View Full Version : Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all ineligible to be President - Not Natural Born Citizens of the US
Interesting article.
Of course, if this matter is pursued, everyone will know Obama was ineligible.
The Constitution means nothing anymore.
http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd636.htm
Cruz was born in Canada. Jindal was born in Lousiana and Rubio born in Florida. I'm sure their birth certificates are as good as our current President's birth certificate.
If Cruz was born in Canada and that's not disputed, then why the Hell is he even in the running?
Aloha_Shooter
11-30-2015, 15:27
If Cruz was born in Canada and that's not disputed, then why the Hell is he even in the running?
Because his mother was American which made him American at birth -- the same as my brother and sister who were born at a US military base overseas. He has the most traditionally American views and is the most knowledgeable about the Constitution of any of the candidates running so of course people want to attack him for his Americanism ... [Bang]
UncleDave
11-30-2015, 15:53
Military bases like embassies are legally American soil.
Cruz's father was working in the oil industry in Canada. This is not as simple as John McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone, however it does appear that he is qualified to run for President.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/
I love it. They want to investigate these men but not one of their own.
Because his mother was American which made him American at birth -- the same as my brother and sister who were born at a US military base overseas. He has the most traditionally American views and is the most knowledgeable about the Constitution of any of the candidates running so of course people want to attack him for his Americanism ... [Bang]
Cruz's father was working in the oil industry in Canada. This is not as simple as John McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone, however it does appear that he is qualified to run for President.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/
Cruz's father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his Ted's birth. Just as Obama's father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.
A common interpretation as to why the "natural born citizen" language is included in the eligibility clause is to prevent split allegiances - as we currently are witnessing with Obama and the musloid states.
"Natural Born Citizen" has yet to be taken up by the Supreme Court for definition, though many websites will quote the Naturalization law of 1790 that use the term "natural born citizen." However, the Naturalization law of 1795 repeals the 1790 version and removed the "natural born" portion of that statement - many websites leave this fact out of their argument.
ETA: Naturalization law of 1790 and 1795: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
There is a legal difference between "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" and the courts need to take up the definition before another usurper gets elected.
Regardless of their supposed conservative values, I'm personally tired of hearing Cruz and Rubio talk about their roots and pushing for increased immigration. They both appear to have, and are proud of, their split allegiances.
OK, didn't know there was a military base involved. Got nothing against the guy, just wondering.
Carry on.
It's the same rule for someone who happens to be born on foreign soil to American parent(s). You can still be a natural born US citizen if your parent(s) travel abroad, while your mother is pregnant, and you happen to be born in [Insert country here]. The article was clearly written by a conservative, which is very disturbing because of the fact that it's more "eating our own" BS that folks like Kasich and Trump have been doing. Same team, same fight, let's try to remember who the real enemy is here (hint: it ain't a fellow conservative).
NOTE: My argument above is in no way stating my firm belief that Donald Trump is a fellow conservative. [Coffee]
It's the same rule for someone who happens to be born on foreign soil to American parent(s). You can still be a natural born US citizen if your parent(s) travel abroad, while your mother is pregnant, and you happen to be born in [Insert country here]. The article was clearly written by a conservative, which is very disturbing because of the fact that it's more "eating our own" BS that folks like Kasich and Trump have been doing. Same team, same fight, let's try to remember who the real enemy is here (hint: it ain't a fellow conservative).
NOTE: My argument above is in no way stating my firm belief that Donald Trump is a fellow conservative. [Coffee]
Bypassing the Constitution is unlawful - regardless of political affiliation.
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-03-2015, 10:19
It is the distinction between someone born a citizen and someone that buys or becomes a citizen. Why is that hard to understand? You don't want a foreign king coming here and being elected president.
If people are going to get hung up on 'natural', why not say no Caesarean, only vaginal births; without use of IVF or an epidural saddle block. And you have to prove you used the missionary position for conception. That narrows down the pool a bit.
legaleagle
12-06-2015, 20:37
Perhaps it is like the gender crisis - today I feel like a natural born citizen, therefore I am.
It is the distinction between someone born a citizen and someone that buys or becomes a citizen. Why is that hard to understand? You don't want a foreign king coming here and being elected president.
If people are going to get hung up on 'natural', why not say no Caesarean, only vaginal births; without use of IVF or an epidural saddle block. And you have to prove you used the missionary position for conception. That narrows down the pool a bit.
You are mis-informed.
You don't want someone who's parent is not a citizen.
Just have a look at Obama's parents and his early childhood and it will explain why non-citizen parents are a bad idea for the top position in the U.S.
He is a Musloid first and an American citizen second.
Now take a look at how often Rubio and Cruz speak proudly of their non-US-citizen fathers.
It is not hard to understand the purpose of the amendment - especially in light of our last 7 years.
You are mis-informed.
You don't want someone who's parent is not a citizen.
Just have a look at Obama's parents and his early childhood and it will explain why non-citizen parents are a bad idea for the top position in the U.S.
He is a Musloid first and an American citizen second.
Now take a look at how often Rubio and Cruz speak proudly of their non-US-citizen fathers.
It is not hard to understand the purpose of the amendment - especially in light of our last 7 years.
That is just a single example. The Rubio and Cruz examples obviously don't count since being proud of someone is in no way unpatriotic. Patriotism isn't something that one is born with, regardless of where they are born.
That is just a single example. The Rubio and Cruz examples obviously don't count since being proud of someone is in no way unpatriotic. Patriotism isn't something that one is born with, regardless of where they are born.
It is the only example because it was the first time an ineligible candidate was allowed to run and was elected.
If you don't like the amendment, work to have it changed.
I'm only pointing out what the constitution says and why our founders included it.
As if fundamentally transforming America was not enough of an example.
Ineligible means ineligible no mater how patriotic you are. We have no lack of eligible people to hold the office, and we have a constitution for very important reasons.
I was making no comment on the amendment, just that it seemed like you were implying that one cannot properly love this country if they have a parent that was born some where else. I've got no qualms with the Constitution or the amendments.
I was making no comment on the amendment, just that it seemed like you were implying that one cannot properly love this country if they have a parent that was born some where else. I've got no qualms with the Constitution or the amendments.
Fair enough.
I believe I explained it more thoroughly in post #8
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html
WE'RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW
January 13, 2016
If Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen," eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama's mother was a U.S. Citizen.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he's eligible to be president, then so was Obama -- even if he'd been born in Kenya.
As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)
Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a "natural born citizen." (Never let the kids at Kinko's do your legal research.)
I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy -- as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html (http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html)).
The Constitution says: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The phrase "natural born" is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin's Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin -- a Scot -- could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.
It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance -- not his Scottish blood -- that determined his rights.
Not everyone born on the king's soil would be "natural born." Calvin's Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be "natural" subjects, despite being "born upon his soil." (Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.
Relying on English common law for the meaning of "natural born," the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents" was left to Congress "in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."
Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
That would make no sense if Cruz were a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." (There's an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn't that.)
So Cruz was born a citizen -- under our naturalization laws -- but is not a "natural born citizen" -- under our Constitution.
I keep reading the arguments in favor of Cruz being a "natural born citizen," but don't see any history, any Blackstone Commentaries, any common law or Supreme Court cases.
One frequently cited article in the Harvard Law Review cites the fact that the "U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency."
Sen. McCain probably was natural born -- but only because he was born on a U.S. military base to a four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, and thus is analogous to the ambassador's child described in Calvin's Case. (Sorry, McCain haters -- oh wait! That's me!)
But a Senate resolution -- even one passed "unanimously"! -- is utterly irrelevant. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the court's job is to ascertain "objective law," not determine "some kind of social consensus," which I believe is the job of the judges on "American Idol." (On the other hand, if Congress has the power to define constitutional terms, how about a resolution declaring that The New York Times is not "speech"?)
Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a "natural born citizen." This is constitutional illiteracy. "Natural born" is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an "active judge" in legal terminology.
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.
As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: "It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship."
The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born -- except the part about not being natural born.
Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)"
Unless we're all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a "natural born citizen."
Take it like a man, Ted -- and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.
COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER
pResident Wetshispants is a citizen and eligible. Cruz is a citizen and eligible. Case closed. Trump is foolish to bring this up, Cruz didn't try to cover anything up like obama did.
HoneyBadger
01-14-2016, 21:07
Cruz is our best chance against Trump right now... Do you really want Trump?
Cruz is our best chance against Trump right now... Do you really want Trump?
Do you really want Cruz? Not stumping for Trump, but Cruz is caustic as well. Too early to choose.
sent from somwhere
Cruz is our best chance against Trump right now... Do you really want Trump?
If he is in fact ineligible, it doesn't matter whether or not I or anyone else wants him.
It is not a matter of how good a job he could do as POTUS. If you believe in defending the Constitution, ineligible means ineligible.
HoneyBadger
01-14-2016, 21:35
Do you really want Cruz? Not stumping for Trump, but Cruz is caustic as well. Too early to choose.
sent from somwhere
In a false dichotomy of the two, I would prefer Cruz. I think Cruz is a better leader, better politician, and consistently represents my values better than Trump. I think Cruz would represent America internationally far better than Trump.
HoneyBadger
01-14-2016, 21:37
If he is in fact ineligible, it doesn't matter whether or not I or anyone else wants him.
It is not a matter of how good a job he could do as POTUS. If you believe in defending the Constitution, ineligible means ineligible.
I'm not at all conflicted about this because I believe that he is eligible.
Teufelhund
01-15-2016, 11:46
My wife was born in Jakarta. Her father is Texan, and her mother is Austrian, making her a citizen of both the US and the EU from birth; she has two legitimate passports. You can play the semantics game if you want about what "natural born" means, but the way it has been interpreted by the federal government since the First Congress means Cruz is eligible.
My wife was born in Jakarta. Her father is Texan, and her mother is Austrian, making her a citizen of both the US and the EU from birth; she has two legitimate passports. You can play the semantics game if you want about what "natural born" means, but the way it has been interpreted by the federal government since the First Congress means Cruz is eligible.
Not true
Fact - Cruz is eligible.
Does not matter what anyone thinks, wishes, or opines.
Fact - Cruz is eligible.
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/cruz-iowa.jpg?w=640
Fact - Cruz is eligible.
Does not matter what anyone thinks, wishes, or opines.
Fact - Cruz is eligible.
Personally, I wish Cruz was eligible.
Cruz held a dual citizenship with Canada and the US up until May 14 2014.
Ensuring the elected official to the highest office in the US does not have any split allegiances is precisely why the "Natural Born Citizen" clause exists.
"Natural Born" and "Naturalized" are two different classes of US citizenship. They share all the same rights and privileges, EXCEPT for Presidential eligibility.
It is what it is, and that is a fact.
We may soon see what the court thinks:
Texas Attorney Files Eligibility Lawsuit Against Ted Cruz…
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/15/texas-attorney-files-eligibility-lawsuit-against-ted-cruz/
Again, I wish Cruz was eligible. I think he'd make a good President or Vice President. But, I'm not willing to go down the road the Dems did in 2008 and ignore the Constitution in order to get him elected.
Cruz' mother was an American citizen in Canada when Cruz was born so Cruz is an American citizen by birth.
Just another way of looking at this: At least the GOP is having this conversation before they nominate a candidate, rather than never having the conversation, hiding any possible evidence, and ridiculing anyone who dares to raise the question.
Some people are just too afraid to be proven wrong.
Cruz' mother was an American citizen in Canada when Cruz was born so Cruz is an American citizen by birth.
Yes, a "Naturalized" American citizen by birth.
ETA: Cruz is also a Canadian citizen by birth.
From:
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization
You May Qualify for Naturalization if:
You have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meet all other eligibility requirements, please visit our Path to Citizenship page for more information.
You have been a permanent resident for 3 years or more and meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen, please visit our Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens page for more information.
You have qualifying service in the U.S. armed forces and meet all other eligibility requirements. Visit the Military section of our website.
Your child may qualify for naturalization if you are a U.S. citizen, the child was born outside the U.S., the child is currently residing outside the U.S., and all other eligibility requirements are met. Visit our Citizenship Through Parents page for more information.
ETA: This has been suggested as the primary reason Obama insists he was born on US soil. If he was born in Kenya, he would have fallen under the above naturalization clause and been ineligible. Also why his school and passport records are no where to be found - possible dual citizenship in his past - so the theory goes.
Yes, a "Naturalized" American citizen by birth.
Hmmmmmm skeptical, this is just another ploy by the establishment to derail Cruz' presidential bid.
All this bickering about "natural born" etc is really depressing.
Hmmmmmm skeptical, this is just another ploy by the establishment to derail Cruz' presidential bid.
I cannot disagree.
I'm not at all conflicted about this because I believe that he is eligible.
And he is.
Personally, I wish Cruz was eligible.
Cruz held a dual citizenship with Canada and the US up until May 14 2014.
Ensuring the elected official to the highest office in the US does not have any split allegiances is precisely why the "Natural Born Citizen" clause exists.
"Natural Born" and "Naturalized" are two different classes of US citizenship. They share all the same rights and privileges, EXCEPT for Presidential eligibility.
It is what it is, and that is a fact.
We may soon see what the court thinks:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/15/texas-attorney-files-eligibility-lawsuit-against-ted-cruz/
Again, I wish Cruz was eligible. I think he'd make a good President or Vice President. But, I'm not willing to go down the road the Dems did in 2008 and ignore the Constitution in order to get him elected.
He is eligible. There are 4 ways one is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States:
-Born to two US Citizen parents in the US.
-Born to one US Citizen parent in the US.
-Born to one or both US Citizen parent(s) regardless of location of birth (Cruz, Obama, McCain).
-Born to foreign citizen in the US (Anchor baby).
These are all the accepted definitions that have yet to be challenged in the SCOTUS. Obama is eligible regardless of if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his mother is a US Citizen and thus he is a Natural Born US Citizen. It would be the same as if your mother was a US Citizen (irrelevant if your father was or wasn't), went on vacation and gave birth to you in a foreign country. Make sense?
And he is.
He is eligible. There are 4 ways one is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States:
-Born to two US Citizen parents in the US.
-Born to one US Citizen parent in the US.
-Born to one or both US Citizen parent(s) regardless of location of birth (Cruz, Obama, McCain).
-Born to foreign citizen in the US (Anchor baby).
These are all the accepted definitions that have yet to be challenged in the SCOTUS. Obama is eligible regardless of if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his mother is a US Citizen and thus he is a Natural Born US Citizen. It would be the same as if your mother was a US Citizen (irrelevant if your father was or wasn't), went on vacation and gave birth to you in a foreign country. Make sense?
An anchor baby can run for POTUS? I don't think so.
I wish it were as simple as you have stated. However, it is not.
Please provide any legal sources used to back up your understanding?
Anyone know how he gets an official sign off that ends the speculation? To me, I see him as eligible and the only reason this is coming up is to vet him now as opposed to later.
Sounds like he needs to get ahead of this thing and get an official answer asap just to make this issue go away, but I am afraid the only way he can get a final answer is SCOTUS which isn't the most time efficient route.
Any other options?
Teufelhund
01-15-2016, 16:51
Not true
The UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT disagrees with you. But please, tell us how this policy, on the US Department of State's website is incorrect.
http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Bailey Guns
01-15-2016, 19:04
Let's see, who to believe? A poster on an internet gun forum or accomplished attorneys writing for the Harvard Law Review? Call me crazy but I'm gonna go with Harvard Law Review...
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
The UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT disagrees with you. But please, tell us how this policy, on the US Department of State's website is incorrect.
http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html
Ok, one more time:
No one is arguing whether or not Cruz was a US citizen at the time of his birth - He was and is.
The argument stems from the fact that there are two different "classes" of citizenship: "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." The only difference between members of these two classes is that one can run for POTUS and the other class cannot.
"Natural Born" = born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States to a citizen parent.
"Naturalized" = A statute or act of Congress confers citizenship to someone other than the "Natural Born" citizen.
Cruz was not born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States, therefore his citizenship, from the time of his birth, falls under the class of "Naturalized" because it required a legal statute to grant citizenship to children of US citizens born outside the US - as you posted above.
What you have posted above falls under "Naturalized," and therefore is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.
The subject has been brought up by the courts before:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,
(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)
such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.
Being a citizen at birth is not the same thing as being a "Natural Born" citizen.
Let's see, who to believe? A poster on an internet gun forum or accomplished attorneys writing for the Harvard Law Review? Call me crazy but I'm gonna go with Harvard Law Review...
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
I would not expect anyone to believe little ole me. That is why I have posted links and quotes from several reliable sources, to include court cases, throughout this discussion.
And let's not forget, Obama was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as editor for a year, and Elena Kagan served as supervising editor at one time.
I would not expect anyone to believe little ole me. That is why I have posted links and quotes from several reliable sources, to include court cases, throughout this discussion.
And let's not forget, Obama was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as editor for a year, and Elena Kagan served as supervising editor at one time.
I know that, I like links and stuff, I just don't see how they have any standing. I'd think these people would do a little research before filing suit, but that's just me.
I knew jugears was president but I didn't know that about the other 2.
Bailey Guns
01-15-2016, 20:11
I would not expect anyone to believe little ole me. That is why I have posted links and quotes from several reliable sources, to include court cases, throughout this discussion.
And let's not forget, Obama was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as editor for a year, and Elena Kagan served as supervising editor at one time.
Wasn't a slam directed towards you personally. Apologies if that's the way it came across. And I did read the links and such.
But the authors of that piece aren't Obama, Ginsburg or Kagan. Paul Klement is a former Solicitor General and is now a Georgetown University law professor. Katyal is also a GU professor of constitutional law and former acting Solicitor General. They aren't you're average late night TV lawyers.
In my opinion, the legal weight favoring Cruz far outweighs that against him.
I would expect the current SCOTUS to rule in favor of Cruz's / Rubio's eligibility to avoid opening a can of worms concerning Obama's eligibility.
I can't imagine what the implications would be if Obama was one day determined to have been ineligible.
I expect the subject will not make it into a court room because neither party wants it to.
Wasn't a slam directed towards you personally. Apologies if that's the way it came across. And I did read the links and such.
But the authors of that piece aren't Obama, Ginsburg or Kagan. Paul Klement is a former Solicitor General and is now a Georgetown University law professor. Katyal is also a GU professor of constitutional law and former acting Solicitor General. They aren't you're average late night TV lawyers.
In my opinion, the legal weight favoring Cruz far outweighs that against him.
[Beer]
It will at least be interesting to watch it all come to a head.
68Charger
01-15-2016, 20:32
I would expect the current SCOTUS to rule in favor of Cruz's / Rubio's eligibility to avoid opening a can of worms concerning Obama's eligibility.
I can't imagine what the implications would be if Obama was one day determined to have been ineligible.
I expect the subject will not make it into a court room because neither party wants it to.
I was coming here to post this ^^^^^^
what we think the law means is worth exactly Jack and shit... and Jack left town years ago.
The precedent was set by keeping the POSOTUS in the office... so that set the standard.... I could conceal my records, and my opponents could call a bunch of questions- but it doesn't mean anything... even if I am or am not a citizen. You're better off not releasing any records... (in the eyes of the Left, anyway- some of us still care)
Teufelhund
01-16-2016, 13:14
Ok, one more time:
No one is arguing whether or not Cruz was a US citizen at the time of his birth - He was and is.
The argument stems from the fact that there are two different "classes" of citizenship: "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." The only difference between members of these two classes is that one can run for POTUS and the other class cannot.
"Natural Born" = born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States to a citizen parent.
"Naturalized" = A statute or act of Congress confers citizenship to someone other than the "Natural Born" citizen.
Cruz was not born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States, therefore his citizenship, from the time of his birth, falls under the class of "Naturalized" because it required a legal statute to grant citizenship to children of US citizens born outside the US - as you posted above.
What you have posted above falls under "Naturalized," and therefore is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.
The subject has been brought up by the courts before:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Being a citizen at birth is not the same thing as being a "Natural Born" citizen.
I guess I didn't understand to what you were referring when you said "not true."
So what you're saying is that if a US Ambassador, posted in a foreign country, has a baby at the local hospital, that baby can never be president because he/she wasn't delivered on US soil. Does that sound right to you?
I still think you're wrong on this. A Naturalized citizen is one who immigrated here and has to submit to a formal process to become a citizen. A Natural born citizen is one who autonomously becomes a citizen through no action of their own (typically because one of their parents is a citizen). Actual constitutional scholars agree with this. I guess we will see if/when this lawsuit goes anywhere.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aloha_Shooter
01-18-2016, 13:03
Actually, yes, an anchor baby could run for POTUS much as you or I might hate the concept. Cruz was born a US citizen despite the locale of his birth by virtue of his mother's citizenship. That's been clear from the nation's birth. What the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid was someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Liam Neeson moving to the country and running for the head office.
Obama's anti-American attitude was due to how and where he was RAISED, not where he was or wasn't born. I have never bought into the birther argument simply because his mother was a citizen so it didn't matter. I think he's used it as a useful distraction and way to poke fun at people who oppose him. What people should have objected to was the fact he was RAISED by anti-American communists. He doesn't understand American culture or heritage because it's something he had to read about rather than live.
BTW, neither Cruz nor McCain are the first to encounter this made-up "issue" and I'll take advice on Constitutional law from Lawrence Tribe when I become an Obamabot.
The founding father's were not just concerned about someone raised in another country. They were also concerned about the parentage of the individual - specifically the father. Their concern is over eliminating, or at least minimizing, any allegiance or ties to any country other than the U.S. As I stated before, it bother's me when Cruze and Rubio speak so fondly of their ancestral country of Cuba. Because, when you combine that with their previous open border immigration (they've changed there tune a bit recently) beliefs, it makes perfect sense to me why the founders included this requirement and meant for it to be much stricter than presently reported.
Just look at what has happened when we allowed a Muslim sympathizer with questionable lineage into the top position of our Govt. - We now have Muslim Brotherhood members in all branches of our own govt, and God knows what all he has allowed and accomplished through his Muslim foreign policy over the past seven years. If it can be unwound, it will take decades.
There is no shortage of "natural born" Americans to choose from for the position of President. People who not only put America first, but have no ties to any other country.
Ok, one more time:
No one is arguing whether or not Cruz was a US citizen at the time of his birth - He was and is.
The argument stems from the fact that there are two different "classes" of citizenship: "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." The only difference between members of these two classes is that one can run for POTUS and the other class cannot.
"Natural Born" = born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States to a citizen parent.
"Naturalized" = A statute or act of Congress confers citizenship to someone other than the "Natural Born" citizen.
Cruz was not born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States, therefore his citizenship, from the time of his birth, falls under the class of "Naturalized" because it required a legal statute to grant citizenship to children of US citizens born outside the US - as you posted above.
What you have posted above falls under "Naturalized," and therefore is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.
The subject has been brought up by the courts before:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Being a citizen at birth is not the same thing as being a "Natural Born" citizen.
Just a little issue- by your logic then McCain wouldn't have been eligible to run for POTUS... And they decided that he was. Since he was born in Panama.
Just a little issue- by your logic then McCain wouldn't have been eligible to run for POTUS... And they decided that he was. Since he was born in Panama.
There's a bit more to it. The United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of MCCain's birth. He was born on a U.S. military base, and his parents were U.S. citizens.
Therefore, McCain was born within the jurisdiction of the United States to a citizen parent = "natural born" as stated above.
In McCain's case, the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution stating he was eligible to run for President - hardly precedent setting.
The SCOTUS will eventually have to rule on the meaning of "natural born." Until then, it is all just opinion and argument.
The SCOTUS will eventually have to rule on the meaning of "natural born." Until then, it is all just opinion and argument.
Hence the futility of Trump even arguing if they refuse to rule prior to November.
Hence the futility of Trump even arguing if they refuse to rule prior to November.
Indeed.
He would probably have better luck arguing Cruz's wife's position with Goldman Sachs and his questionable financial disclosures.
Indeed.
He would probably have better luck arguing Cruz's wife's position with Goldman Sachs and his questionable financial disclosures.
To wit I would expect Cruz to fire back about the bankruptcies in Trump's past, and let's not forget about that time that The Donald gave money to Hillary. [Coffee] No politician is perfect... just some are less perfect than others. By that I mean, and including Trump, everyone is less perfect from the Demonrats choices compared to who's in the running for the Republicans.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231093
There's a clean question on the table regarding dual citizenship for persons born in Canada prior to 1977 (when they changed their law to officially recognize dual nationality.)
Prior to that date, with few exceptions, you could not hold dual nationality with Canada. In other words the very act of "renouncing" Canadian Citizenship means that Cruz never held US citizenship at birth because his parents had to declare his nationality at the time he was born.
There may be exceptions that were available at the time but the law now is immaterial.
The only material fact is what the law was then, in 1970, in Canada when Cruz was born.
If his parents declared US for him then he had nothing to renounce and he has a document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
This is the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate and Cruz either has one from the time of his birth or he does not. If he does not then he is not a US Citizen as he was never naturalized by his own admission and at birth the nation in which he was born did not recognize dual nationality.
Where is that document Cruz? Your mother's birth certificate is immaterial. What matters is whether you were declared a Canadian or US Citizen at birth and what documentation you have to prove it.
You see, in 1970 there was no "and" option.
Cruz either has that Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which is his legal proof of US Citizenship just as my Birth Certificate is mine, or he doesn't and he's not a citizen at all as his parents declared his citizenship as Canadian and the land he were born in prohibited dual nationality at the time.
If he doesn't have that document, of course, there's a little problem with the office Senator Cruz holds now, say much less his running for President.
Aloha_Shooter
02-09-2016, 12:42
Whether or not Canada recognized Cruz's US citizenship had no bearing on whether the US did. They are completely different legal systems and the US has recognized the children of US citizens as having US citizenship regardless of where they are born. My brother and sister were both born overseas (before Cruz) but recognized as US citizens from day one. They got naturalization certificates solely to prevent the other country from trying to lay a claim on them but it was never a question as far as US law. We have had mirror cases in the past where country X granted citizenship status to people but the US didn't recognize any dual-citizenship status (including IIRC one very prominent senator and former presidential candidate).
Can we put a rest to this ridiculous line of argument? Say Cruz is an arse but this whole citizenship thing is bogus.
Nope. Not until the SCOTUS makes a ruling.
We've seen what 7 years of foreign ties can do to our country.
Now we have an anchor baby and a Canadian in the running.
ETA: Cruz is an arse
HoneyBadger
02-09-2016, 13:00
Whether or not Canada recognized Cruz's US citizenship had no bearing on whether the US did. They are completely different legal systems and the US has recognized the children of US citizens as having US citizenship regardless of where they are born. My brother and sister were both born overseas (before Cruz) but recognized as US citizens from day one. They got naturalization certificates solely to prevent the other country from trying to lay a claim on them but it was never a question as far as US law. We have had mirror cases in the past where country X granted citizenship status to people but the US didn't recognize any dual-citizenship status (including IIRC one very prominent senator and former presidential candidate).
Can we put a rest to this ridiculous line of argument? Say Cruz is an arse but this whole citizenship thing is bogus.
Yes, seriously.
Since the final word must come from the SCOTUS, all this thread can be is another opinionated discussion on the Internet.
If scientists could discover a method of converting Internet opinions into a clean energy source, all of our problems would be solved.
It takes at least two to argue. Your choice whether you want to be one of them.
Argue on gentleman [Flower]
HoneyBadger
02-09-2016, 15:05
If scientists could discover a method of converting Internet opinions into a clean energy source, all of our problems would be solved.
Sounds kind of like an idea I heard a while ago: pulling static electricity out of the air to power trains and cars. ;)
Since the final word must come from the SCOTUS, all this thread can be is another opinionated discussion on the Internet.
If scientists could discover a method of converting Internet opinions into a clean energy source, all of our problems would be solved.
It takes at least two to argue. Your choice whether you want to be one of them.
Argue on gentleman [Flower]
Sage advice.
Uh Oh
http://northamericanlawcenter.org/ted-cruz-is-in-the-u-s-senate-illegally/#.Vs6PPHBDTnqD
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records. At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.
As a result, there remains no authentic evidence to support the claims that Ted Cruz is either a “natural born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States.
Without any form of U.S. Citizenship documentation, and proof of Canadian citizenship at birth in 1970 and holding that legal status until May 2014 when he renounced his birth citizenship to Canada, there is no way for Ted Cruz to prove that he is either “natural born” and eligible for the Oval Office, or “naturalized” prior to 2012, when he sought and accepted a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal citizen of Canada.
On the basis of all available evidence today, Ted Cruz is in fact holding a seat in the U.S. Senate illegally, with no documented proof of legal U.S. citizenship whatsoever, and proof of Canadian citizenship between the years of birth in 1970 and May 2014.
It is unfortunate that a person so many have placed their political faith in has proven willing to defraud his supporters for both votes and millions in campaign donations. But it is better we know now, than after he wins the GOP nomination only to be destroyed by Democrats later, using the same facts and evidence presented here.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/breaking-two-new-york-voters-sue-to-toss-ted-cruz-from-ballots-over-citizenship-issues/
Two New York voters are suing the state’s Board of Elections to have Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz booted from the ballot over questions about his citizenship.
The issue has been trumpeted by Cruz’s foe, Donald Trump, though the pair who are suing say they are not aligned with the billionaire businessman.
“Notwithstanding the bluster of Mr. Trump … my issue is there is a constitutional problem that has arisen, and it has to be addressed,” said Manhasset, LI, resident William Gallo, who filed the lawsuit with Manhattanite Barry Korman.
The pair cites an article of the US Constitution that says, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.”
Gallo, 85, a Republican, has not yet chosen a candidate to back.
“It’s got nothing to do with Mr. Cruz as far as whether he’s a good conservative or not a good conservative,” Gallo said. Instead, Gallo said, he wants the court to settle the constitutional question so that “people can go to the polls feeling they have an answer.”
Korman, 81, of West 96th Street, declined to comment. But his lawyer, Roger Bernstein, said Korman is an independent who wants to resolve the matter before the New York State primary in April.
A judge in Illinois on Friday will hear a lawsuit challenging Ted Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president, putting questions about the Texas senator’s status back into the news the day before the South Carolina primary.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/illinois-court-sets-march-1-court-date-to-hear-arguments-on-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit/
An attorney for the Ted Cruz campaign asked a Cook County judge Friday to dismiss an Illinois man’s lawsuit challenging the Texas senator’s eligibility to run for president, citing that the Republican hopeful wasn’t properly served with the complaint.
Lawrence Joyce, an Illinois voter and Ben Carson supporter, brought his complaint earlier this month to the Illinois State Board of Elections, which dismissed it.
Now, he is appealing the case with the Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, asking it to rule Cruz ineligible to run in next month’s GOP primary in Illinois. Joyce challenges whether the senator from Texas meets the criteria to serve as president because he was born in Canada.
Sharee Langenstein, an attorney for Cruz, said in court Friday it is “very, very clear” the Cook County court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case because state law stipulates the candidate be served with the complaint. Joyce, a pharmacist and attorney from Poplar Grove, Ill., failed to serve Cruz, whose home address is listed in his petition to be placed on the state’s ballot, Langenstein said.
Judge Maureen Ward Kirby set a March 1 court date to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss. Joyce, who works the midnight shift at a hospital pharmacy, told the judge he wasn’t available for arguments before then because of work commitments. The Illinois primary is March 15 and early voting has already begun.
Despite the close timing, Joyce said it is worth letting his complaint play out.
“The nomination doesn’t take place until July,” Joyce said. “So if a determination is made after the primary that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president then certainly it would be incumbent upon the Republican National Committee not allow the name of Ted Cruz to be entered at the convention in July.”
Voters in Texas and New York also have filed legal challenges on whether Cruz meets the citizenship qualifications. The Indiana Board of Election is scheduled to hear a complaint Friday from a Republican voter challenging whether Cruz and fellow GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio meet the “natural-born” requirement. Rubio, whose parents immigrated from Cuba, was born in Florida.
Aloha_Shooter
02-19-2016, 15:01
From The Naturalization Act of 1790 (emphasis added):
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
and as amended in 1795 (again, emphasis added):
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
Now, you can argue about whether this pertains when one parent is a foreigner who has never lived in the US but it's pretty clear that the children of US citizens who are born outside the borders (like John McCain or my siblings) are considered natural born citizens. It's even pretty clear that Barack Obama -- with one parent who was a US citizen and another parent who had resided here -- is considered a natural born citizen.
The 1795 amendment REMOVED the "natural born" language from the 1790 Act.
See Post #8
https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/02/20/cruz-birther-loons-trying-to-keep-him-off-ballots-in-seven-states/
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is facing challenges to his appearance on primary ballots in at least seven states, as some are questioning whether he is a "natural-born citizen."So-called "birther" challengers have filed federal lawsuits in Alabama, Utah and Texas and have filed lawsuits in state court in Vermont and Illinois, where a judge today ordered a hearing for March 1, two weeks before the Illinois primary. The filing dates vary with each lawsuit.
A challenge had been filed in the state election division of Indiana that was denied today.
And in court papers filed by two voters in New York state court this week, a complaint argues that Cruz should be struck from that state’s primary ballot because he “is not a natural born citizen of the United States.”
The plaintiffs, Barry Korman, 81, of Manhattan and William Gallo, 85, of Long Island, channel an argument made on the campaign trail by Donald Trump, who said as recently as Monday that Cruz “doesn’t have the right to serve as president, or even run as president. He was born in Canada.”
Karl Denniger's thoughts on Rubio:
When the establishment wing of a political party has turned to a man who is facially not a "naturally-born" citizen and is thus facially ineligible to be President, as neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, you know they're both desperate and screwed.
Hard to believe there's not something there.
Now Cruz wants to postpone any decision concerning his eligibility until after the election, and let Congress decide?
Why not just throw out your CRBA form and call it all off. It would be a major slam against those who question his "natural born" status - especially Trump.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-23/ted-cruz-asks-u-s-judge-to-reject-texas-birther-challenge
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz asked a federal judge in Texas to throw out a challenge to his eligibility to serve if he wins...
Cruz’s lawyer said challenges to a candidate’s eligibility are premature during the primary-voting season and must wait until he’s actually elected president, when that question should be resolved by the electoral college and Congress, “not this court.”
A court ruling on a candidate’s eligibility to serve before a national election “would inappropriately interfere with the electoral college’s constitutional authority to elect the president and to evaluate the qualifications of the candidates seeking that office,” Kruse said. If the electoral college finds the elected candidate is disqualified, the Constitution says Congress -- specifically the House of Representatives -- will choose the president.
Great-Kazoo
02-24-2016, 00:10
Karl Denniger's thoughts on Rubio:
The R party is Screwed. Majorly.............. Like the spouse said. Does anyone really believe trump isn't going to reverse every position he ran on if elected? We know he's not 2A friendly,nothing but a NYC moderate like doomberg. Once he gets the power changes things to suit his needs.
Either way the R party flushed this election down the shitter, AGAIN!
Aloha_Shooter
02-24-2016, 01:09
I find it funny that so many people who supposedly mourned the loss of Judge Scalia a week ago take so many pains to avoid the textualist approach in order to try to manufacture reasons to declare Rubio or Cruz ineligible. They are natural-born citizens by the original intent of the people who wrote Constitution and the laws of 1790 and 1795 as well as the 14th Amendment. I have no damned idea what Denninger means by "facially" and don't really care.
I find it funny that many of the same people who questioned Obama's eligibility, now want everyone to just keep quiet about their favorite candidate's eligibility.
I don't care who it is in question. If they're ineligible, then they're ineligible. The acts/amendments in question need to be ruled on by the SCOTUS.
I believe an anchor baby (Rubio) and a man who was a Canadian citizen until 2014 (Cruz) are questionable candidates in need of a ruling.
There are plenty of Constitutional scholars who do not believe anchor babies should be granted citizenship, much less "natural born" citizenship. There is no question that anchor babies are "naturalized" citizens and therefore ineligible (Rubio).
The main problem with Cruz is whether or not his mother renounced her US Citizenship before his birth. If so, Cruz is definitely ineligible. If not, he needs to produce his CRBA form - which he has yet to do. However, the CRBA form would prove Cruz is a "naturalized" citizen and therefore ineligible.
Just because you like him does not mean we should ignore the law - which is precisely what the Dems got away with in 2008.
ETA: I also have no idea what Denniger means by "facially." I'd guess "factually," but he used it twice.
hollohas
02-24-2016, 06:52
Either way the R party flushed this election down the shitter, AGAIN!
Which sucks even more because minus Trump, I think we had the best group of candidates we've seen in decades.
68Charger
02-24-2016, 07:37
Just because you like him does not mean we should ignore the law - which is precisely what the Dems got away with in 2008.
ETA: I also have no idea what Denniger means by "facially." I'd guess "factually," but he used it twice.
Like it or not, that's called 'precident'
And I think what he means by "facially" is literally "on it's face" (face value). But I don't like the term either.
Great-Kazoo
02-24-2016, 09:03
Which sucks even more because minus Trump, I think we had the best group of candidates we've seen in decades.
The R party has been nothing but self destructive this cycle. There's a clear and present danger from the other side of the aisle. What does everyone in the R party do?? ATTACK EACH OTHER. Not one of those who dropped out has said they will throw their support behind candidate X, Not One.
https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M5b78f1e97fef4f9bc4a65fc516296fd9H0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300
I don't really like Trump, but after years of complaining about the establishment GOP and the two party system in general, I've come to the realization that this is what that change will look like. As long as the major parties still get their way, nothing will change, ever. But when people stop buying your product, you either change to fit your market or go down in flames. Interesting years ahead.
We. Are. Screwed.
Trump or Hillary/Sanders....How about we go no president until we can figure out some quality candidates and let the states run themselves for a bit.
We. Are. Screwed.
Trump or Hillary/Sanders....How about we go no president until we can figure out some quality candidates and let the states run themselves for a bit.
Trump / Hillary/Sanders are equivalents - there is no difference between any of them.
Enjoy the decline.
Trump / Hillary/Sanders are equivalents - there is no difference between any of them.
Enjoy the decline.
Correct. All three are fully eligible to be POTUS.
Just because you like him does not mean we should ignore the law - which is precisely what the Dems got away with in 2008.
Like it or not, that's called 'precident'
Getting away with breaking a law in no way sets a legal "precedent."
COShooter
02-24-2016, 18:23
Trump / Hillary/Sanders are equivalents - there is no difference between any of them.
Enjoy the decline.
Only one of them is a lawyer. We have enough damn lawyers in government.
68Charger
02-25-2016, 18:39
Getting away with breaking a law in no way sets a legal "precedent."
It's just a new interpretation...
Jeffrey Lebowski
02-25-2016, 20:20
We. Are. Screwed.
Trump or Hillary/Sanders....How about we go no president until we can figure out some quality candidates and let the states run themselves for a bit.
Can Arizona or Utah run us for a while?
Lots of lawsuits filed, yet little mention in the national media.
About to get interesting.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/336288/
Cruz’s lawsuits were filed in Florida, Vermont, Texas, Utah, Illinois, Arkansas, Alabama, New York, and Pennsylvania, and individuals who raised a ballot challenge in Indiana are weighing whether they’ll file suit.
Cruz has a new IL court date March 1st – Super Tuesday, a filing deadline on March 2nd for the AR case after his requested extension was granted, and a joint court date with one Senator Marco Rubio on March 4th in Rubio’s home state of Florida. Rubio’s pending lawsuits, court dates, and questionable defenses to the actions have been missing from the national discussion.
milwaukeeshaker
02-29-2016, 08:31
Why is this a problem now? We have a had non-citizen muslim president for 8yrs. Why is this a problem now???
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.