Share This Article with a Friend!


Tea Party Leader Becky Gerritson Endorses Ted Cruz for President

U.S. Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has received the endorsement of Becky Gerritson, Co-Founder and President of the Wetumpka Tea Party (WTP) in Alabama and a courageous conservative who has fought with Alabama tea parties and various other liberty groups to combat the abuses of state and federal government overreach.

Ted CruzBecky Gerritson is one of the most outspoken tea party leaders in the nation. She appears regularly on FOX News and FOX Business, along with multiple national talk radio programs. She is currently the National Grassroots Coordinator for Grassroots for Victory USA, and helped organize the “Let’s Put ‘US’ Back in the USA”, travelling America from August 2015 – November 2016. Gerritson is an active member of the Alabama Stop Common Core Task Force and works to promote parental rights in America. In her spare time, she travels the nation speaking to audiences encouraging them to stand up for their First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty.

See our article, Tea Party Leader Becky Gerritson: Congress Must Stop Obama "Thought Police" for more on Gerritson’s principled leadership in the fight against Big Government oppression.

Gerritson released the following statement announcing her support of Sen. Cruz:

“America needs a leader who is bold as a lion and will seek justice and always speak the truth, one who respects the rule of law and our US Constitution. We need a leader who will confidently rebuke our enemies both foreign and domestic. One who appreciates and supports our military. We need a leader of integrity who seeks wise council and who will maintain unity and order. One who believes in America’s greatness and will do his utmost to preserve and further it. That man is Ted Cruz.”

CHQ readers will recall that in 2013, Gerritson appeared in front of the House Ways and Means Committee to give an impassioned speech about the abuses of the Obama IRS on the WTP, earning her national recognition and making her a heroine of the liberty movement.

Gerritson’s endorsement of Senator Cruz helped tee-up Cruz’s successful post-debate swing through the South, where he spoke to capacity crowds in Huntsville and Birmingham, Alabama where Cruz said:

“Alabama can play a critical role as well as the other states in the SEC primary in making sure the next Republican nominee for President is a true, genuine conservative, someone who has walked the walk, not a campaign conservative but someone who has spent his life fighting to defend the Constitution, fighting to defend liberty, religious liberty and our bill of rights.”

Share this

Re: natural law?

There is no natural law related to citizenship. In nature, there are no nations and no citizens. The question is "what is natural born?" It *may* be true that in 1700 the father's citizenship drove natural born status, although that is debatable. However, do you think that is valuable today?

The Constittution seems to be making a distinction between naturalized citizens (citizens who left their home country and came to America) and those who are citizens at birth. If anything more complicated was intended, I am sure it would have been spelled out in detail.

Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen

The original intent of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 is to prohibit naturalized US citizens from the command in chief of the nation's armed forces due to their previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties. The original intent of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 is to prohibit US citizens who were not born exclusively under US sovereignty from the command in chief of the nation's armed forces.

Sen Cruz is a U.S. citizen at birth by the grace of Congress, not by natural right.

The Law Is The Law Whether We Like It Or Not

The Supreme Court and Congress make decisions we disagree with all the time, see Roe v Wade and Obamacare for examples, but that doesn't make those decisions any less the law. One can disagree all they want, lobby to change things to rectify the situation, sue to demand a clarification, etc., but that does not negate the fact that as things now stand Ted Cruz is eligible to run for President.

RED ALERT

interesting information about ted cruz:

Anyone Who Loves Jesus & the Jews And Supports Ted Cruz As Candidate For President Are Out Of Their Mind

http://shoebat.com/2015/08/10/anyone-who-loves-jesus-and-the-jews-and-su...

Constitutionally eligible candidates

Minor v. Happersett defined a "natural born citizen" as the offspring of two US citizens. The Constitution states there are different degrees of citizenship classifications necessary to be eligible to run for Congress and run for President. A Representative must be at least 25 years old and a US citizen for at least seven years. A Senator must be at least thirty years old and a citizen for at least nine years. A President must be at least thirty-five years old and be a "natural born citizen". This is verified by Article II Section 1 Clause 6 which 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;...” The Founding Fathers knew at that time no “natural born citizen” would meet the age requirement. The Founding Fathers wanted Presidents to show true allegiance to the United States only. A President born of two US citizens would help insure this required allegiance. How is it natural to be a "natural born citizen" and have an option to renounce a choice of two citizenships from dual citizenship status as did Senator Cruz? Senator Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father who was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Senator Rubio's and Governor Jingdal's parents were not yet US citizens at the time of their births. They were born as "anchor babies" to parents of non-citizen immigrants of foreign countries. How can anyone trust a Presidential candidate who would knowingly violate his Presidential Oath as the Constitution prescribes before he even takes that oath? Claiming ignorance of the "Supreme Law of the Land" is not an excuse to violate it, especially from those in government who have already taken an oath to “support and defend” the US Constitution! I find it reprehensible that the NRCC, NRSC, and GOP would allow ineligible Republican presidential candidates to run for this high office. The lack of action to correct this corruption proves again that the Republican Party and its politics puts itself above the US Constitution! The Republican Party, of which I WAS a proud member of, has now lost all credibility. God help America!

citizen

That ship has sailed. Obama already blew that out of the water. If he can be president then Cruz sure can!

Ted Cruz is a 'natural born citizen'

With all due respect to the reader above, he doesn't get to decide who is a 'natural born citizen,' Congress and the Supreme Court do, and they, acting in their constitutional roles, have rendered decisions that say Ted Cruz is a "Natural Born Citizen."

Where Ted Cruz was born is of little legal consequence to the question of whether or not he is a “natural born Citizen.”

“Natural born Citizen” is a legal term of art that Congress has defined in a way that rendered Cruz eligible to be President from the moment of birth, long before the present controversy over his birthplace erupted.

The commenter's reading of Minor v. Happersett is just plain wrong, the case does not preclude Cruz from running for President.

We urge conservatives to support or oppose Ted Cruz for his policies and record, or for any of the dozens of other reasons voters like or dislike a candidate, and not to be distracted by the spurious argument over whether or not the geographical location of his birth renders him ineligible to run for President.

For a more complete discussion of this matter please see our article Yes, Ted Cruz Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ http://www.conservativehq.com/article/19983-yes-ted-cruz-%E2%80%98natura...

Just plain wrong

Congress does not get to define the Constitution. Citizenship by birth is achieve by either natural law or by statutory law. If one acquires U.S. citizenship at birth via statutory law, as in the case of Sen Cruz, they are not natural U.S. citizens by birth, which needs no statutory provision, but statutory U.S. citizens at birth.

Respectfully - Please Read The Constitution

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Congress is empowered "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Art 1, §8, cl 18

And where, pray tell, does Congress tell us a statutory U.S. citizen at birth, via its naturalization authority, is an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen?

Read ALL of the Constitution

Congress does not have the power or authority to amend the US Constitution through simple legislation as you prescribe by mentioning Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18. The "supreme law of the land" can only be modified by Congress and three fourths of the state legislatures or by a convention of three fourths of the states. Have you not gotten as far as Article V in your reading of the Constitution?

Congress has the power to define "natural born citizen"

Again, we or the poster may not agree with what Congress does, but it clearly has the power to define and implement various terms and provisions in the Constitution. As it has defined "natural born" Ted Cruz is a "natural born" citizen and thus eligible to run for President. Unfortunately, the poster and others have engaged in a circular argument where they refuse to admit that we and they are stuck with all kinds of laws that appear on their face to be contrary to the plain language of the Constitution. The poster may put current citizenship laws in that category, but that does not make them any less the law. That's why we think the argument over whether or not Ted Cruz is a "natural born" citizen is a waste of conservative energy. Like Cruz or not, like the current state of the law or not, you are stuck with him as eligible to run for President.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (d)

Congress has specifically stated that statutory U.S.citizens may not be Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizens for constitutional purposes.*

Moreover, there is nothing in Title 8 USC §1401 (g), the statutory provision Sen Cruz states bestows his U.S. citizenship at birth, that requires any participation in any further naturalization procedures later. But most signification of all, natural born citizens do not acquire the citizens by the grace of Congress, but by natural right, a point that was not lost on the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution.

* Source: Google: "7 Fam 1131.6-2 Eligibility for President"

Informed voters have the power to elect eligible presidents

Since Congress has a 15% approval rating, proves I am not the only one dissatisfied with their lawmaking decisions. Unlike you, I will never find it a waste of my conservative energy to inform others of our Founding Fathers' true intents in their writing of the US Constitution. I will stand by my first comment about this article. GOD HELP AMERICA!

Again with the circular argument!

We welcome all posts -- even ones that take a contrary view to ours -- but we must respectfully point out that one person's view of "our Founding Fathers' true intents in their writing of the US Constitution" is nothing more than one person's opinion. Those who are empowered by the Constitution to make this decision have spoken and as the law now stands Ted Cruz is eligible to run for President. Agree or not, that's the law. We respectfully suggest those who disagree should use their time, money and energy to sue, file a petition with the Federal Election Commission or take some other action that will actually advance their view rather than posting circular arguments on websites.

Where has Congress decreed Cruz a natural born citizen?

Pray tell us, where has Congress decreed Sen Cruz is a natural born citizen

Start with the Naturalization Act of 1790

The best examination of the question of Cruz’s eligibility we’ve found comes from Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, who both served as Solicitor General of the United States, and wrote in the Harvard Law Review recently, “The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to ‘a natural born Citizen.’”

And, said Katyal and Clement, “natural born” means “a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”

Clement and Katyal later note that “The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point.”

And here’s the point that some Cruz “birthers” seem to miss, “But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born.”

Thus, in the relevant time period, conclude Katyal and Clement, “and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are ‘natural born Citizens’.”

Katyal and Clement closed their article for The Harvard Law Review by stating, “While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.

“Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a ‘natural born Citizen’ even under the Naturalization Act of 1790,” concluded Katyal and Clement.

To those who believe the opinions of Katyal and Clement are somehow tainted by an affinity for Cruz we offer a paper by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, writing in November 2011 (long before Cruz was touted as a candidate for President) a CRS attorney concluded that people born to U.S. citizens in foreign countries “most likely” qualify as natural-born citizens.

“The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country,” wrote CRS’s Jack Maskell.

Natural born citizen

Minor v Happersett was a Supreme Court definition of a "natural born citizen". Is this what you refer to as "acting in their constitutional roles"? If Congress truly acted according to their "constitutional roles" and their sworn oaths to "support and defend" the US Constitution, they would all be in the Obamacare Exchange as the law they passed prescribes. The federal government would be much smaller by Congress not violating the states' rights in the 10th Amendment. I could go on and on about Congress passing laws that violate most of our Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers based the term "natural born citizen" on the law of nature rather than what you call "a legal term of art". By nature, the offspring of two US citizens is, without question, also a US citizen. If, by nature, we were talking about dogs, we would call their offspring purebreds. In the same manner, the offspring of a US citizen and a foreign country citizen is still a US citizen but does not meet the purebred or "natural born citizen" classification our Founding Fathers demanded. Our Founding Fathers wanted presidents that would show true allegiance to the US ONLY.

Article II Section 1 Clause 5 clearly states only a US citizen was required to be a president at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers knew no purebred or "natural born citizen" would meet the thirty-five year old age requirement. Now, after hundreds of years, only purebred or "natural born citizens" meet the requirement to be eligible to run for president. Until Congress can explain to we, the people, the two distinct citizenship classification differences between Congressmember and President eligibility job positions, I will follow what our Founding Fathers stated.

Wrong Reading of Minor v Happersett

Minor v Happersett does not LIMIT "natural born" citizenship to only those who are born of two citizen parents; it merely says all children born of two citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States are without question citizens.

Again, disagree, sue, lobby to change the law, do all you want, but -- rightly or wrongly -- as things stand now Cruz is eligible to run for President.