The Common Sense of Ted Cruz’s Eligibility
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “If we read from the records of the Federal Convention – the question on Senator Cruz’s eligibility is: Did the men that drafted the Constitution, did they have a copy of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations? If they did, then we know what the definition of natural-born citizen is. Cruz ain’t it. He’s not qualified.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
[start audio file]
Ben Carson: This kind of thing, it’s just a fly in the ointment. It doesn’t need to be paid any attention to in my opinion.
[end audio file]
Mike: That’s Ben Carson, another one of the alleged conservatives out there running for the presidency saying that we don’t need to pay any attention to whether or not Senator Cruz is an actual citizen. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous? You can scratch him off the “conservative” list. That’s going to upset some of you, but come on, you don’t care about the citizenship. You cared about the citizenship of Obama. Some people still care about the citizenship of Obama. Why don’t you care about Cruz’s citizenship, Constitution or not Constitution? Pretty simple stuff here. Back to the debate over the Naturalization Act of 1790. It will jump off the pages to you when I compile these things together. Hang on, one more clip:
[start audio file]
Ted Cruz: . . . straightforward as a legal matter. The Constitution and federal law are clear that the child of a US citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen. The dynamic that’s happening is interesting. Three weeks ago, almost every Republican candidate was attacking Donald Trump. Today, almost every Republican candidate is attacking me.
[end audio file]
Mike: So if you’re citing the Constitution, which I thought all conservatives were supposed to cite, if you’re citing the Constitution and you’re trying to divine whether or not one candidate is in compliance with it, and his coterie of followers, his legion of biped zombies is in compliance with it, that’s an attack? Why is it an attack? Aren’t you just pointing out the obvious? Now, folks, using this – if you’d like to watch the show on YouTube, you can. Just find The Official Mike Church Channel.
Let’s show the YouTube audience, you see how worn out that document is, my pocket Constitution? It’s because I refer to it all the time. I could go in the back room and get a new one. We’ve got a couple thousand of them back there. We send one out with almost every order in the Founders Tradin’ Post. I like my old copy. It shows – I’ve got notes in it. I’ve got little bookmarks in it. There are things that are highlighted. When I go looking for something, I’ll say: Yeah, I remember why I highlighted that. Let me see if I understand this. Now if you are toting one of these things around and you’re reading Article II of this Constitution, and then you’re reading the natural-born citizen clause, that’s an attack now? That’s an attack? Wow. The debate on Thursday night is going to be fun, by the by.
We’ve got a lot of news to get to here today. I suppose I could mosey through the Naturalization Act of 1790 so you’ll know why I brought it up. Two reason, number one, is the Law of Nations mentioned during the debate? These are not perfect transcriptions. These transcriptions were done by hand. They were done in what we would call shorthand today. A stenographer was not present. There was a clerk there that had volunteered. They’re not complete. We can glean from the record that yes, the Law of Nations as a book was referenced during the debate over the eligibility for president, and that they should include, that the Congress of 1789 and 1790 should include in their Naturalization Act a clarification on what was a natural-born citizen, which they did, and which clearly shows that the qualification for or the assignment of citizenship comes from the father, comes from paternity. This is not at issue. It is stated clearly in the record. It’s stated clearly in how – what’s fascinating about this is the debate over how a state can naturalize a citizen. You people that are republicans out there, you’re going to love this.
During the debate, it kept being pointed out, and James Madison was one of those that was in the argument with a, I believe it was Congressman Parker, I want to say, of New York. I’ll have to check that because I don’t have the files open here in front of me. He was in a debate and Roger Sherman, another one of the founding fathers, or the founding father that signed all four of the documents – I talked about him on Friday. Roger Sherman intervened when the question was asked whether or not the states had retained the right to determine exactly what or who they might admit into their own ranks and then naturalize as a citizen. It was voted on.
During the debate you see, as you read, you see that the framers or the members of the First Congress – the question was stated, and I’m paraphrasing: Did we leave or did the Constitution leave this matter in the hands of the State? It was answered: Yes, it did. Then the question was asked: Well, is there a concurrent power? Do we have the power to tell the states how they can write their uniform rule of naturalization? The answer came back: No, we can’t. We don’t have the authority. That ought to settle the question that we’ve been having also, about whether or not a member state in the American Union is able to determine how they deal municipally with alien friends.
We’ve been talking about this for almost three years now. Remember, there’s alien friends and then there’s enemies. We’re not at war with Mexico, so we haven’t declared Mexicans to be enemies. Therefore, how you deal with an alien friend, which a Mexican is, is left to the purview of the state. If you want to kick them out, kick them out. You don’t need Donald Trump to be elected president to do that. Just kick them out. Of course, federal judges are going to intervene. You’re going to have members of Congress, all sorts of legal troubles. The courts are going to say no. But we’re talking about the Constitution. You’ll learn this in studying this debate over the Naturalization Act of 1790.
I want to turn now to the records of the Federal Convention of 1787. I want to share a couple things with you. If we read from the records of the Federal Convention – the question on Senator Cruz’s eligibility is: Did the men that drafted the Constitution, did they have a copy of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations? If they did, then we know what the definition of natural-born citizen is. Cruz ain’t it. He’s not qualified. Can we answer the question? Yes, we can. 24-26 July, these are notes that come from the pen of James Madison. These are Madison’s notes on the Federal Convention of 1787. I’m going to prove to you beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Law of Nations was probably sitting on a table inside Independence Hall. It was probably in the room. They were probably referring to it because it comes up over and over and over again. Why would the title of a book keep coming up if they didn’t have the book present?
Proceedings of the convention July 24-26
Resolved, That a national executive be instituted
To consist of a single person;
To be chosen by the national legislature;
For the term of seven years;
To be ineligible a second time;
With power to carry into execution the national laws;
To appoint officers not otherwise provided for;
To be removable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty;
To receive a fixed compensation for the devotion of his time to public service;
To be paid out of the public treasury
Resolved, That it be an instruction to the committee, to whom were referred the proceedings of the Convention for the establishment of a national government, to receive a clause or clauses, requiring certain qualifications of property and citizenship in the United States, for the executive, the judiciary, and the members of both branches of the legislatures of the United States . . . [Mike: Then there’s some more details on how the executive is to be formed. There are some instructions to the committees.]
They shall have the exclusive Power of declaring what shall be Treason and Misp. of Treason agt U. S.-and of instituting a federal judicial Court, to which an Appeal shall be allowed from the judicial Courts of the several States in all Causes wherein Questions shall arise on the Construction of Treaties made by U. S. . . .
Mike: Are you ready? They’re now discussing international law, discussing treaties. They’re discussing the treaty-making power. They’re discussing how you would determine what is, the proceedings on how a claim of treason against someone would be defined. You know now we’re in the area of international law. We’re in the area of international intrigue, which is what treason would involve. We’re in the area of – because there was no international law at the time – the Law of Nations. Here’s from Madison’s notes:
. . . Questions shall arise on the Construction of Treaties made by U. S.-or on the Laws of Nations- [Mike: He’s clearly referring to a book, the book.] or on the Regulations of U. S. concerning Trade and Revenue-or wherein U. S. shall be a Party-The Court shall consist of Judges to be appointed during good Behaviour . . . shall have the exclusive Right of instituting in each State a Court of Admiralty [Mike: We’re talking again, foreign policy, courts of admiralty. It’s what you people like to call law, law of the sea.] and appointing the Judges etc of the same for all maritime Causes which may arise therein respectively.
Mike: Remember, Madison is not a stenographer; he’s a delegate. He wants to keep a record of the proceedings so he can refer back to them. It might come in handy when there’s a question that arises as to what a term might have meant to the men that drafted the Constitution, for example, of when we go to ratify the document. If you go and look on the Twitter feed from yesterday, you’ll see that I linked to four instances of the term “Law of Nations.” Folks, I only made it through the first two weeks of the debate in Congress or in the convention. Four times, Law of Nations.
I’m going to circle the wagon back here. The question that we are analyzing today – back to the story as I read from the notes of the Federal Convention. If you’re following us on the Twitter feed, you saw all these references. The Online Library of Liberty actually has a really good anchor-marking system for vast text files, like the one that has the notes to the Federal Convention. You can actually anchor to certain parts of the text and make a URL link to it. If you’re following those, this should take you right to the paragraph that you’re looking for where you find Law of Nations. The question that we’re asking is: What was a natural-born citizen in 1787 when the Constitution was drafted? What was the natural-born citizen in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified and went into effect? What was a natural-born citizen when in 1789 and 1790 in the first Congress when the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed?
By the way, you’ll note in the congressional record that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was basically repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1800, and then 1806, and on and on and on. The reason they were repealing the previous acts is because they were updating naturalization. They were not updating the term naturalized or natural-born. They were updating how one might acquire citizenship. Remember, they started from scratch. It was a blank slate when they wrote the first act. It only makes sense that they would amend it. Instead of just amending it, they just repeal the old one, the first act. They’d vote on that, repeal it, and then approve the new act. Fascinating stuff you learn from studying actual history.
To answer the question: What might they have meant when they said natural-born citizen in 1787? What they meant was whatever Emmerich de Vattel said natural-born citizen mean, that’s what it meant. What did Vattel say? We’ve been over this definition half a dozen ways to Sunday. Vattel says that you must be born in the country and you must be born of parents who are naturalized. Get it? The Mark Levin and the Teddy and the Cruzers defense is that he was born, because his mother was a citizen, that that qualifies him, even though he was born on Canadian soil. It’s even worse than that. Not only was he born on Canadian soil, he was born a Canadian. If we go back to December 5 of last year, JB Williams writing under the headline, “Ted Cruz is in the U.S. Senate Illegally?” What is Williams’s conclusion? Yes. He’s not even eligible to be a senator, for heaven’s sake.
I know that this came up during the Cruz campaign because Cruz had to go through the extraordinary measure of renouncing his Canadian citizenship. The document is out there as part of the evidentiary record. I’m not making this stuff up. Williams began:
US Senator Ted Cruz, from Texas, has been under fire in his bid for the White House due to his Canadian citizenship records which make it quite clear that he does not meet the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, despite the opinion letter from his Harvard friends.
Mike: By the by, that’s the letter that many of you have been reading and sending to people like me, [mocking] “You don’t know what you’re talking about. These people are smarter than you. They go to Harvard. They vouch for Cruz’s citizenship.” Of course they do. They also vouch for Roe v. Wade. They also vouch for Obergefell.
Following a total lack of vetting on Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and 2012, many insist that no one ever enter the Oval Office again without proper vetting, including proof of meeting all Constitutional requirements for office.
Mike: Folks, one more thing that I’d like to get your commentary on and have you call the program on or send emails or tweets. I asked this question on Friday and I’ll ask it again. Does the United States have more enemies today or less enemies than it did in 1789 when the Naturalization Act was written? Is there more of a risk of exposure to a hostile foreign power today than there was risk of exposure to a hostile foreign power in 1788 and 1789? I think that the answer to any honest accounting of our current state of affairs is yes, we are completely more. Of course there are more enemies out there. The ability or the discretion that should be used in determining the holder of the most powerful, mighty office in the history of the planet should thus increase – don’t we want the qualifications for president to increase as the weight and the stature and the power of the office increases? There should be more scrutiny, not less scrutiny.
In the effort to vet every 2016 presidential candidate, Cruz, who had once stated that both he and Barack Obama were ineligible for the Oval Office, found himself under tight scrutiny from the same people who tried to stop Obama from taking the Oval Office via fraud. Ted placed himself in the crosshairs of constitutionalists who do not care about partisan politics, by seeking an office he is not eligible to seek.
Mike: This man is describing me precisely. I don’t care about partisan politics, but I do care about this because it is the law of the land when it is acting in its enumerated, correct fashion. Acting in its enumerated, correct fashion in the Constitution is a qualification on the eligibility for the highest office in the land, for the presidency. Back to Williams:
In investigating Cruz eligibility for the Oval Office, his eligibility for the US Senate came into question…
The Constitutional requirements for the US Senate are as follows:
“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
At 42 years old in 2012, Ted Cruz obviously met the age requirement of 30 years. However, he also needed to meet the requirement of at least “nine Years a Citizen of the United States.” As the Constitution states, one cannot be just an “Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
The known source for the Founders use of the term natural born Citizen, The Law of Nations, also defines “Inhabitant” as follows:
Section 213. Inhabitants.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”
Mike: Do you get this? Do you understand this? Do people understand this? I am amazed at the amount of people that don’t understand this. Those men did not live in the age of feminism. You got your rights and your citizenship from your father. I talked about this on Friday until I was blue in the face, and now I’m talking about it again. The army that has been raised to try to say this doesn’t matter and this is some flimsy, shady attack on Ted Cruz, no, Cruz is attacking the Constitution. I thought people cared about it. Back to JB Williams:
Today, the legal term for this condition in the United States is “illegal alien,” someone in our country and living under U.S. jurisdiction, without legally belonging to society. Modern social justice attitudes often refer to these people as “undocumented citizens” which of course are not citizens at all. Our I.R.S. created a new class of “citizen” for the purpose of collecting taxes from illegal aliens, “resident alien” which is an inhabitant (not a citizen) who pays taxes. [Mike: He wants to make sure his readers have the terms correct. If you listen to Brother Francis Maluf’s lectures on philosophia perennis, he refers often to term.]
Further, in any matter of law, authenticated evidence supersedes any and all politically motivated opinions, especially opinions which are either unfounded or poorly founded. Unlike Barack Hussein Obama who posted three forged U.S. Certifications of Live Birth and later a Hawaiian newspaper announcement of his birth to evidence his Oval Office eligibility, Ted Cruz issued his Canadian Birth Certificate as evidence of being “born a citizen of Canada.”
Mike: To read this and to read it and talk about it in real time is really weird, I’ve got to tell you. This is really strange. We’ve got a Canadian that wants to be the President of the United States. Okay. Here’s the worst part, Dudley Cruzright is supported by tens of millions of “constitutionalists” who also want the Canadian citizen to be President of the United States. Let me ask you guys a question: Are there any Mexicans that you would fancy? This is a good one. Remember Dr. Ben Carson once upon a time said something to the effect that he didn’t think a Muslim could be president? How many of you dashed out to the ramparts to go: Yeah, that’s right, we can’t have a Muslim president. I remember you sending me hate mail when I brought it up. There’s no admonition in the Constitution that says you can’t be a Muslim. There’s not a shred of evidence that a Muslim can’t be elected. From a theological point of view or from theological law I’d say that’s correct. However, theological point of view is not how we gauge or decide an issue of constitutional viability, is it? In other words, the same loudmouths that supported Carson saying someone was ineligible if they were a Muslim are the same loudmouths now saying that a Canadian is eligible.
So let me see if I understand this. A Canadian is eligible but a Muslim is not. I’m going to ask the question again. Maybe we ought to ask Sean Penn if El Chapo wants to run for president. How about that? Why not? I’m sure we can come up with some justification. What if a Mexican – let’s try this. We were talking about this the other day. What if we’re talking about Senator Cruz and we add a couple letters to Dudley Cruzright? What if his name was Cruzriquez? What if his name was Julio Cruzriquez and instead of being born in Canada he was born in Mexico? But his mother was an American and his father was a Mexican. How gung-ho do you think the biped zombified army of Cruzettes would be then? Back to Mr. Williams:
Contrary to current leftist social justice ideologies that view all “illegal aliens” in the U.S. as only “unauthorized” or “undocumented” citizens, our laws identify them as nothing more than “illegal aliens,” or “resident aliens” who pay taxes under I.R.S. codes.
Further, in any matter of law, authenticated evidence supersedes any and all politically motivated opinions . . .
The above Canadian document is proof of Canadian Citizenship at birth for Senator Ted Cruz. The next piece of authenticated evidence released by Ted Cruz is a Canadian document proving that he remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship in May of 2014, which means, he was still a legal citizen of Canada in 2012 when he ran for, was elected and took the oath of office for the US Senate. [Mike: In other words, he was not a resident for nine years in the State of Texas. That’s the constitutional qualification. I realize this doesn’t matter because he’s “conservative” and he’s not Trump. To some of you, though, this matters.]
As a result of this damning evidence, the Cruz campaign hired friends at Harvard to issue a letter which makes a legal case for how Ted Cruz (and Barack Obama) might be a natural born Citizen of the United States eligible to seek the Oval Office. However, a legal opinion letter is not equal to, nor does it supersede authentic evidence to the contrary.
It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.
The statues governing this naturalization process state:
“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”
According to related U.S. laws governing “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories,” the following conditions had to be met in order for Ted Cruz to legally claim U.S. citizenship at birth via these naturalization statutes, through his mother.
The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.
If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:
Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
Employed with the U.S. government; or
Employed with certain international organizations.
Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted. [Mike: Using those three requirements, does Dudley Cruzright, former Canadian citizen, meet any of those requirements? Did his mother attempt to get him a CRBA? Answer: No.]
Have you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet? You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST. The show is easier to access than ever before. But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusive shows by Brother Andre: ReConquest, David Simpson’s True Money, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America with Michael T George, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman. Help us continue our search for TRUTH by signing up for a Founders Pass Membership today!
Ted’s parents were at no time serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, employed by the U.S. Government or by any of the certain international organizations, during their eight years in Canada, between 1966 and 1974. Further, Ted’s father Rafael, was at no time a legal citizen of the United States prior to naturalizing in 2005, from Canada. Rafael’s known legal citizenship status as of 1970 was Cuban, not American.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records . . .
. . . Without any form of U.S. Citizenship documentation, and proof of Canadian citizenship at birth in 1970 and holding that legal status until May 2014 when he renounced his birth citizenship to Canada, there is no way for Ted Cruz to prove that he is either “natural born” and eligible for the Oval Office, or “naturalized” prior to 2012, when he sought and accepted a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal citizen of Canada.
Mike: This is damning stuff here.
End Mike Church Show Transcript