How a Modern Publius Proved Ted Cruz And Now Nikki Hayley Are NOT a Natural-Born Citizens

January 11, 2016 1

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Do you think the Congress would have allowed that the electors of the several states, especially the Southern ones, would have allowed or would have given their votes in the electoral college to someone that was born in Mexico by a Mexican father just because his mother happened to be from Tennessee? Bet you they would. Betcha. Wanna bet? This discussion should be over. Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike: Do you think that Congress would have allowed James K. Polk, born in Mexico – his mother was a Tennessean but his father was a full-blooded, full-born Montezuma-looking Mexican. Do you think because he moved to – I think President Polk was from Tennessee. I don’t know. I’m not a presidential historian and I don’t have my little dictionary in front of me. Do you think the Congress would have allowed that the electors of the several states, especially the Southern ones, would have allowed or would have given their votes in the electoral college to someone that was born in Mexico by a Mexican father just because his mother happened to be from Tennessee? Bet you they would. Betcha. Wanna bet? This discussion should be over. The only question that would remain is: Did the framers know of this definition? Answer: Yes. Back to Vattel:

[reading]

Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law of custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

[end reading]

Mike: Note Chapter 212 of Law of Nations, Emmerich de Vattel, that’s twice now. We’ve gone through two conditions of citizenship. In both instances, what does Vattel say the citizenship of the child born of the inhabitant go back to? What does it revert back to? What is it predicated upon? The father.

[reading]

A country may grant to a foreign the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. [Mike: In that case, that’s what happened to Ted Cruz. That’s what happened to the father of Teddy and the Cruzers.]

Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens.” [Mike: We’ve already established that because the lineage and the citizenship traces back through the father, that Cruz was born in a foreign country. It doesn’t matter. This one doesn’t apply.] By the law of nature alone, children follow the . . . [Mike: I want to be clear on this. Again, we’re talking about paternity. Paternity is all that matters.] By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

[end reading]

Mike: Are you with me on this or not? Then Publius concludes:

[reading]

Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

[end reading]

Mike: Which of the two, mother or father, are the two most important? Which one counts when we’re going through this? Father. End of discussion. According to Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, I shall read it to you now if there’s any doubt.

[reading]

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

[end reading]

Mike: Those are your qualifications. Does Ted Cruz meet any of these requirements? No, he does not. Does Marco Rubio meet any of these requirements? No, he does not. If there’s any doubt remaining, and there may be, Publius, our friend here, sends this to me. Who was Dr. David Ramsay? Some of you will remember this. If you have a copy of Fame of Our Fathers, my feature documentary about the events that led up to the Federal Convention of 1787, who caused the constitutional convention? Whose idea was it? If you remember this, you will remember that Dr. David Ramsay is in those final scenes.

Ramsay was in communication with George Washington and little Jimmy Madison, first with Madison and then with Washington because he knew him from the war. Ramsay encouraged Washington: Hey, man, you ought to go to this federal convention deal. Washington goes: I have no desire to go preside over conventions. I’m happy on my farm. Of course, Washington was ultimately persuaded by one of his men, I think we prove, in Fame of Our Fathers. By the way, you can get that as a download right now in the Founders Tradin’ Post at MikeChurch.com.

Back to the subject at hand here. What did Dr. David Ramsay, who is a founding father – make no mistake about it, Ramsay is a founding father. He was also an historian. He was a member of the Continental Congress. What did Ramsay say about natural-born citizenship? Remember, we learned earlier in this segment – if you missed it, remember, you can always get this show on demand whenever you want if you’re a Founders Pass Member. Please, listen to this show every day or when you can. Remember, we have a rebroadcast every day at 3 pm. Please join the Founders Pass. If you really want to assist us in our quest for the truth and in expanding and bringing Veritas Radio Network to the unwashed masses who have never been exposed to the truth, exposed to the Mike Church Show, the Mark Kreslin Show, My Story of America, Reverse Deception, True Money with David Simpson, Reconquest with Brother Andre Marie, Constitution Hour with Professor Dr. Kevin Gutzman, The Flow with Kurt Wallace, become a Founding Brother. That’s a yearly membership plus $100 in donation. Or become a founding father. That’s a yearly membership plus $500.

By the by, a crowd funding effort is underway in the Founders Tradin’ Post. If you’ve got five bucks to spare this weekend, please stop by the Veritas Radio Network website to make the changes to it and all the development that has to go into making this a world-class vehicle for the truth. It’s going to cost many, many thousands of dollars that I can tell you right now do not exist in the coffers. We pray and we trust in Almighty God. If it’s his will, it’ll happen. If it’s not, it’s not.

[reading]

David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress [Remember: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long.

[end reading]

Mike: Gabby, remind me to find this, Dr. David Ramsay, Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States. We could probably find it at books.google.com. We’re going to want to download this and make it available for our members. Folks, I’ll find this. If this sucker is in publication, I’ll find it. We’ll find it and publish it for you as a thank you for being a member, to give you a little more ammo in this fight. It’s a fight for the truth. It’s not against Cruz or Rubio. It’s for the truth. They’re citizens of the Constitution, too. As I said, natural-born citizen clause is actually more important today than it was the day it was ratified. We have more enemies now than we had then. We should absolutely demand natural-born citizens as candidates for the presidency. Publius:

[reading]

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”

Do you see? Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens. And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.

[end reading]

Mike: Folks, I’ll continue my exploration of this subject if you’ll humor me. Why is the date of July 4, 1776 important? That’s the day, obviously, that the Declaration of Independence was voted on in Congress and was approved, ratified, if you will. What difference would that make? Here is the difference that it would make. Again, we see and we’re learning here and we should keep in mind that prior to the United States of America existing, there were royal colonies of the empire of Great Britain. There were no citizens; there were only subjects. It is so crystal clear here. You don’t need a magnifying glass here or anything to get to this. What was being done and what the framers of the Constitution and what our founding fathers, as we call them, what they were trying to establish was very clear rules for how certain offices could be occupied in the new federal legislature, and who was eligible to occupy them. They are distinctly referring to the landmass, the geographical landmass that made up the 13 colonies.

In other words, if anyone that would like to have been president after the ratification of the Constitution, let’s say they had been born in what we call today the Northwest Territory. It’s not the Northwest Territory anymore. Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming, I think, is the territory. They would have been ineligible according to this. Why does that matter? What is Canada? It’s not America. You had to have been born here. As a second qualification, you had to have been of a father who was a citizen.

Emmerich de Vattel, the author of Law of Nations was widely read by the founding fathers before the Constitutional Convention or Federal Convention of 1787. That’s established beyond any shadow of a doubt. The book was in the library of Ben Franklin. There was another copy in Massachusetts. We know the book was here and we know that they read it because he said they read it. You want to talk about legal scholars? Legal scholars in the 1920s wrote that the framers used Law of Nations to construct international affairs or to guide them on international affairs. Without a doubt they read Vattel.

What did Vattel say makes a natural-born citizen? If we can find out what Vattel said made a natural-born citizen, then we can conclude what Ben Franklin, what little Jimmy Madison, what George Mason, what Elbridge Gerry, what Alexander Hamilton, what George Wythe, what James Wilson, what Edmund Randolph, what Edward Rutledge, what Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Charles Pinckney – these are all founding fathers – what they thought made up, or when someone said natural-born citizen to them, what they thought it meant. We can answer that because they read Vattel.

Remember, Professor Gutzman was clear on this two years ago when this question came up for the first time, that if they were reading Vattel, we know that Cruz and Rubio are not eligible. Gutzman kind of backtracked because he said: I don’t know that they were reading Vattel. If you translate the French of the 1^st edition, I’m not sure that Vattel actually defined citizen. Well, Vattel did define citizen. Publius:

[reading]

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. We stopped being subjects after the Declaration of Independence. We became citizens of our individual states or republics. [Mike: That’s established. That’s how we get the term citizenship. We weren’t subjects of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We were citizens of the states, very important. Section 212 of Vattel:]

Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

[end reading]

Mike: Paternity is all that mattered. From Mark Levin and these others to be yelping about about how his mother was . . . it doesn’t matter if his mother – if you’re going to claim birthright citizenship, what are you going to do with your argument about all the illegal aliens that are anchor babies? They’re in the process of being naturalized. You can’t have it both ways. The first clause in Vattel’s definition establishes that the citizenship comes from the father.

[reading]

Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner . . .

[end reading]

Mike: Vattel is doing two things here. One, the guy has got to be born in the country, in America. Two, parents have got to be naturalized citizens, citizens of that country. Third and most important, the father must be a citizen of that country. “If a person is born there of a foreigner . . .” – Cruz wasn’t even born here. He was born in Canada. “. . . it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Boy, the argument is destroyed. It’s argument. Just give up. Just admit what it is, go with the truth and be consistent. Don’t be one of them. This is not at issue here. The facts are clear.

End Mike Church Show Transcript