Constitutional Emergency





By J.B. Williams
March 29, 2015










2. One must be at least 35 years of age







Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Cruz: “I would agree.”







Ted made a huge mistake… He messed with Texas!












The key opinion in the entire legal wordsmithing document is this…






















© 2015 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit home page.

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing



Web site 1:

Web site 2:


Views: 918

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Holman... I think it's sad when a person would throw out our constitution for a person he thinks can restore our nation. I'd like to know what proof you have that he can do that first of all because I see none except since his teenage years he's on record saying he wants to rule the universe. The boy that would be king... I thought one of the goals of PFA was to restore our nation to the constitution? So my only conclusion is that you also feel Cruz is a NBC.. If that's true you have to also believe that Obama is a NBC also...

Michael--I CHALLENGE YOU--show us in the Constitution where it actually says what a "natural born" citizen is. There is NO LEGAL STATUTE to base a challenge before the Supreme Court on--an egregious mistake for the Founding Fathers not to clarify their meaning with a simple sentence to define their intent. Yeah, we can all argue or debate what they wrote and intended--and I'm CONVINCED they intended BOTH parents to be American citizens of any candidate born, it's not specifically defined in any legal document. THEY KNEW what the intent was in their own time period, 225 years later Congress has never addressed it and at least FOUR U.S. presidents who wouldn't meet "natural born" with 'two citizen parents', have served AFTER that first generation of citizens SINCE adoption of the Constitution. As long as Congress is willing to accept CITIZENSHIP as the qualifier for eligibility--WE can't challenge it in Court unless the STATES take up the challenge and it probably wouldn't get a hearing before the Court since some have already served as president that violated the principle we'd be challenging for. Remember--CONGRESS makes the laws, NOT "WE THE PEOPLE".

Cruz born in Canada from an American mother , father a Cuban .
By the Law of the Land : Born in the U.S.A. or U.S. Territories ( Canal Zone , Panama ; McCain ) , Military Bases , U.S. Vessels ; From Mother and Father both U.S. Citizens.

Canada never been U.S. Territory .

Rubio , Born in the U.S.A. from Cuban parents ; Rubio was 5 Years of age when his parents became Citizens ; Therefore he`s not qualified . 

BUT--Obama was born to American mother, he's considered a citizen despite FACT--his mother SHOULD NOT have given him citizenship--SHE FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  The Supreme Court declined to accept ANY challenge to Obama's eligibility---under our current legal requirement--"American citizenship" is the simple requirement.  Ted CRUZ IS an American CITIZEN--his mother met LEGAL requirements for him to receive AUTOMATIC citizenship under that Federal Act of 1952.  The U.S. Supreme Court considers Obama to be an American citizen and eligible--for that same reason--they WILL NOT accept a challenge to either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio's eligibility since BOTH are U.S. citizens. Right or wrong matters NOT to them--there is NO LEGAL STATUTE to define "natural born", hence it is in the hands of CONGRESS--the body of politicians WE elect to represent US and write laws of the land.

Can you show me a Birth Certificate that proves Cruz is a citizen of the United States?  When Cruz was born there was no dual citizenship in Canada.  When did he become a United States Citizen?  I would love a date on that...

Dear God, you are stunningly ignorant and stuck on stupid!  There have been 4 SCOTUS cases that indirectly address the NBC issue - again, I say - EDUCATE YOURSELF instead of continuing to look the fool!!!

Harry/JB Williams, hate to disagree with you HOWEVER, there is NO legal statute that DEFINES what "natural born" really is. We KNOW the Founding Fathers referred to both Blackstone's Common Law and Vattel's Nation of Laws when constructing our Constitution but at NO point, NO place in the U.S. Constitution did they explicitly spell out what the original intent was. Personally I feel, Rubio, Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Obama are INELIGIBLE, period--no question about it. BUT--we've had numerous presidents who served that would NOT meet "natural born"--Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J Quincy Adams and Jackson were ALL British subjects when born in the U.S. to parents most of whom who were also British subjects. IF we allow them exemption for being from the FIRST generation of presidents after adoption of the Constitution--we can't overlook that James Buchanan and Chester Arthur were both born to Irish immigrant fathers, Woodrow Wilson was born to an Irish immigrant father AND Canadian mother and Herbert Hoover was born to German immigrant father AND Canadian mother.  So, YOU can see--we have over 100 YEARS of "precedent" of American presidents who would NOT meet "natural born" IF that definition REQUIRED the father to be American citizen--OR if that requirement meant "TWO CITIZEN PARENTS". For MOST of man's existence, the FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP dictated that of his CHILD--as did the lineage of the family, inheritance of the family lineage and also the family name. THAT has only seen changes at beginning in the 20th century.  Currently U.S. CITIZENSHIP determines the eligibility of the candidates since NO case concerning Obama's eligibility has been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court--and I REFER YOU to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (part of Title 8 U.S. Code) which specifically DECLARES TED CRUZ TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN:  (1) IF he was born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 ( Cruz was born in 1970)  (2) CRUZ's parents MUST be married (they were) (3) ONE parent MUST be a citizen of U.S. (MOTHER Eleanor was)  (4) His mother lived at least TEN years in the U.S. before his birth  (5) a MINIMUM of five years of those ten, lived in U.S. AFTER her 14th birthday.  Under those REQUIREMENTS---Ted Cruz AUTOMATICALLY INHERITED HER U.S. CITIZENSHIP.  We can all argue about the merits of "natural born"--but it has NEVER seen lawful definition with any legal statute. For that reason, the Supreme Court is likely to REJECT any challenge without an ACT of Congress and an Amendment to actually restrict the term to a precise meaning backed up by research from the Founding Fathers to provide clarity for THEIR beliefs. I'm convinced the Founding Fathers viewed 'dual citizenship' with extremely negative feelings and would WANT "two citizen parents" to define natural born--unfortunately their oversight has left a big hole for liberals/progressives/marxists--whatever delineation you want to call these mind numbed robots, to use for their own purpose. Don't forget, since 2003 BOTH parties have attempted to define or remove "natural born" at least EIGHT times from Article II, Section 1 the U.S. Constitution--conveniently forgetting only WE THE PEOPLE CAN AMEND THAT DOCUMENT!

You are exactly right, we never had any US law or precedent defining exact requirements to be a natural born citizen. Vattel's "law of nations" isn't law at all, it's philosophy, and he wasn't even an american, nor did he live here. Also quoting cases like Miner vs Happersett are pointless because it had nothing to do with defining a NBC and only mentioned the facts of the woman's birth, didn't state which of the facts were required to be NBC and even if it did, it wouldn't matter because the ruling was on her voting rights, not status as a citizen. 

I do like your arguement just as I liked it in 2008 when we fought to get a court (any court) to enter a ruling and lost badly. The courts have all spoken, congress has spoken and we aren't going to win this anytime soon nor is it even in the top 1000 problems we face today and the time to have done this would have been before 2008, because now we do have both law and legal precedent. Congress settled the birth on us soil arguement and it wasn't challenged, so that is only an issue if it's the only way citizenship is obtained, and we have obama, a precedent of having a president with only one citizen parent and there is no way the supreme court is going to unseat obama in his last year, so the current defacto law is there are only two classes of citizenship. Those who were naturalized by the courts, and those who obtained citizenship at birth, and the courts now seem to believe the natural act of birth that grants you citizenship is what Natural Born means. 

I know some here don't believe me and feel they an discern the intent of the founders, but so can the other 300 million people in america and there is no law stating your opinion is more valid than anyone else's. The courts and election people all see cruz and rubio as Natural Born and there is nothing we can do about it, or at least not anytime soon. 

I also find the timing of all these posts suspect, not just here but dozens making the same argument we were all  posting and sharing in 2008, it didn't work then and it won't work now so I suspect there is a hidden agenda to get cruz and rubio supporters to turn from who they think is best qualified and move to the huge elephant that this post is really about. If that's the point you're really trying to make here you really should just come out and say it and ask people to vote for your guy. I still haven't decided, but post like this won't sway me and now with the loss of justice scalia I'm far more worried about the 2nd amendment than anything else and of course who replaces scalia is a major part of that as well as whichever justice is next. Of all the candidates out there which ones have a proven track record of standing up against pressure from democrats and which ones have a record of appeasement? which ones have always been a strong conservative and which ones convert to conservatism just in time to run as president on the gop ticket?Which have a history of fighting and which have a history of negotiating?   Both skills are important, but on the 2nd amendment and now the supreme court nomination we cannot negotiate at all, it's time to make obama and reids inflexibility look mild, then once we lock down the supreme court  and make it clear we will only negotiate if they back off of gun control completely. Of those left in the running the only one's I'd consider voting for are cruz, carson and trump, all for very different reasons and there is no question which one I'd want picking the replacement for Justice Scalia. I also liked Rand Paul, but he's not in the picture anymore. We also need to consider which can beat the democrat nomination which is no longer clear if that will be hillary or bernie. I believe both will destroy us, but I think I'd rather be destroyed by a fool like sanders than the pure evil that is hillary. Afterall only a total fool would go full blown socialism on a country that is virtually bankrupt already, but he is so convinced in the boogie man who is hoarding all our money and he can stop them and money will flow to everyone.     

We have a real shitstorm coming and the last thing we need to worry about is the lost battle over natural born citizen and the last thing we want to do is convince people to stay home and help a democrat get elected.

I have said for a couple of years.. We have to make sure we don't do the same thing the democrats did.. They would love that, therefore EVERYTHING obama has done to our great Country, would become REAL law, thanks to the Republicans..Otherwise, it could all become null and void....

I don't have to read this article. I have been saying for a couple of yrs Cruz and Rubio are not eligible to run! Yet the Tea Party folks are backing Cruz. We didn't stand out in the streets to commit the same crime as the Dem's have, did we?

Michelle--there is NO legal definition of "natural born" to restrict their qualification!  Despite being mentioned in the Constitution--that was an egregious error by Founders NOT to specifically clarify their words. SEVEN of first presidents were ALL British subjects when born to mostly British citizen parents. IF you exempt them as first generation AFTER adoption of Constitution--James Buchanan and Chester Arthur had IRISH immigrant FATHERS. Woodrow Wilson had Irish immigrant father and Canadian mother, Herbert Hoover was born to German father and Canadian mother.  THEY'VE ALREADY SERVED and NOT met "natural born" IF you mean it to be 'born to citizen PARENTS'!  That's OVER 100 YEARS of 'precedent' already in U.S. history and NO legal challenge from either Congress or Federal Courts. TED CRUZ IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!  The Immigration and Nationality ACT of 1952 gave him AUTOMATIC U.S. CITIZENSHIP from his mother IF she met the following obligations: (1) HE was born between Dec. 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (he was born in 1970)  (2) PARENTS were MARRIED (yes)  (3) ONE parent was a U.S. citizen (Mother Eleanor was)  (4) SHE lived in the U.S. at least TEN years before his birth  (5) SHE lived in U.S. minimum FIVE years after her 14th birthday.  Ted Cruz IS an American citizen and the Court will NOT likely accept any challenge to his eligibility. One thing the Court WILL DO--they will NOT overturn their own decision and rejecting any challenge to Obama's eligibility demands the same for Cruz or Rubio. 

Read this one, maybe it will help you.. Read it slowly, let it sink in..

Natural Birth Citizenship is clearly explained based on facts and reasonable conclusion.

Reasonable Conclusion in my book would be READING COMPREHENSION.. Why would there be two


have been thinking about this so long, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it was hanging off your noses.

Think, for Gods Sake..



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.


Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts



© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service