Share This Article with a Friend!

CHQ 2016 GOP Presidential Straw Poll: Week 9

It's never too early to start thinking about the 2016 presidential election. While you may change your mind later, tell us who you'd like to see as the GOP nominee this week.'s Weekly GOP Presidential Straw Poll is available exclusively to registered CHQ members. To register, click here. If you are already a member, please log-in by clicking here. You may vote once a week. Review the choices FIRST before adding a write-in candidate as we made additions.

Presidential Poll Nominees Week 7 

Login to vote in this poll.

The natural born Citizen

In order to know the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one can only know it by looking back to the Founding Fathers.

In the opening paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, they make specific reference to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

In paragraph two, they build on that reference with this affirmation of God given "natural" rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Clearly, the Founders saw natural born Citizenship as something defined by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and NOT by ANY man made law. So what is the source they saw as authoritative in defining a natural born Citizen? The work known as The Law of Nations, by Emerich de Vattel.

Article I, Section VIII, Clause X of the US Constitution states, "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."

The Founders citation of this work in our Constitution meant that upon it's ratification, The Law of Nations became the authoritative source for defining offences against said Law of Nations.

In Book One, Chapter 19, Sections 212, 215, 216 and 217 of the Law of Nations, Vattel makes it crystal clear that natural born Citizen status is determined solely by the citizenship of the fathers. Place of birth and citizenship of the mothers are IRRELEVANT!

Not only did the Founders adhere to the Natural Law definition of “natural born Citizen,” they used Vattel’s Law of Nations extensively. Google “Vattel and the Founders.” Also visit the website of Natural Law Scholar and Constitutional Analyst, Jedi Pauly.

Obama is not the first to usurp the office of POTUS, but we must make sure he is the last.

natural born citizen of USA

the bigger problem of Obama is not where he was born, but where he was raised. He is missing the essential experience of growing up in America and understanding what America is to the rest of the World. He looks upon us as a foreigner who was brought up outside our country and this is the bigger problem.

If I was going to redefine who is eligible for president, I would specify that he must have grown up in the USA for 20 of his years before age 21. that gives him 1 year to be a foreign student.

Natural Born Citizen - Vattel and Supreme Court agree

Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen  What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words:“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.” Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, § 212: Of the citizens and natives.  “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." "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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”, in respect to U.S. constitutional law, a Supreme Court ruling is controlling. The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett said:"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."  

U.S. Supreme Court: Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen"

Natural Born Citizen means "born in the country of parents who are citizens" Read up on it at Mario Apuzzo's web site (Mario is a New Jersey constitutional attorney)"Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers" A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause. Apuzzo: She argues that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g). Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress. Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeaky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.”She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeaky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.”Despite her statement that Congress never did so, the 1795 Act, with James Madison’s influence, plainly shows from its text that “Congress intended to limit the rights of foreign born citizens at birth to some quanta less than that of a natural born citizen.” Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment “has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” So, Wong Kim Ark told us that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents become “citizens at birth” under Congress’s naturalization powers. That means they are naturalized at birth. By her own concession, if they are naturalized, they cannot be “natural born citizens,” regardless of when they obtain their citizenship.___________________________________________See also Attorney Leo Donofrio's web site:Natural Born Citizen Respecting the Constitution? V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The independent ground the Court used to determine that Virginia Minor was a US citizen is stated as follows: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,’ … “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.It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “ (Emphasis added.)Read that passage very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens. Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen – as the syllabus states in point 2 – because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).JUDICIAL RESTRAINT It’s important to note that the Supreme Court in Minor did not hold that all women born in the US were citizens. Only those born to citizen parents in the US were deemed to be citizens by the Court in Minor. Since the Court was not required to construe the 14th Amendment – as to Mrs. Minor’s citizenship – the Court refrained from doing so.Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1 as an independent ground by which the Court determined that Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen since she had been born in the US to parents who were citizens. Those outside the natural-born citizen “class” were subject to doubt regarding US citizenship. And the Court in Minor exercised judicial restraint by avoiding that issue.When Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, some of those doubts were resolved in favor of US citizenship for those persons not in the class of natural-born citizens. But that case did not open the class of natural-born citizens to include persons born in the US without citizen parents. With regard to this being binding precedent, the important point here is that Virginia Minor’s citizenship had to be established by the Court before it could move on to the voting issue. Establishing her citizenship was part of the holding. Had Mrs. Minor not been determined by the Supreme Court to be a US citizen, the Court would not have reached the issue of whether US citizens are granted a right to vote. The Court would have exercised the same judicial restraint it exercised in avoiding the 14th Amendment issue.On this point, the Court stated: “Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed.”___________________________________________________________________Rep John Bingham of Ohio defines Natural Born Citizen on the floor of the House of Representatives The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the U.S. a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.) Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the U.S.John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”. It simply clarified who was a “citizen”.Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t. Do not allow the opposition to state this definition as “Vattel’s definition”. Challenge that tactic every time. Vattel didn’t make it up. His text on the law of nations compiled known existing law. Vattel was not a legislator.It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law, that this was the House definition as stated on the floor by Representative Bingham. And this definition was never opposed on the floor. And that is exactly where it should have been opposed if it were not the truth.


You're wrong, he is eligible, though many without law training get it wrong all the time. He is eligible because his mother is a Delaware-born American and her citizenship transfered to him at birth. DON'T FALL FOR THE LEFTY HOAX. Even John McCain wasn't born here, but is eligible.
From Politico:
Temple University law professor Peter Spiro said Cruz has a “very strong argument” that he is indeed natural born. While the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone born inside the U.S., children born to American citizens outside the country attain citizenship through a law passed by Congress, according to Spiro. “It shouldn’t matter he has citizenship at birth because of a statute rather than the 14th Amendment,” he explained.
“He’s a birthright citizen but his birthright citizenship derives from his parents, and the question is, does that fit with the definition of natural born citizen?” added University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt. “I think it does.”
Chin, who authored a lengthy analysis on McCain’s citizenship, agreed that Cruz most likely is eligible.
Here's the article:
And Fox News confirms his citizenship as well:

There are dozens more that back-up his eligibility.

Consitutional Eligibility and Natural Law

The Founders would rightly disagree with all who hold to false understandings of "natural born Citizen." Google The Law of Nations and the Founders and Vattel.

The Founders referenced the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" in our Declaration of Independence. They cited The "Law of Nations" in Article I, section 8 of our Constitution.

According to natural law, the citizenship of the father determines the "natural born Citizen" status of his children. The citizenship of the mother and place of birth are irrelevant.

Was Rafael Cruz a US citizen at the time of Ted's birth? NO! Ted confirms that fact in this interview with Sean Hannity.

Therefore, according to natural law, Ted Cruz was actually a "natural born Citizen" of Cuba.

Cruz is correct.

Sen. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct: He is a US Citizen by reason of birth by positive law (Title 8 USC §1401 (g)), not by natural law. Therefore, Sen. Cruz is not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

An Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen is a person who acquires their US Citizen by reason of birth naturally, by their natural political right to inherit the citizenship of the father. In order for Sen. Cruz to be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, Rafael Cruz would have had to become a naturalized as a US citizen prior to December 22, 1970.

Sadly, neither Obama's, nor Sen. Cruz' fathers were US citizenship at the time of their births, making it impossible for ether to be Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen by natural law.

ex animo

Cruz elegibility

If Sen. Cruz believes he is eligible to take the oath of office of the President of the United States, if elected; he must also believe the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country must also be eligible to take the oath of office of the President of the United States, if elected.

ex animo


Lets see,one American parent,one Cuban father, born in Canada. I would give him dual citizenship rights, but natural born? No. In such a contested race with all the odds against you, why would anyone give the opposition more fuel. Fact is a large portion of America does not like Canadians and I am one of them. I would not vote for him just for that reason. I want an American president. Both parents born here, along with the kid.

Ted Cruz not eligible

Ted Cruz is not eligible for the presidency. He was born in Canada. He should not be included in this poll.


Love Cruz, however he is not a natural born citizen and therefore millions like me will not vote for him