Ted Cruz and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

Published February 2, 2016

Ted Cruz has won the February 1, 2016, Iowa Caucus for the Republican nomination for President with 27.7% of the votes, giving him 8 delegates, ahead of Donald Trump who finished second with 24.3% of the votes and 7 delegates.

Congratulations to Cruz, but boos and hisses to Republican voters who don’t understand the Natural Born Citizenclause of the U.S. Constitution. Let me reiterate about Cruz, what I’ve been saying about Obama for the last several years on an issue that was settled by the Supreme Court 141 years ago!

On October 15, 1872, Virginia Minor applied to register to vote under the auspices of the then, newly passed, 14th Amendment. The registrar of voters in her county, Reese Happersett, refused her application and she sued. In 1875 it wound up in the US Supreme Court as Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162.

The Court had to identify who was and wasn’t qualified to vote, which meant discussing the various types of citizens. Starting in paragraph eight (8) of their decision they addressed the Natural Born Citizen clause in Article II of the Constitution. In paragraph nine (9) they defined a Natural Born Citizen as any person born in the United States of two parents who are both citizens. Here is the relevant passage from paragraph 9:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were the natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Notice the Court said “parents”, plural. Both of a person’s parents must be citizens when that person is born. How they became citizens is irrelevant. They must be citizens when their child is born in order for that child to qualify as aNatural Born Citizen. This phrase must have it’s own separate definition, different from every other kind of citizen, or else why did the Framers put it in the Constitution in Article II as a requirement for the Office of President?

They put it there to ensure the President, the highest elected official in America, did not suffer from divided loyalties. Given the powers inherent in the Office, the danger of a President who wasn’t 100% loyal to the nation was one the Framers wished to avoid. Obama’s disloyalty to America has proven their point loud and clear.

Obama’s father was never an American citizen, therefore Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where he was born or what his birth certificate says, or even whether or not his birth certificate was forged. Forgery is a crime, but as such, is completely separate from the Natural Born Citizen issue. It’s irrelevant.

Because Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is not eligible to be President, in fact is not President and has never had any power to sign any bills into law, appoint judges or other officials, negotiate treaties with foreign nations, issue executive orders or even promulgate regulations via the various regulatory agencies of the federal government. He is a usurper, which means every “official” action he’s taken since “occupying” the Oval Office is null and void; a fancy legal phrase meaning, it never happened.

Senator-Ted-Cruz-origTed Cruz suffers from the same problem, along with Rubio and Jindal. Cruz’s father was not an American citizen at the time of Ted’s birth, meaning he only had one (1) citizen parent instead of the required two (2) citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

If Republicans allow Ted Cruz to be nominated for President, we surrender our moral authority to challenge Obama’s illegal activities since usurping the Office of President. We lose our last chance to overturn Obamacare by declaring it null and void on the grounds it was never signed into law by a sitting President. We resign ourselves to the judgeship’s of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, along with any disastrous decisions in which they’re part of the majority. We give up on the possibility of reversing the terrible consequences of having Obama in the Oval Office.

And finally, we relinquish God’s blessings when we appoint leaders who refuse to honor Man’s law and therefore must be suspected of equally refusing to honor God’s Law.

Yes, yes. I know Cruz is a strong evangelical voice on the national scene. As a Senator, or an Attorney General, his voice would ring loud and clear. But as an ineligible President, a usurper in fact, his voice would become an uncertain one.


As heard on The Hagmann Report