The Ex-Catholic * layman, Glen Magog Beck, is now a Mormon Priest and prophet and he is telling the world that the Ex-Catholic Layman, Ted Gog Cruz, is the anointed one of God, who has been chosen to lead America, restore the Constitution, Preserve the Republic, improve the quality of Pop Tarts, and train Unicorns to play The Battle Hymn of the Republic on their horns.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/12/beck-payback-drudge-buries-cruz-in-holy-roller-avalanche/
It is a mystery why a natural born god would anoint an ex-catholic for the POTUS even though he is ineligible for that office, but, ABS is sure that Glen Magog Beck has the answer...
II. Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen
Although Ted Cruz tries to discredit this case as a “birther” case, it has nothing to do with the birther challenges against President Obama. Those birther challenges rested on wild claims that some murky conspiracy fabricated the birth certificates and newspapers that showed President Obama was born in the United States. In contrast, the challenge here is purely legal: it accepts the facts, as stated by Ted Cruz, that he was born in Canada to a mother who was a private U.S. citizen. Those facts make Ted Cruz a citizen at birth. But the legal issue is whether they make him a natural born citizen eligible to be President under the Constitution.
The Constitutional Meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Constitutional interpretation must, of course, begin with the constitutional text. Leaving aside the now-moot issue of persons who were citizens when the Constitution was enacted,
Although Ted Cruz tries to discredit this case as a “birther” case, it has nothing to do with the birther challenges against President Obama. Those birther challenges rested on wild claims that some murky conspiracy fabricated the birth certificates and newspapers that showed President Obama was born in the United States. In contrast, the challenge here is purely legal: it accepts the facts, as stated by Ted Cruz, that he was born in Canada to a mother who was a private U.S. citizen. Those facts make Ted Cruz a citizen at birth. But the legal issue is whether they make him a natural born citizen eligible to be President under the Constitution.
The Constitutional Meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Constitutional interpretation must, of course, begin with the constitutional text. Leaving aside the now-moot issue of persons who were citizens when the Constitution was enacted,
First, the language “natural born citizen” fairly clearly indicates it could not
mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have just simply stated “born
citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some
persons who are born citizens qualify. Ted Cruz’s interpretation simply reads the
word “natural” out of the constitutional text.
Second, the Constitutional Framers actually rejected a proposal to make any “born citizen” eligible to be President. Alexander Hamilton had proposed a presidential eligibility clause that omitted the word “natural”, providing that: “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.” The Framers did not adopt Hamilton’s proposal, but instead adopted the text requiring that a President must be “natural born Citizen.” This indicates that adding the word “natural” was a deliberate choice and that the Framers believed it was an important additional limitation.
Second, the Constitutional Framers actually rejected a proposal to make any “born citizen” eligible to be President. Alexander Hamilton had proposed a presidential eligibility clause that omitted the word “natural”, providing that: “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.” The Framers did not adopt Hamilton’s proposal, but instead adopted the text requiring that a President must be “natural born Citizen.” This indicates that adding the word “natural” was a deliberate choice and that the Framers believed it was an important additional limitation.
8
Third, even if we did not have this direct evidence that the Framers thought
the word “natural” had significance, a prominent canon of construction requires
that texts should be interpreted to give all the words in the text meaning. See
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803) Ted Cruz’s interpretation
would violate this canon because it would render the word “natural” mere surplus age.
Fourth, Ted Cruz’s interpretation of “natural born” rests on citations to dictionaries written more than a century after the adoption of the Constitution. See Cruz Brief at 28 n.6. In contrast, at the time the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant arising from the nature of things.1 Thus, “natural law” was distinguished from statutory law, and natural rights were distinguished from statutory rights. Thus, the ordinary meaning at the time was that “natural born” citizenship meant the citizenship that arose as a matter of the natural law that was
recognized at common law. In contrast, a “naturalized” citizen meant (and today continues to mean) someone whose citizenship was conferred by statute.
Fourth, Ted Cruz’s interpretation of “natural born” rests on citations to dictionaries written more than a century after the adoption of the Constitution. See Cruz Brief at 28 n.6. In contrast, at the time the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant arising from the nature of things.1 Thus, “natural law” was distinguished from statutory law, and natural rights were distinguished from statutory rights. Thus, the ordinary meaning at the time was that “natural born” citizenship meant the citizenship that arose as a matter of the natural law that was
recognized at common law. In contrast, a “naturalized” citizen meant (and today continues to mean) someone whose citizenship was conferred by statute.
Fifth, at the time of the framing, Blackstone was regarded by the Framers as
the authoritative source of the common law meaning of “natural born,” and
Blackstone makes clear that “natural born” meant (with one narrow exception)
someone who was born within the sovereign territory. WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 354-55 (1765) (“Natural-born
subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, ... and
aliens, such as are born out of it.”) The narrow common law exception was that a
natural born subjected included a child born abroad whose parent was a public
official who was serving his country, such as an ambassador or soldier. Id. at 361
(“the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be
natural subjects”).
Sixth, other evidence confirms that the Constitutional Framers meant to adopt the common law understanding of “natural born.” On May 22, 1789, James Madison, the principal drafter of the Constitution, himself stated in Congress that the United States used the place of birth rather than parentage:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
Sixth, other evidence confirms that the Constitutional Framers meant to adopt the common law understanding of “natural born.” On May 22, 1789, James Madison, the principal drafter of the Constitution, himself stated in Congress that the United States used the place of birth rather than parentage:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
In short, the text, history, canons of interpretation, contemporaneous
dictionaries, and other evidence strongly indicate that by “natural born citizen” the
Constitution meant someone who was a natural born citizen at common law,
meaning someone who was born either (a) in a United States territory or (b) to a
U.S. official serving his country abroad. Contrary to the Cruz brief, see Cruz Brief
at 33, this understanding is entirely consistent with the common understanding that
John McCain was a natural born citizen because McCain actually met both of these
grounds. John McCain was both (a) born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal
Zone) and (b) born to parents who were both U.S. soldiers serving their nation
abroad. However, the Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen” excludes
Ted Cruz because he was (a) born in Canada rather than a U.S. territory (b) to a father who was not a U.S. citizen and to a mother who was a private U.S. citizen
who was not serving for the U.S. in Canada.
http://tinyurl.com/zerghgy
* 2 John 9: Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.