Dakota Beacon

Last week, pundit and prolific political author Ann Coulter repudiated New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for the actions of his temporary Senate nominee, Jeff Chiesa, in first voting in favor of cutting off debate on the huge, omnibus Senate immigration bill and then following up with a vote for that deadly bill.  Even as recently as the cozy “Jersey Shore summit” this Spring, where Christie locked arms with best pal Obama, Coulter continued to defend her boy.  Back in 2012 she warned Republicans that if they didn’t see the light and put Christie on the presidential ticket they’d end up with that loser Romney.  Well, she was right about Romney, but now even she admits she was also wrong about Christie.  And about time, we’d say.

But that isn’t all she said about the matter.  She went a little further and endorsed Ted Cruz as our next great hope to redeem the party and right our ship of state’s course.  We need to stop right now and examine this prescription closely.  Many Republican conservatives and libertarians are enthralled with the charismatic young Texas Senator.  He has been fearless in his defense of American ideals and the American national interest.  He has been first and foremost a defender of our Constitution.  And hereby hangs an interesting tale and with it a dilemma for those of us who love our country and its rich heritage and wish to pass it on to our own children. 

A recurring issue with this country’s First Enemy, Barack Obama, is his failure to show any convincing evidence – much less “proof” - of his qualification to hold the office of President in the first place.  If he were attempting to secure employment in a WalMart as a door greeter, presumably he would be required to successfully pass the “e-verify” test.  He couldn’t.  Nothing adds up here.  His college transcripts are as well-guarded a secret as the whispered Venona Papers.  His birth certificate has been demonstrably faked, photo-shopped and is indefensible.  In providing the phony certificate he has also perjured himself.  His Social Security number actually belongs to another man (who happened to die in Hawaii the same week Obama was born, during a time when his grandmother was working in the state Department of Vital Statistics).  His political mentor was Bill Ayers, his guidebook was authored by Saul Alinsky.  Schooled during his formative years in Indonesia and matriculating as a “foreign student” in college, he is an excellent example of just why the Framers were right about foreign influence at the head of our own government.   His aim was never to lead this country, it was to “transform” it – into something not American and without reference to our American heritage.

The point of this seeming digression is that had we applied the legal requirements of our Constitution to this man’s presidential quest he would still be an Illinois senator and not the national embarrassment he has been elected to become.  Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President  . . . . “  Our Constitution is clear and very specific about this point, and the result with the current illegitimate holder of the office tends to bolster the Founders’ decision and wisdom on this point.  We have the results of a foreign-born, alien-cultured person in our highest office.  Those results include the complete failure of foreign policy, destabilization of our economy and currency and a relentless undermining of our culture and heritage by a man who considers himself an alien and not an American.  His disdain and that of his wife for our flag and our heritage is notable.

So what has this to do with the next Republican ticket and Ann Coulter?  If we are to follow the Constitution which Ted Cruz wishes to uphold and to which he has given eloquent service to this point, we must proceed very carefully when discussing the placing of him on a presidential ticket. 

America must not permit another concession to those who demean our Constitution.  We already have some “low-information” people sending chain emails to each other excitedly telling everyone to campaign for a Constitutional Convention – the surest and swiftest road to a one-world, totalitarian black hole we could devise.  They tell us they need only two or three more states and we can have one!  Presumably run by George Soros, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Marco Rubio.  You can just about imagine what this would bring.  Just substitute the Monsters Inc. we now have destroying us in spite of our Constitution for the same bunch deleting the very essence of the work of our Founding Fathers.  Excuse me if I don’t want to jump on that bandwagon.  I prefer the document which has guided us through the past 224 years.  Now we have a case of our strongest Conservative voice being considered for President of the United States.  Trouble is, does he qualify Constitutionally? 

See, if we are to defend our Founding Document we must honor its contents in particularity.  This cannot be more clear than in the case of who is qualified to be our President.  We cannot do, as W did – violate the Constitution in order to “save” it.  That does not compute now and it didn’t then. 

So, just what is the definition of a “natural born citizen”?  We should consult not a popular conception of what we think it should be, or what is to us a simple logic, but rather the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.  One of the sources these men used in considering and formulating the development of what was to become our Constitution was Emerich  de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758).  Here is an excerpt from research of Alexander Gofen (http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm):

A "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused). This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for presidency - and only for presidency, being clearly distinguished from ordinary citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in any later statutes, because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source "Law of Nations" is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular - against piracies and felonies on high seas).

According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that:

Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country. Vattel's own note on the margin of his book refers to the Roman law: NEMO PLUS JURIS TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning "No one can give more rights than he himself has" (by Dr. A. Altec). Except for Obama/Soetoro, the Vattel definition had been always applied, the last precedent being the US Senate resolution 511 in 2008 (also here and here) acknowledging Sen. McCain as a natural born citizen.

So how are we to deal with the issues presented by Ted Cruz?  His father was a Cuban citizen, a refugee from the Castro regime, his mother was born in America of Irish and Italian national parents.  He was himself born in Calgary.  None of this is to disparage Cruz or his family in the least.  Ted Cruz is perhaps the best of the best right now, which makes this issue important if also painful.  Is he, in fact, qualified under Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5, to hold the office of President?  This issue must not be deferred!

The greatest harm can occur if a huge head of steam forms under the candidacy of a Constitutionalist hero who cannot, by that document’s authority, assume this office.  If we can establish that Cruz is actually fully – fully and unquestionably – qualified, more power to him and his supporters.  I will be among them.  But we cannot fudge this or bend the rules to fit the circumstance.  That is what is meant by a “nation of laws and not of men”.  Are we a nation of “circumstance” or personality?  Or are we, truly, in fact, at all times, a nation of laws?  A nomination of Ted Cruz to the Republican ticket absent a thorough vetting on this subject would witness an explosion in the “birther” population among Democrats.  Suddenly this would be their redeeming issue.  Think about it.  Suddenly the Republican party will have given its own imprimatur to Obama’s eligibility for once and all, but the Democrats wouldn’t be bound by it!  And how, will we find solid ground on which to defend the Constitution?  It would be clearly established that we believe in a government of men and not laws, that we do not feel bound by Constitutional restraints. 

If Cruz cannot without question fulfill the requirement of our Constitution, no matter how we might admire him, no matter how much we might think we need him, he must take himself out of contention for this office at once.  There is strong legal opinion on the definition of “natural born citizen”.  A man born in Canada of a father who was a Cuban citizen and a first-generation American mother is not to be assumed qualified, no matter the other issues. 

If Coulter and other people involved in the formation of public opinion are to be responsible in their work they must figure this one out before it goes any further.  Cruz, no matter how fine a man, no matter how right on the vital issues of the day, no matter how charismatic or courageous, can only harm America if his candidacy sucks the oxygen out of those of men or women who are qualified.  If we open the door to violation of our Constitution in this instance we can hardly defend it in others. 

Please, Senator Cruz, step away from this effort and renounce it unless you are completely prepared to defend it on Constitutional grounds.  And please, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin and whoever else out there is boosting this campaign, hold off and establish the truth and propriety in addition to your faith in Cruz and his other principles.  It has been suggested that Cruz could be our best ever Attorney General.  Think what he could conceivably do to repair the damage of Eric Holder.  But what we must not do is squander his rare abilities and talent by putting him and the Republican Party in the untenable position of again “violating the Constitution in order to ‘save’ it”.  There is no such thing as “somewhat” pregnant.  There is no such thing as “more-or-less Constitutionally qualified”.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition, as well as a former member of the Republican Party of Minnesota and North Dakota.  Please visit her website at http:// fromtherampart.webs.com.