Home Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal
News

Birther now turning attention from Obama to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal

Contributors

constitutionThe last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today.

In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact “natural born Citizens”.

Mrs. Fair said: “Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a ‘citizen’ of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute.”

As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: “No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Mrs. Fair continued: “That phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they “natural born Citizens” eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest.”

Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: “My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution – such as ‘natural born Citizen’ – is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: ‘the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.’ By repeatedly refusing to ‘say what the law is’ regarding ‘natural born Citizen’, the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess.”

Both a copy of the Petition and the Supreme Court Docket for Case No,: 14-933 are online.






Support AFP

Contributors

Contributors

Have a guest column, letter to the editor, story idea or a news tip? Email editor Chris Graham at [email protected]. Subscribe to AFP podcasts on Apple PodcastsSpotifyPandora and YouTube.

Latest News

waynesboro map
Local News

Waynesboro: DEQ needs to grant extension on Northrup Grumman SOP

jodie wampler turner ashby
Baseball

When Turner Ashby baseball won 40 straight games – but no state title

On April 2, 1968, the Turner Ashby High School baseball team – after a one-run loss to Fort Defiance to start the season – beat Page County, 2-0, behind the pitching of Jodie Wampler.

newspapers
Arts, Culture, Media

Kevin Federline has a spokesperson: And more nonsense news nuggets

A headline in my email box today reminded me of what’s wrong with the American news media. “Kevin Federline,” the headline screamed at me, “Breaks Silence on Ex-Wife Britney Spears Voluntarily Checking Into Rehab.” Stop the presses, indeed.

podcast
Arts, Culture, Media

Podcast: #TeamAFP talks referendum, decline of Virginia media on ‘Street Knowledge’

staunton
Local News

Staunton: City beginning spring paving program, so, be on the lookout for disruptions

vdot road
Local News

VDOT: Local road construction, maintenance scheduled for week of April 13-17

baseball
Baseball

MLB Today: Nats get Paul Skenes in Pittsburgh; O’s open three with D’backs