Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.

org
1

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2015

For More Information Contact:

TRACY A. FAIR:
(410-552-5907) OR
TRACYSPLACE2002@VERIZON.NET

PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY OF
TED CRUZ, MARCO RUBIO AND BOBBY JINDAL
CHALLENGED AT SUPREME COURT
Washington D.C. - The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein 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.
-End-