Washington, DC news conference Sunday: Is Ted Cruz eligible to be president?
GOP presidential candidate and constitutional scholar Andy Martin will hold a Washington, DC news conference today, January 31st, to wrap up the Ted Cruz Birther Summit/National Conversation at the Capital Hilton. Andy has been an adjunct professor of law and has litigated constitutional cases. The Summit/Conversation has explored in depth questions that have been raised concerning Ted Cruz’ Canadian birth; the conference could be influential with undecided voters in Iowa. The Summit/Conversation’s Closing Report is part of this news release.
ANDY MARTIN /2016
Republican candidate for
President of the United States
“Make America Great Again”
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY10150-1851
New Hampshire Headquarters:
P.O. Box 742
Tel. (866) 706-2639; Cell (917) 664-9329
Fax (866) 214-3210
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Attention, WashingtonDC, National, Political and daybook/assignment editors
Announcement of news conference Sunday, January 31st
GOP presidential candidate Andy Martin closes the Ted Cruz Birther Summit/National Conversation at the Capital Hilton
The national Summit/Conversation issues a “Closing Report” on Cruz’ eligibility
Iowa caucus goers are closely watching proceedings in the nation’s capital
To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line
Please feel free to forward and/or post this email
Please sign up for our enhanced Twitter feed with original coverage and commentary
(New York) (January 31, 2016) Republican presidential candidate and constitutional scholar/litigator Andy Martin will hold a news conference at the Capital Hilton today, Sunday, January 31st, to end the Ted Cruz Birther Summit/National Conversation with a Closing Report and analysis of Senator Ted Cruz’ eligibility to be elected president.
Andy is the constitutional scholar and litigator who over a decade ago raised the first concerns about President Barack Obama’s eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U. S. Constitution.
Andy returns to New York Sunday afternoon and then home to New Hampshire as soon as possible.
The three-day Summit/Conversation explored in depth (a) questions about the original intent of the Founders who drafted the Constitution; (b) subsequent constitutional amendments and their effect, if any, on the Natural Born Citizen (“NBC”) Clause, and (c) modern trends in constitutional interpretation and their impact on the NBC Clause.
“The term ‘Birther’ was originally intended by the media to be a pejorative description of anyone who challenged Barack Obama’s family history. The liberal media were insulating Obama from the many questions raised by his mysterious past,” Andy says. “But long ago I accepted the word ‘Birther’ as shorthand for a generalized expression of concern for constitutional eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause.
“Although Senator Cruz was invited to cooperate and send someone on his behalf to our Washington sessions if he wished to do so, he did not respond or cooperate in any way with our request for documents.
“Ironically, many in the liberal media support Cruz’s point of view that he is eligible under the NBC Clause. The liberal media take a ‘liberal’ view of constitutional interpretation. Conservatives within Cruz’ own base, on the other hand, manifest the most concern about whether Cruz satisfies the constitutional mandate of being a Natural Born Citizen. One Poll has claimed that more than a third (36%) of Republicans have some doubts as to Cruz’ eligibility (please see link  below).
“While I previously raised and addressed almost all of the NBC Clause issues in the context of Barack Obama’s candidacy, see group link  below, and expressed my expert opinions at that time, this weekend we took a fresh look at the NBC Clause question. Other law professors have also expressed their views, see group link  below.
“In order to permit opportunities for the broadest possible participation and discussion we conducted an evening session on Friday the 29th, an afternoon session on Saturday the 30th and a morning session on Sunday the 31st.
“People who have read my work on Obama over the past twelve years know that when I don my candidate’s ‘hat’ I express my own partisan views. But when, as in the Summit/National Conservation, I undertake to conduct a scholarly discussion, I try to be scrupulously fair and impartial. I will, however, have more critical comments about Senator Cruz next week, but not in the context of today’s Summit/Conversation.
“Iowa caucus attendees are paying close attention to our proceedings. Within hours after we disperse they will start participating in the presidential caucuses. In the close Iowa race our discussions and reporting from Washington could make the decisive difference.”
While in Washington Andy also researched, and later will be addressing other national and international issues; he has also started interviewing potential interns who may want to join his campaign.
Andy can be reached today through the Capital Hilton switchboard (202) 393-1000 until 1:00 P. M., or through his cell phone (917) 664-9329 at National Airport, or through his national contact information at the top of this page after he leaves Washington.
CLOSING REPORT OF THE TED CRUZ BIRTHER SUMMIT/NATIONAL CONVERSATION
I. The origins of the Natural Born Citizen Clause
A. What the Founders feared in adopting the NBC Clause
We forget today how completely fragile the “United States” were at the time that the Constitution was drafted. There was a great fear that a foreign prince could come to America, produce an heir, and attempt to establish a royal dynasty. Today these concerns seem silly. In 1789 they were very real. The Constitution was drafted to restrict power, restrain power and control power. Most of that restrictiveness was directed at domestic despots who might be tempted to evolve. But there were clearly designs intended to limit foreign influence in the future. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was and remains foremost among the constitutional language intended to restrict access to the presidency.
B. The restrictiveness of the NBC Clause
The NBC Clause is intended to be very restrictive. The Founders wanted to limit, not expand, the range of persons who were eligible to be elected president. So it is simply meaningless to say the clause “disqualifies” or “discriminates” or is “unfair.” The clause was intended to be precisely that. Senators and Representatives need only be “citizens;” only the President must be a ‘Natural Born Citizen.” The common law was highly evolved around the time the Constitution was adopted. The term “natural born” had a recognized common law meaning. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they adopted the restrictive language for presidential eligibility.
C. Canons (“principles”) of constitutional construction
The Common Law developed in part through “canons” of construction, not unlike canons in ecclesiastical law. A “canon” is a generalized principle of law that directs how a legal question should initially be approached. One canon applicable to the NBC Clause is that all words have meaning, and that words are inserted with a meaning. Senators and Representatives need only be “citizens.” The NBC Clause applies solely to the office of president. The canon of statutory constriction that words mean something, and that special words mean something special, mandate that the phrase NBC means something, something specific and something special. So we can’t just ignore the NBC Clause.
II. Subsequent Constitutional Amendments and statutory enactments
A. Congress cannot amend the NBC Clause
There have been claims that after enactment of the Constitution Congress adopted laws that broadened the scope of the NBC Clause. Congress lacks any jurisdiction to amend or modify that clause. Congress has broad powers under the “naturalization” provision of the Constitution to create rights to citizenship, but those powers are entirely separate from the inviolate NBC Clause.
B. Did the Civil Rights Amendments modify the NBC Clause?
After the Civil War the nation passed the Civil Rights Amendments abolishing slavery and imposing rights applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. Some people argue that the “subject to the jurisdiction” language of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to modify the restrictions of the NBC Clause. I do not believe the Supreme Court would recognize that argument. There is no question that the Fourteenth Amendment broadened access to citizenship, but that amendment was focused on remedying the horrors of slavery, not modifying the NBC Clause.
C. Have Supreme Court decisions “amended” the NBC Clause?
The Supreme Court lacks any authority to modify or dilute the NBC Clause. Only an actual and specific amendment to the Constitution can effect such a change. In fact, even liberals acknowledge the immutability of the NBC Clause. There have been several proposals in recent decades to adopt a specific constitutional amendment modifying or eliminating the NBC Clause. None have been approved by Congress, the first step in implementing a constitutional amendment.
III.Modern constitutional analysis of the natural Born Citizen Clause
A. “Originalist” interpretation vs. modern interpretation of old laws and constitutional provisions
Beginning perhaps with the Nixon presidency conservatives have vocally argued for implementing only the “original intent” of the Founders when they originally approved the Constitution. Liberals tend to follow the view that the Constitution is a “living” document and that interpretations can change. I agree with both approaches. The starting place must always be the original language and intent; but if that language and intent lead to an illogical or inconsistent result, modern generations can approve a Constitution that meets their needs. The “originalists” have been vocal advocates for their point of view; but over almost the past half a century the “living constitution” advocates have continued to prevail in actual Supreme Court decisions.
IV. The “Case or Controversy” principle of the Supreme Court
The Constitution only gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction in “cases or controversies.” The doctrine of “standing” is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. But to effectuate the case or controversy limitation on it powers the Supreme Court developed the doctrine of “standing,” i.e. a requirement that a litigant must have an actual interest, and not merely a hypothetical or generalized interest, in a lawsuit which the court is asked to resolve.
There are already lawsuits involving Cruz’ eligibility. But because they are generalized attacks on Cruz these cases are unlikely to succeed one way or the other. I can’t predict with ironclad certainty whom the court would allow to challenge Cruz’ eligibility, but at a minimum that person would have to present more than a mere “public” interest in Cruz’ eligibility. The most likely challengers are actual, legally qualified candidates who are either running against Cruz or lose to him.
The “standing” doctrine raises a significant barrier to any lawsuits involving Cruz’ eligibility.
V. Andy Martin’s matrix for NBC Clause analysis
Lawyers love procedures. They love rules. And they love “process.” Here is my proposed method for analyzing NBC Clause cases:
If a presidential candidate was actually born in the United States, there should be a rebuttable presumption that he or she is eligible to serve. The burden of proof should shift to protesters. If, on the other hand, a candidate such as Cruz is born outside the United States, there should be a presumption of ineligibility, and the burden of proof of satisfying eligibility should be on the candidate, not protesters.
The only exception to this analytical matrix should be for persons born to U. S. representatives overseas, such as military personnel and diplomatic officials. Clearly, military facilities and diplomatic stations and related areas (such as hospitals, etc.) are de facto American soil.
Because Cruz was born outside the United States, under my matrix he is presumptively ineligible to serve as president and the burden of proving his eligibility is on him.
VI. The Bottom Line on eligibility: Ted Cruz’ ‘Conundrum’
Ted Cruz’ constitutional eligibility to serve as president is a conundrum. If you follow the principles of “originalist” interpretation that have been conservative dogma since the Nixon era, and which Cruz has always advanced in his own constitutional advocacy, there is serious doubt that the Founders intended for Cruz to be eligible.
If, on the other hand, you follow modern principles of constitutional interpretation, there is a valid basis for Cruz to be deemed eligible. There are still clouds and doubts, however, since all of the facts concerning his family’s presence in Canada have not yet been disclosed and analyzed. Did Ted’s mother accept government benefits for which only Canadians are eligible? Such receipt by her might affect a view as to whether she ever surrendered her U. S. citizenship, either intentionally or inadvertently. We simply don’t know. Cruz won’t say. He brushes off any public concerns.
If Cruz was elected president, and during his candidacy for the office, there would always be claims that he is not eligible under the NBC Clause. Cruz cannot escape them. Even under modern interpretations of eligibility, Cruz’ birth in Canada to only one U. S. parent raises at least a preliminary question as to his eligibility.
Is there a court that will address Cruz’ eligibility? There is serious doubt under the “standing” doctrine that a court will do so, unless a losing candidate or opposing candidate of Cruz’ elects to challenge him in court. Cruz’ claim that the matter has been put to rest by earlier judicial decisions is simply not true.
The Ted Cruz constitutional conundrum continues and will continue until Cruz is either defeated or a court actually rules definitively in a case where he is an actual party.
January 31st WashingtonDC news conference details:
GOP Presidential candidate and constitutional law expert Andy Martin
Andy Martin closes the Ted Cruz Birther Summit/National Conversation at the Capital Hilton
Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street NW, Washington, DC – Mr. Martin’s Suite 677
Sunday, January 31, 2016; 1:00 P.M.
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):
New citations after emailing:
WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT ANDY MARTIN:
One author has called Andy Martin the “big kahuna” of the anti-[Barack] Obama movement. Another said “Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…” Another says, “The only American journalists that are ‘standing UP’ [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”
ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:
Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With forty-eight years of background in radio and television and with five decades of investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, intelligence and military matters. For a full bio, go to: ; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm
Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also ; .
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).
He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at and .
Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire 100 years ago in 1916 (see www.AndyNewHampshire100.com); today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.
Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2016 – All Rights Reserved Don’t assume that http://besttrackingapps.com everything is okay with your kid