anderson logo
Let's Restore The CONSTITUTION
Let's Return EDUCATION to parents & teachers
Let's Restore INTEGRITY to Government
Site Tree
Let's put The People back In-Charge
Click on anything BLUE & Underlined to see or download it.
Put your cursor on an Image - if it changes to a           click it.
The 14th Amendment
does NOT give U.S. Citizenship to 
"Anchor Babies". 

Children born of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS within the U.S.
are NOT
"subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S"

but that of the
country of their parents.

(It has to do with Allegiance - to whom do their PARENTS owe Allegiance?)
DID YOU KNOW? (PUT your curson here)
The relationship between Our Country & GOD?
The Unique Constitutional Requirement for President of the United States to be a
Natural Born Citizen
Here are four (5) studies that transcend all the Hyperbole, Demagoguery, Revisionist History and Baloney -  that rely ONLY on The Law & Original Intent.
1. Dick's Explanation
2. Founding Fathers' ORIGINAL INTENT
3. Article by Devvy Kidd
4. A Natural-Born Citizen is a True Citizen
5. Presidential Eligibility Tutorial
The definition, as understood by the Founding Fathers, at the time of the CREATION of the Constitution was:
A Natural-Born-Citizen is   
A child born of a FATHER that is a Citizen (at the time of birth).
Sounds Of Silence
and the Option of Impeachment
(Obama's Birth Certificate is a FORGERY)
It STILL Matters
Barack Obama is Why it Matters More Than EVER.
This can be found at:
Other related:   
DICK'S fairly complete explanation with
definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'
An article from American Thinker, published TODAY, which is

(Unfortunately, this first case is pure
it contains many IRRELEVANT facts and even more LIES, in
the form of "Fault by Omission". 
Note that most of the citations are laws or Rulings done AFTER
the creation of the Constitution.  And, most importantly, it
IGNORES Vattel’s Law of Nations, published in 1758, the ONLY
source of its kind EVER published at that time and used DAILY
by the Founders)

January 7, 2016
The Cruz natural-born citizen fake controversy
By Thomas Lifson

I suppose it was inevitable that we’d have to go one more round on the natural-
born citizen subject before the Iowa caucus.  Too many members of the
mainstream media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) want to yuck it up.  They
just love throwing it in the face of people who questioned the many anomalies in
the digital versions of Obama’s birth record.  (For the record, it should be noted
that the very first person to raise the issue of Obama’s birth was a Hillary
supporter in Pennsylvania, back in the 2008 presidential nomination race.)
So it was the Washington Post that raised the question in an interview with
Donald Trump, and Trump could not resist the bait.  Most subsequent media
discussions leave out that little fact.  MSNBC in particular is having a field day
of snark.
Andrew McCarthy of National Review
(who notes that he is a Cruz supporter) does a capable job of summarizing the
legal scholarship refuting the entire issue of Cruz’s birth in Alberta.
The Constitution’s invocation of “natural born citizen”
incorporates this principle of citizenship derived from parentage.
That this is the original meaning is obvious from the Naturalization
Act of 1790. It was enacted by the first Congress, which included
several of the framers, and signed into law by President George
Washington, who had presided over the constitutional convention.
The Act provided that children born outside the United States to
American citizens were “natural born” U.S. citizens at birth,
“Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to
persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United
States.” As we shall see presently, Congress later changed the law,
making it easier for one American-citizen parent to pass birthright
citizenship to his or her child, regardless of whether the non-
American parent ever resided in the United States. But even if the
more demanding 1790 law had remained in effect, Cruz would still
be a natural born citizen. His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh
Wilson, is an American citizen born in Delaware; his native-Cuban
father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was a legal resident of the U.S. for
many years before Ted was born.
But for those in a hurry, just see point g of  8 U.S. Code § 1401
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian,
Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in
any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to
tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United
States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or
one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United
States who has been physically present in the United States or one
of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year
prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a
national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of
parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been
physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to
the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while
under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the
age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the
birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or
its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less
than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of
fourteen years:
That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States,
or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an
international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22
<> by such citizen parent, or any
periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the
dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B)
employed by the United States Government or an international organization as
defined in section 288 of title 22
<>, may be included in order to
satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be
applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as
if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside
the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother
who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had
resided in the United State
Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter <
id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker> |
AmericanThinker on Facebook <

If you want to know some Very DISTURBING Covered Up FACTS
about Ted Cruz and his family.. and more

COMMENT - Posted by Dick Anderson 1-
All the above "explanations" are the work of DEMAGOGUES -
designed to MISLEAD everyone.
Now, for the TRUTH: (also, see the Links at the very
Note also, that many demagogues also quote Black's Law Dictionary,
claiming it to be the 'final reference' (or some such) in Legal
Definitions, which does not require US Citizen Parents to be a Natural-
This too is BALONEY! 
Black's was not even written until 1860 - which is 73 years AFTER the
Constitution was Created.
With that said, let's proceed:
It was, and is, well known that all the Founding Fathers were fully
aware of the meaning and definition of a NATURAL BORN
CITIZEN as it was defined in Vattel's "The Law of Nations" -
published in 1758 and translated into English in 1760 (and no other
source had ever been printed or was even known to the Founders).
NOTE: While the Constitution does not specifically define these terms,
the key to the correct definitions is Vattel’s book “The Law of
Nations” (which IS referred to in Article I, Section 8 of the

Its value and use was documented by George Washington, John Jay,
James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.
This treatise was considered the "final word" on all things about all
nations during the time of our founding (and still is to this day, by any
unbiased scholar), and was used DAILY by the Founding Fathers while
they were creating our Constitution.
  It was the ONLY treatise ever published up till that time and

As such, this treatise defines ORIGINAL  INTENT - the ONLY
legitimate way to interpret our Constitution or any other generated
"paper" (whether it be by a government or not) at any time or any
place in the World - then, now or forever.
    A Natural-born Citizen is the child of parents that are
CITIZENS at the time of the child's birth.
Book 1, Chapter 19, 212: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are
those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
It does not count that the parents may become naturalized at a later
date or that they may have been living here for any amount of time.
If the parents weren't citizens at the time of the child's birth the child is
NOT a Natural Born Citizen - PERIOD.

This is EXACTLY what the Founders understood when they wrote it
into our Constitution.  It is the ONLY source they EVER had.  They
depended heavily on it - DAILY - and made many statements to that
AND, No testimony from any other Founder or delegate of the
Constitutional Convention exists that claims any other definition.

Whether we like a man, or not, or want a man for President, or not, is
We must recognize and follow "The Law".
Benjamin Franklin had copies of Vattel's 'Law of Nations' and Franklin
said (in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas in December of 1775):
  "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your
edition of Vattel. It came to us in good
   season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary
frequently to consult the Law of Nations.
   Accordingly, “that copy which I kept has been continually in the
hands of the members of our congress.”

Also, Vattel also deals with this exact issue in Book 1, Chapter 19,
   "There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a
foreigner all the rights of citizens; for
     example, that of holding public offices; and where, consequently, he
has the power of granting only an
     imperfect naturalization."
Pretty obviously, this applies to the United States, as that is EXACTLY
what our Founding Fathers inserted into our Constitution.

The Supreme Court HAS recognized this definition on at least
TWO (2) occasions:

Minor v. Happersett
The Supreme Court opinion (written by Chief Justice
Morrison Waite <> in
1875) observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created
by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say
who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according
to the court, "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."[12]
Plessy v. Ferguson
Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in
Plessy v. Ferguson <
_Ferguson>,[39] <
citizen_clause> (1896) wrote in the Albany Law Journal:
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be
eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a
native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the
probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the
president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance
to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in
passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood;
but it is pleonasm <> and
should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen"
should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in
judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise
language are essential to intelligent discussion.[40]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the
nation from foreign influence. [7]
There was also a perception that a usurper from the European
aristocracy could potentially immigrate and buy his way into power.[8]
Constitutional Convention
The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born".[11]
At the close of the Convention, Hamilton conveyed a paper to James
Madison he said delineated the Constitution that he wished had been
proposed by the Convention; he had stated its principles during the
deliberations. [12] Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's draft constitution
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United
States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be
born a Citizen of the United States."[13]
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding
officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and
seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission
of Foreigners into the administration of our national
Government, and to declare expressly that the
Command in chief of the American army shall not be
given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
While the Committee on Detail had originally proposed that the
President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years,
the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born
citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The
Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[16]
Every single one of them knew EXACTLY what that
meant - and they concurred.
Each Citizen should seriously reflect upon whether he is content to live
in a Nation of "Rule of Law", which treats all its citizens with the exact
same equality,
If he wishes to take a gamble on a Nation of "Rule by MEN", which
changes according to the whims of the men in charge.

In the latter case, it is not a question of "WILL the interpretation of law
turn against me?" It is merely a question of "WHEN will the
interpretation turn against me?"
Is Ted Cruz Eligible for the Presidency?
He was born in Canada.  
His parents were NOT American Citizens at that time of his birth.
Also, shortly before he announced his candidacy, he officially
renounced his Canadian Citizenship.
For the record:
Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal and Barack Hussein Obama
are NOT Natural Born Citizens either.
     (Our government has gone astray - they are PURPOSEFULLY
ignoring The Law ).
Doesn’t his make you wonder - WHY?
Kamala Harris is NOT a Natural-Born-Citizen
and NOT Eligible for VP of the USA