February 26, 2016
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio not Eligible to be President
By Mark Wachtler
February 26, 2016. Washington. (ONN) Donald Trump may be the luckiest man alive. Aside from his personal fortune and history of successful business dealings, who else could run for President and have his top two competitors disqualified from the race? That may end up being the case when the eligibility of both Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio are called into question. The Constitution laid out who can be President and the Supreme Court defined it.
Based on an 1875 US Supreme Court ruling, neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are eligible to be US President.
The Obama Precedent
In 2008 while the American media was having its love affair with Barack Obama, six state courts and the US Supreme Court heard arguments regarding his eligibility to be US President. We at Whiteout Press covered each lawsuit extensively as they made their way through the US justice system over the next four years.
Unfortunately, the immigration and naturalization documents from Obama’s father were sealed from public and court view by the President, thus denying the court the evidence, or ‘smoking gun’, required to make a ruling. Many, like us, believe the specific records were declared secret because the court would have ruled that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. Now, eight years later, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio should be disqualified from the same office for the exact same reason.
The Founders’ Intentions
The US Constitution states, ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.’ So basically, any adult male residing in the United States at the time of the country’s birth was eligible to be President. But going forward into the future, one must be a natural born citizen to attain the highest office in the land.
The founders had a specific reason for this rule. They wanted to avoid the same calamities periodically plaguing European nations. In the eighteenth century and before, princes and princesses were often married off to the princes and princesses of other countries as a gesture of sincerity over newfound national alliances. Russia suffered while ruled by a German-born Prince who didn’t even speak Russian. France, England and a host of other countries suffered similar fates for the same reason.
Natural Born Citizen
According to the American media, the courts have never given a specific definition to the term ‘natural born citizen’. But that is simply not true. As the five lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility pointed out, the US Supreme Court did in fact give an official opinion defining a natural born citizen.
The year was 1875 and the case was Minor vs. Happersett. Virginia Minor was a resident of Missouri who was denied the right to register to vote even though women’s suffrage and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted seven years earlier. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the court’s majority opinion and explained the definition of ‘natural born citizen’.
The US Supreme Court ruled:
“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 natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, writing for the majority, clearly states that the only unanimous opinion of the definition of a natural born citizen is that of an individual born on US soil to two American citizens. The court goes further and casts ‘doubts’ on any other definition such as those simply born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. But unfortunately, the 1875 ruling concedes that it does not need to resolve those ‘doubts’ to rule on Virginia Minor’s lawsuit demanding her right to register to vote.
To summarize, the US Supreme Court ruled that the only universally accepted definition of a natural born citizen was that of an individual born on US soil to two US citizen parents. Whether the definition includes other types of citizens, the court says it has ‘doubts’.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
The reason Barack Obama had the immigration and naturalization file of his father sealed from public view was most likely because it revealed the exact date his father became a US citizen. If it was after the day Barack as born, then our current President was never eligible to be President in the first place. Current Presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are suddenly being accused of not being eligible to be President for the same exact reason. Unfortunately for them, their parents’ naturalization information isn’t sealed from public view.
US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Canada. His mother Eleanor was born in the United States and was a US citizen. His father Rafael was a Cuban citizen. Rafael eventually became a Canadian citizen in 1973 and a US citizen in 2005.
US Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) was born on May 28, 1971 in Miami, Florida. Neither of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth. His father Mario and his mother Oriales were both Cuban citizens who eventually achieved US citizenship in 1975.
Based on those well known biographies, the US Supreme Court ruled in Minor vs. Happersett that neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are ‘natural born citizens’ based on the only definition recognized by the US Supreme Court. Therefore, neither is eligible to be US President.
To read the entire majority opinion in the 1875 Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs. Happersett, visit Cornell University Law School’s website.
Related Whiteout Press articles:
Top 5 recommended Whiteout Press articles. If you missed these the first time, check them out now.
Top 5 Most Viewed Articles from Whiteout Press
1. Courts quietly confirm MMR Vaccine causes Autism (308,837)
2. Supreme Court rules Drug Co.’s exempt from Lawsuits (300,658)
3. Who REALLY discovered America? (263,749)
4. Homeland Security graduates Homeland Youth (241,581)
5. Lady Gaga, Satanism & the Illuminati (181,487)