Mr. Ilya Shapiro is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. He is a skilled attorney in the Art of Rhetoric where the object is not necessarily to make sense or to speak the truth but to persuade. Expression is everything. He plays to the gullibility of the American people.
I sent an email to Mr. Shapiro upon being directed to comments he made that implied Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible to the Presidency. Now that Senator Cruz has announced his candidacy, it is important to let American citizens know the truth that Senator Cruz is a naturalized citizen and not eligible to the Presidency.
The email, March 3, 2015, 4:31 PM;
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
I only recently was directed to your comments that apparently appeared in the Daily Caller on 8/26/2013. I do not know if you have retracted this opinion or have continued to support the theory that Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. I can only say that if the Cato Institute continues to support your expressed theory, than this reflects poorly on anything from the Cato Institute.
I can inform you that there is a Constitutional definition of natural born citizen. You are just lacking in a proper education in the Constitution or you are not using your education to its potential. If you are aware of the Constitutional definition and are saying what you are, then I would question your ethics. If you are not aware of that definition, I would suggest you actually read Madison's notes on the convention and re-read the Constitution.
What you seem to not understand is that no child is born into the allegiance of a country. They are born into the allegiance of the parents. If the parents are US citizens, the male child is a natural born citizen because the parents are already in allegiance to the US. If the parents are not both citizens, the child has to choose, and that need to choose proves naturalization of either a native born or foreign born person.
While people born in England may have been born subjects of the Monarch, they were only in allegiance to the father who swore allegiance to that Monarch for the child and his wife. The child had no individual rights prior to the attaining of their age of majority. Until that age, the child's allegiance is to the parents.
Feel free to contact me.
Richard Carl Shellhorn
Mr. Shapiro responded quickly on March 3, 2015, 4:41 PM with this reply;
Thanks for writing. I stand by my analysis.
So what is the analysis? Mr. Shapiro states that "you just have to look up the right law." If Mr. Shapiro understood that Congress has the limited authority under the powers listed to establish a uniform set of laws for naturalization, he should realize that Senator Cruz is indeed a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.
If Mr. Shapiro wants to imply that Congress has power under the Constitution to legislate who is or can be a natural born citizen, then he is referring to an Act that is unconstitutional. There is no need to legislate the natural and no ability or authority to legislate what is unnatural as natural.
To be declared unconstitutional requires the Supreme Court to accept a case with that issue needing to be decided which Mr. Shapiro is confident that the politicians will not want to be decided. They will prevent it, at all costs, because both political parties have put candidates before American voters who have not been natural born citizens.
On March 4, 2015 at 12:26 AM after watching the evening news I emailed Mr. Shapiro;
On the evening news, the lead reports were of raids that took place at locations supporting pregnant women from China to vacation in the United States and deliver those children in the United States. That would allow those children at their age of majority to claim citizenship in the United States.
Based on what I understand you to be saying, you support the theory that anyone born in the United States or outside the United States, regardless of parentage, is a natural born citizen. That though those children spend their minority in a foreign country under the allegiance of foreign parents, that they are what the delegates at the convention in 1787 thought was good enough to hold the Office of President? Is that what you infer and support? That foreign parentage can teach that child American values having known nothing about American values themselves?
Do you not grasp that American parentage was what the Deputies wanted so that American parents could instill American values in the potential President whether that child is born in a foreign country or in the United States?
When you support your theory, I can only say to you I feel sorry you received such a poor education in law school and have not learned how or been taught how to correctly analyze the Constitution.
I do thank you for your candidness and response. I would be willing to ask the Supreme Court to decide the issue. Would you join me in that effort? It is only our country that is at risk of having to endure 4 or 8 more years under a person who is not a natural born citizen.
Richard Carl Shellhorn
On March 5, 2015 at 8:35 PM I asked Mr. Shapiro;
What law can you use to provide eligibility for the female gender to the Office of President? The Constitution the Supreme Court and I use found in the case Minor v. Happersett that women did not have the Citizenship under the Constitution that provided women with the privilege of suffrage. Because women did not have citizenship that provided them the law to vote, women were only provided that law with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. While women became eligible to vote, no Constitutional Amendment has been ratified that provides the law for them to hold the Office of President for they surly are not included in the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen. Can you provide such a law the enables women to hold the office they could not vote for under the Constitution written in 1787?
Richard Carl Shellhorn
Mr. Shapiro apparently could not provide a law enabling those of the female gender eligibility to the Office of President. Mr. Shapiro is aware that the Constitution can only be changed, added to or detracted from, by Amendment and did not respond.
On March 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, I asked Mr. Shapiro;
I can only guess that because my question of which law provided the eligibility to the female gender for the Office of President was not answered that you agree that only a Constitutional Amendment can provide that law. In the absence of that Amendment it is political correctness that will be called upon for the justification and credibility to allow a woman to the office.
It was political correctness that Congress called upon when Electoral votes for Barack Obama were counted as acceptable even though Congress and Mr. Obama knew he was not eligible prior to the ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.
Of the three races in the United States at the time of ratification of our Constitution only one race were eligible for citizenship. Those other races were not citizens, or eligible for citizenship and it would be inconsistent with law to consider people of other races as part of the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen.
Amendments need to be proposed by Congress to amend the Constitution to provide the law necessary for women and people of other races to be eligible for the Office of President. Without Amendments...?
Can you help to move the opinion in that direction? We can talk about eligibility of Naturalized citizens like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or "Bobby" at some later time.
Richard Carl Shellhorn
Mr. Shapiro and the Cato Institute have not responded to my request for their support in changing the Constitution for the benefit of the female gender and races not included in the definition of "natural born citizen."