When it comes to presidential qualifications, Mr. Trump appears to have walked into a wall with both Republicans and Democrats by calling for a moratorium on immigration of Muslims coming to the United States until the State Department can fully guarantee that they can screen out the visa applicants from countries and groups that wanting to destroy our Constitution and form of government.
Both Republicans and Democrats cite the ‘religion’ test for public office as found in the constitution as the basis for their rationale to putting this country in danger; and they do not understand why Joe and Jane lunchbox American don’t agree with them.
The White House weighed into Mr. Trumps ‘moratorium call’, using their Press spokesman, Josh Earnest, who appealed to Republican candidates to condemn Trump’s remarks, stating, “…they should say right now that they would not support Donald Trump for President. What he said is disqualifying…”
How odd it is for the White House to claim a moral high ground with extra presidential qualifications! Along with our elected representatives and the current raft of Presidential wannabes, who cry that that is not what America is—a place where its citizens can be safe in time of war.
One has to question if our current sitting congressmen, and those in the White House, all of whom have taken an oath of office to protect and defend our constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, actually know the constitution and the words used to frame it and know what exactly is their duty and responsibility to the oath they freely made.
The Constitutional qualifications for President of the United States are: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Note the Constitutional distinction of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen.” The paramount question is “why would the founders make the distinction of ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ if it was not meaningfully important?”
Chief Justice John Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803), stated, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
“Citizen,” “naturalization,” and “natural born Citizen” are ALL in the original, un-amended Constitution; therefore, none can mean the same thing.
The Constitutional framers understood “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” to be uniquely different and unequal; and they deliberately established this unique presidential qualification, while specifically excluding ‘naturalization’ as a qualification.
The SCOTUS case Minor v. Happersett (1874)–which is the only SCOTUS case to look at the qualifications for President, and is the one case that all self-appointed guardians and professors on Presidential qualifications conveniently overlook and never discuss publicly–is the one case in which the court actually defined what the founders meant by the unique phrasing of “natural born citizen.”
Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court in the Minor vs. Happersett; it was a unanimous opinion—it is a precedent opinion that no other court has ever reversed, and no other court has reviewed the qualifications for POTUS since this case.
The court declared what the founders understood: that a child born to parents (note plural, thus mother and father) who are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth is a natural born citizen, meeting the POTUS qualification in the US Constitution. This finding has nothing to do with where the child was born, as the ruling is silent; it has everything to do with the parents and their citizenship status to the U.S. As this is a precedent case, nothing else influences it.
Based on the SCOTUS findings in 1874 and looking at the heritage of Mr. Obama, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal, one needs to ask if they fit the Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizen.
Mr. Obama’s father was a British Subject (Kenyan) when Obama was born. British nationality act (1948) declares Mr. Obama to be a British Subject, and, unlike Senator Cruz, Obama never surrendered his British Citizenship. Mr. Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, born in Wichita, Kansas, was a United States Citizen by birth. Mr. Obama was born in 1961, has only one parent as a U.S. Citizen, and his father eventually returned to Kenya. Note also that no court in the United States has been willing to hear a challenge on his qualifications.
Senator Cruz: a good man in the senate. His mother is Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, and his father is Rafael Cruz. In research, Eleanor Cruz was born in Delaware and earned a degree from Rice University in Houston, TX. Rafael Cruz, was born in Cuba and became a Naturalized Citizen in 2005. Senator Cruz was born in 1970. Because Senator Cruz was born in Canada, had both his parents been U.S. Citizens, he would be, without question, a natural born citizen, as his place of birth is not at issue (knowing that place of birth has no bearing on natural born citizen status is not common knowledge to our elected representatives or to the people at large of the United States). Like Mr. Obama, Senator Cruz can claim only one parent as a citizen at the time of his birth.
Senator Rubio: a good man in the senate. Both his mother and father (Mario Rubio Reina and Oriales Rubio) were Cuban Citizens at the time of this birth. His parents became naturalized citizens in 1975. Senator Rubio was born in 1971. Neither of Senator Rubio’s parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.
Governor Jindal of Louisiana: a good man as governor. Both his father and mother (Amar Jindal and Raj Jindal) were Indian Citizens, from the state of Punjab, at the time of this birth (1971), in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The record indicates that his mother came to the United States six months prior to his birth, as she enrolled in graduate school for an advanced degree. The record does not indicate if his parents ever became naturalized citizens.
Given the SCOTUS unanimous precedent decision, 1874, and the familial line of the above politicians, do any of them meet the Constitutional requirement for President?
Thanks for reading.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.