titled “Natural Born Citizen”. In 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:

    Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
    (McElwee, Natural Born Citizen, 1967, Page 10)

    Again recollect that the previous Madison 1789 quotation and the 1790 Naturalization Act both use the exact same phrasing of “considered as natural born” (citizens/subjects). By McElwee’s own report, Madison was involved in having the “natural born citizen” reference in the 1790 Naturalization Act, entirely removed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, so that the reference would not be misunderstood. Given the similar phrasing in the quotation, perhaps Madison was even influential in drafting that 1790 Naturalization Act. What “Considered As” Actually Intends.

  3. I’m not gonna sit here and have a straw-man argument with you about there not being an specific law detailing why they’re ineligible because there is also NO law stating that they are. You guys always like to fall back on the 1790 Naturalization Act and try to claim that it was defined there when it actually wasn’t. It wasn’t intended to confer that those people BE natural born, but rather that these citizens be treated in the same way as natural born citizens. They were equal in every right except one and that was the ability to be President, but they didn’t want to give the notion that those people were of higher standing or more deserving than their other fellow citizens. This is precisely why it was said to “be considered as”. It is a form of simile… comparing two inherently unlike things. (Busy as a bee, Fit as a fiddle, ect.)

    Not only did they NOT intend it to be taken literally, but if they did it would have been a direct violation of the constitution because Congress does not have the power to establish anything more than a naturalized citizen. And tell me, why would Natural Born be defined in an Act about Naturalization? It makes absolutely no sense at all. The Act itself was designed to say who is and who isn’t a citizen… or if you want to get technical, a constitutionally naturalized citizen. They’re citizens, for short, but they are still given their citizenship status via an act of congress or a law.

    I also don’t think it needs to explained that women weren’t really classified as citizens until much later which is why they weren’t allowed to vote, but they also became an extension of the husband upon marriage, So regardless of Vattel saying that it’s about the father only it is still what they went with because of what I stated above. Women have been considered subordinate to men for most of history, but that did not mean that they did not make a contribution to society, or that their contribution was not valued. Women were absolutely vital to the survival of the early colonies in America for instance, without their skills the colonies would not have survived. All cultures that I know of have considered the wife to be subordinate to her husband, and in many cultures in the world this is still the case.

    Contrary to what you might think, Vattel’s book wasn’t based on monarchies or anything similar… It is exactly as he said it was, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns.

    What is obvious is that you have a misunderstanding of what makes a natural born citizen. You think that simply obtaining citizenship at birth makes them natural born, but you completely ignore WHY and HOW they are given that status… look carefully, notice how I said “given that status”. This is precisely what is occurring. And like I mentioned earlier a person granted citizenship by law or an act of congress is a naturalized citizen. We don’t view them as naturalized because they don’t go through a long process like those that are given citizenship after being born, but they still are technically naturalized i.e. given the status by law.

  4. I finally had a chance to review your referenced opinion on What sticks out to me the most is an assumption of Congress having power to define a single word in the Constitution. Another is that after they tried to do that in 1790, they repealed it in the 1795 where any reference to NBC is removed. Regardless, my first point stands on it’s own weight. Congress cannot legislate meanings to Constitutional words and phrases. To do so would be to amend it. The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and all thereafter, are supported only by Article I of the Constitution, which details the authority of Congress on citizenship thus, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
    So I thank you for challenging my opinion and causing me to look more closely at the subject. I hope we both are more concerned with protecting the Constitution than with being right. I believe we are both on the same side in the end. The Constitution needs as many friends as it can get. Finally, any amendments which might be claimed to have modified the NBC clause would have to specifically say so.

Comments are closed.