By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots http://www.americanpbn.com/

Yesterday, in “Cruz IS Eligible – The Facts…Part 1 of 2,” I began to provide indisputable facts regarding the Constitutional eligibility of Ted Cruz while also exposing the falsehoods of Trump’s followers and birthers.

Allow me to continue presenting those facts and further exposing the birther lies, because there is now an article out there being spread by low-info birthers which states, “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)”

First of all…Article II never mentions “natural law,” and second…the fact of natural law, as understood by the Founders and Framers would have been vastly different than what the birthers claim it was, because they hope that nobody does the proper research.  Blackstone wrote of natural born both as it pertained to England and to the American colonies, and in his writings, Blackstone is quite clear, in that “natural born,” whether they be from England or the American colonies included all those born “in” the lands under British sovereignty.

Further…

Of those children born abroad, or outside the direct soil of England and on the soil of the American colonies, Blackstone made a clear point of assuring that they too were under the law of England as…”Natural Born,” should they be born to parents subject to the laws of England, as that had been the common rule of law of England since the time of King Edward III in the 12th century.

As per Blackstone, also well known to our founders and framers, “all children, born out of the ligeance of the crown, whose fathers (or grandfathers by the father’s side) were natural-born subjects, were to be deemed natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes.”

Birthers will, no doubt, seize upon this as Cruz’s father was not, at the time of Ted’s birth, a U.S. citizen, but this would be taking Blackstone out of context as he continued with, “every person born out of her majesty’s dominions of a mother being a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom, ‘shall be capable of taking to him, his heirs, executors, or administrators, any estate, real or personal, by devise or purchase, or inheritance of succession.’” Since only “natural born” subjects could inherit property in England, this means that children born of a mother who was a natural born subject were also natural born subjects, and once again, in these writings, we see the very basis for the Naturalization Act of 1790.

But the real question in all of this is that of Constitutionality. Is Ted Cruz Constitutionally eligible?

To answer that question, we must accept the fact that the Constitution, as written and ratified, contains language meant for the common people and part of that can be found in Article II itself where the ability to change statutory rules is, in fact, built in. Further, in Article I, section 8, it is, in fact, congress which is given the power to define who is a citizen at birth, not the courts.

The next question is, what laws were applicable to Ted Cruz when he was born? That law, Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 235-36; Title III, ch. 1, section 301(a)(7), clearly makes Ted Cruz a citizen of the United States at birth, considered by congress as a natural born citizen because of the facts being, that his mother was a United States Citizen at the time of his birth and that she had met the age requirements applicable at the time of his birth.

As it is the purview of congress to decide citizenship status, whether at birth of through naturalization and not within the purview of the courts, for any court, including the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that would deem Ted Cruz to be ineligible would fly in the face of relevant laws, Acts and statutes going all the way from present day back to 1790. In fact, for any court case against Cruz’s eligibility to be successful, all those laws, codes, Acts and statutes enacted from 1790 forward would need to be found to be unconstitutional, but that’s not the whole of it…the Constitution itself, which vests the power of deciding citizenship in congress rather than with the courts, would also need to be found unconstitutional.

The bottom lines…

By statute, U.S. Codes and existing as well as past laws, Ted Crus is indeed eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There are no existing U.S. Codes, laws or statutes that render him ineligible. There are no existing laws, codes or statutes that specify that both parents must be U.S. citizens in order for their children to be U.S. citizens at birth and no such laws, codes or statutes were in effect at the time of the birth of Ted Cruz.

Further…Vattel’s definition of “natural born” has no standing in U.S. law and never has, nor were the founders and framers influenced to use the term, “natural born citizens,” by Vattel, as the first translation of Vattel to use that term had not been rendered until after the ratification of our Constitution.

By definitions known not only to our learned founders and framers, but also by the common citizens of the day, “natural born” was derived and defined by standard English laws in effect since 1708 as written of by the likes of Blackstone who said any child, born of a parent…mother or father…who was themselves a “subject” (or in the case of our new nation, a citizen,) regardless of the geographic location of birth.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stands to this day as the only Act, as a matter of U.S. law, to ever define “natural born citizenship,” and while it was repealed in 1795, no language correcting or altering that definition was offered then, nor to this day.

The Supreme Court has never heard even a single case regarding “natural born citizenship,” and therefore, any claims to the contrary, regardless of cases cited, are false.

The Supreme Court has long held the position that both English common law and the enactments of laws written and passed by the First Congress of the United States are the two most precise sources in understanding both the original intent of the Founders and Framers, as well as in understanding Constitutional language, terms and meanings. Both English common law and the Naturalization Act of 1790, written and made law by many of the founders and framers themselves, both deem a person whose circumstances of birth such as Cruz’s, would indeed be eligible.

Congress has, since our founding, held that a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth (with the exception of those born to foreign diplomats) with no need for naturalization as well as holding that  the term “natural born Citizen,” as found in the Constitution, encompasses all such citizens from birth so long as at least one parent meets age and resident guidelines.

And finally, there will continue to be those who claim that Ted Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to run for, or serve as president, based on their claim that the Constitution’s “none but a natural born citizen” clause makes him ineligible, but those who insist that Cruz is ineligible either don’t know the Constitution, or they are simply willing to ignore the Constitution to further their political agenda.

As to the fact that Canada didn’t recognize dual citizenship at the time Cruz was born…the key word there is recognize. But the U.S did recognize dual citizenship and therefore, as our citizenship laws recognized Ted Cruz as a U.S. citizen at birth…a natural born citizen as per U.S. laws, codes and statutes…regardless of his status in Canada…Ted Cruz was, and is, a U.S. citizen.

Trump’s followers and birthers will, of course, continue their charades and falsely attempt to use the Constitution’s Article II as their reasoning, but in doing so, they are willfully ignoring the fact that Article II is the wrong part of the Constitution to employ to settle this matter, because the power to decide citizenship rests with congress…and because laws enacted by congress from the 1^st Congress until present day make Cruz eligible…both the first and final Constitutional word regarding the subject of Ted Cruz’s eligibility…is Article I Section 8.

Had they any evidence or facts to back their propagandist political agenda of hatred toward Ted Cruz, they would simply present it, but Trump’s followers and birthers, showing the same lack of substance as their candidate, nearly always respond to the presentation of these facts with vileness, memes and threats.

But for those to whom facts and the Constitution still matter…Ted Cruz is eligible…and you now have the facts.