Tuesday, April 14, 2015


Shocker: Anti-Birther Ann Coulter Goes 
Birther; Jabs Professor Alan Dershowitz


Ann Coulter on Ted Cruz: Look, I don't want everyone calling in yelling at me. But, I don't know if he can be President. ... I don't care what Dershowitz says. He (Cruz) is what the birthers accused Barack Obama of being. Ted Cruz actually did only have one American parent, one non-American parent, and he was born in Canada.

Coulter notes that if Cruz gets the nomination the Democrats will go after his Article II ineligibility.

Before being diverted from the topic she says don't forget it voters!

AUDIO HERE:
( Audio via Larry Kudlow. Hat tip Harold. )

Team Cruz thus far raised 31 million dollars even though he clearly is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" as constitutionally required to be President under the United States Constitution. Which is still the Law of the Land.

How is raising funds for an office you're legally not eligible to hold not fraud?

This could get eerily similar to the Abdul Hassan saga, which isn't over.

As U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan noted in his 2012 ruling:

In July 2011, Hassan requested an advisory opinion from the FEC concerning the application of the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031-9042 (“Matching Payment Act”), to Hassan’s presidential campaign. On September 2, 2011, the FEC issued its response, in which it stated that Hassan is not eligible to receive matching funds under the Matching Payment Act because he is not a natural born citizen. This ruling did not address the Fund Act, but according to Plaintiff, the logic and reasoning of the FEC’s opinion would lead to the conclusion that Hassan similarly is ineligible to receive funds under the Fund Act. [...] 
For this reason, the challenge presented here differs from Hassan’s other lawsuits, which challenge a number of states and state authorities for not permitting Hassan to be listed on the election ballot. [...] 
Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. [...] 
Plaintiff has not pointed to any such manifest intent or irreconcilable conflict, and therefore he has not carried the high burden necessary to demonstrate that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed. Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid. See Schneider v. Rusk,377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”); see also Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S.654, 658 (1946) (same); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S.665, 673-674 (1944) (same). 
Plaintiff essentially asks this Court to declare that a provision of the Constitution is itself unconstitutional. It is beyond this Court’s authority to do so. “[T]his Court lacks the power to grant the relief sought because the Court, as interpreter and enforcer of the words of the Constitution, is not empowered to strike the document’s text on the basis that it is offensive to itself or is in some way internally inconsistent.” 
Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail. [...] Judge Emmet Sullivan.

In 2013 a three judge panel affirmed the above ruling that the Article II requirement was not repealed.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 2013 ruling:

To the extent appellant maintains that Article II, Section I, clause 5 of the United States Constitution has been implicitly repealed to the extent it bars naturalized citizens such as himself from holding the office of President, appellant failed to state a claim for relief. Appellant cites no authority to support his contention that a constitutional provision can be implicitly repealed, nor has he shown the natural-born citizen requirement is in irreconcilable conflict with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or that those amendments “cover[ ] the whole subject” of the requirement and are “clearly intended as a substitute.” [...] USCA

If you recall the Harvard Law Review propaganda piece claims Cruz is eligible due to a defunct Naturalization Act.

They basically admit Cruz is at the very least a "naturalized citizen" and not a "natural born Citizen" as required.