Ted Cruz – Another Birther Controversy?

March 22, 2013 1

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – At the time Ted Cruz was born, to which country did his mother owe allegiance? That’s the only question that is at issue here. Here’s how you arrive at this: could his mother have been prosecuted for treason against the United States? She’d have to be a citizen to be prosecuted for treason. The answer is yes, she could have, therefore he is born of a naturalized citizen, and he therefore is because of his allegiance. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike: To answer the question about Ted Cruz — are you interested in the answer of whether or not Ted Cruz is a citizen and could run for president? Is that mildly interesting?

AG: I find it more funny and entertaining that there’s a birther controversy with Cruz.

Mike: Do you think it’s a birther controversy? Are they going to be chasing Ted Cruz around for his birth certificate?

AG: He was born in Calgary.

Mike: I’ll just give you the quick version of this and then we’ll move on. 22 May 1789, the first congress of the United States. As a matter of fact, this is the second week of meetings of the actual congress. There’s a question that has arisen about a Mr. Smith, whether or not he was a citizen of the United States.

[reading]

From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith, was on the declaration of independence a citizen of the United-States, and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this house. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, [Mike: Again, reserved powers, original intent, citizenship determined by the state, then you’ll get into how you become an American citizen.] so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.

It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents… [Mike: Then he goes into how great this Mr. Smith character is.] He supposes, when this country separated from Great Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of America and the king of that nation, unless by some adventitious circumstance the allegiance was transferred to one of the United States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain…

What was the situation of the people of America when the [Mike: States seceded] dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign…

This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took [Mike: secession] place between these states and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves… [Mike: Of course, that did not happen.] Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.

If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must therefore pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country to take part with Britain… [Mike: Then he explains since Smith didn’t leave, he didn’t pick up a gun, and he didn’t fight against Washington’s army, then he is, by definition and birthright, a citizen of the State of South Carolina. When South Carolina joined the union under the Constitution, he was a citizen of the United States.]

So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

[end reading]

Mike: At the time Ted Cruz was born, to which country did his mother owe allegiance? That’s the only question that is at issue here. Here’s how you arrive at this: could his mother have been prosecuted for treason against the United States? She’d have to be a citizen to be prosecuted for treason. The answer is yes, she could have, therefore he is born of a naturalized citizen, and he therefore is because of his allegiance. Because of his allegiance, he is born an American citizen.

AG: So then it wouldn’t actually matter where the president was born, right?

Mike: They tried to say that because he was born in Hawaii that makes him a citizen. You can use the case of Marco Rubio as another example. At the time of Mr. Rubio’s birth, to which country did Mr. and Mrs. Rubio owe allegiance to? If they were in the process of being naturalized and they still owed allegiance to be prosecuted as traitors against Cuba, then he cannot be a naturalized citizen, end of story. If Mr. and Mrs. Rubio had gone through the process and had become citizens of the United States, then Marco Rubio is a naturalized citizen.

AG: But for all the birthers that believe the president was born in Indonesia or Kenya or whatever —

Mike: That doesn’t matter.

AG: So that makes no difference?

Mike: No, it doesn’t matter. He could have been born in Timbuktu. If his mother owed allegiance to the United States, then he was born a citizen of the United States. The question comes in that Barry Soetoro, his father, it is claimed that Soetoro owed allegiance to Indonesia, I believe, either Kenya or Indonesia. I can’t keep up with all the birther stuff. If that’s the case, then you have to argue over which citizen do we draw his citizenship from. I believe the case against President Obama would be a pretty sound one if he was taken to schools in Indonesia and registered therein as a citizen of that country, and therefore his allegiance would have been to his father’s claim of citizenship and it would matter. To me, just thinking legally and logically, that’s where the birthers actually might have a point. I’ve never seen it demonstrated conclusively that —

AG: They have him going to school in Hawaii, so wouldn’t that then defeat that argument?

Mike: Which happened first?

AG: Depends on where he was born, which is what the birthers —

Mike: Did he go to school in Indonesia or did he go to school in Hawaii first?

AG: I don’t know. You see the high school photos of him playing basketball and hanging out with friends.

Mike: I think it was when he was young, very young, elementary school, that he was in Indonesia.

End Mike Church Show Transcript