Clearly, Publius Huldah is no new person to these elements. She has carried out the requirement work in pointing back to precisely how the framers of the Constitution comprehended the term natural born citizen and has published on the issue. The subsequent footage is exclusively on that topic. Regrettably, it is time to introduce to the people of The United States Of America. This is one you will want to share with your friends over the next few of days for certain.
To comprehend what the term natural born citizen means, one must comprehend that before July 4, 1776, everyone born in the new world was born a subject of the King of England, not a citizen. The truth is, our first presidents were all born as subjects of the King of England:
1. George Washington
2. John Adams
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. James Madison
5. James Monroe
6. John Quincy Adams
7. Andrew Jackson
8. William Henry Harrison
Each one of these gentlemen, along with their fellow countrymen were transformed into citizens on July 4, 1776 by means of the Declaration of Independence.
Therefore, what does that suggest for those presidents with respect to the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a natural born citizen? It implies that they were naturalized by way of the Declaration of Independence, which would later be prepared in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
No Person with the exception of 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.
Our first presidents were simply eligible because they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The thing is that the framers understood what a natural born citizen was and they understood they were not natural born citizens. Consequently, they had to grandfather themselves into the requirement. Nevertheless, after that first generation, all succeeding presidents were expected to be natural born citizens.
Instead of permitting folks to define natural born citizen however they choose, just as they have with Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, the framers understood what the definition was because Vattel had defined the term in his book Law of Nations. From letter and other documents, we understand that Vattel’s work was analyzed in the universities and the framers had it in their ownership when they had written the Constitution. So, there is no question as to the interpretation of the phrase natural born citizen. Consequently, how did Vattel define natural born citizen?
The citizens are the individuals of the civil society; bound to this society by certain responsibilities, and subject to its authority, they equally take part 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. (Emphasis mine)
PH also gives the following records from David Ramsay to show what he wrote.
Ramsay, was a founding father, who published A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States, which was printed in 1789. Ramsay wrote:
“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the Declaration of Independence, and as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the Fourth of July, 1776.”
The framers did not wish to have foreigners with divided loyalties to be president. They wanted a president who been passed down his citizenship from American parents (plural).
Just as a child inherits his eye color from his parents, he also inherits his citizenship from them as well. To put it differently, it does not take an act of Congress to make him a citizen. It is a truth of blood that one is a citizen through birth to citizen parents.
To show the variation between those who are citizens naturally and those through a proclamation of man (Declaration of Independence, Clause in the Constitution, act of Congress), PH takes into account the 14th Amendment, something that we have worked with prior regarding the Texas senator.
PH points out the one of the functions of the 14th Amendment was to expand citizenship to freed slaves. That first generation of freed slaves were certainly regarded as citizens, but they were more definitely not natural born citizens because they were not born of parents who were citizens. For that reason, the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with natural born citizen. It has to do with the creation of new citizens. This means that, it naturalized freed slaves as citizens.
In dealing with the matter, PH then addressed Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
Rubio was born in the united States, but he was born to parents who were Cuban nationals. Though Rubio’s parents were under the lawful jurisdiction of the united States, they were not citizens and thus, Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Actually, Rubio is a naturalized citizen because his citizenship is by operation of a man-made law. In addition, if it were not for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, Rubio would have been born with the same alien status as his parents!
Something similar occurs when we look at Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a father who was a either a Cuban national or a Canadian citizen and an American born mother, whose status at the time of his birth is not clear, but in accordance with PH, “her status doesn’t matter. The father is the one who counts.”
“At the time of the framing of our Constitution, the doctrine of coverture was in effect,” stated PH. “Under that common law doctrine, husband and wife are one, and the man is the one! The woman’s legal identity was subsued into that of her husband’s.”
None of this should take Christians by surprise as it is what the Bible lays out for us in Genesis 2. Furthermore, women take on the last name of their husbands, even today.
For this reason, we deduce that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Moreover, we understand that he also held Canadian citizenship, which he did not renounce until he set his eyes on the White House. He stopped being a Canadian citizen on May 14, 2014.
Last but not least, and this is an item that I have recommend in a short video commentary, Cruz has evidently sealed all of the records that would specify his mother’s status. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been rejected. He has also made the decision to withhold any documentation, such as a Consular Record of Birth Abroad (CRBA), which is necessary by the State Department via Congress if one is born to a parent abroad and desires to be considered a citizen at birth. This is not a natural born citizen because it is conveyed via a manmade law. Cruz has yet to provide this document, which then leads us to ask the question, is he here legally? Before you call me crazy, let me question you, how do you find out someone has gone through naturalization without documentation? There is a paper trail. Senator Cruz is informing us he is going after illegal aliens (those without the paper trail, who have not come to the States legally), nevertheless, he has produced no CRBA documentation that is, in effect, naturalization papers???????.
Up to now, the lawsuit against both Cruz and Rubio continues forward despite efforts to dismiss them. Republicans would not do their duty concerning Soetoro, and currently they are engaging in pushing forward two ineligible candidates for president. Oh what a tangled web we weave…!!!!!