Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Rubio Constitutionally Qualified? Who Decides?
Jacquerie

Posted on 10/29/2011 1:02:58 PM PDT by Jacquerie

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-168 next last
To: little jeremiah

Go Herman Cain!


61 posted on 10/29/2011 7:31:49 PM PDT by federal__reserve (Perry is a good man but his one on one debates with Obama keeps me awake at nights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“From Madison’s record of the Federal Convention, it is clear the Framers considered anyone born in the US, less slaves and indians, to be a natural born citizen. They did not bother to specify parentage because it just didn’t matter. What was important was to minimize the possibility of a paid foreign born agent becoming President.”

I am sorry but I do not see any support for what you stated above in the link you posted for it here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2774660/posts


62 posted on 10/30/2011 12:20:44 AM PDT by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: federal__reserve
It is already decided! It is called PRECEDENCE! Barry's father was never a US citizen, and his mother was underage when Barry was born in Hawaii with a fake birth certificate.

Every court, including SCOTUS will rule that Rubio is eligible because ruling against that will null and void every law passed with Zero's signature. They will never go there.

That is ridiculous. One fraudulent success does not set a legal precedent.

One successful bank robbery does not legalize future bank robberies.

63 posted on 10/30/2011 12:46:21 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jdirt; Chewbarkah
Chewbarkah asked for the day of the NBC discussion. That was the day.
64 posted on 10/30/2011 2:35:50 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

“they agreed not to challenge either McCain or Obama and affirm that they would certify the election without objection for either one if they got that far. Just my guess.”

Your guesses hold a lot more water than most people’s “facts” and especially their interpretations of the Constitution.


65 posted on 10/30/2011 3:39:30 AM PDT by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
"From Madison’s record of the Federal Convention, it is clear the Framers considered anyone born in the US, less slaves and indians, to be a natural born citizen. They did not bother to specify parentage because it just didn’t matter. What was important was to minimize the possibility of a paid foreign born agent becoming President. Yes, I know Wiki says it was to keep foreign aristocrats out. Wiki is wrong.

So says you. I would be most interested in seeing the actual text of Madison's notes on the convention that indicates their intentions are as you have said. Since you know specifically where is this information, I think we would all appreciate it if you posted it for the illumination of the rest of us.

66 posted on 10/30/2011 7:43:27 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
The word natural in natural born citizen may be more than being born to citizen parents. Located this a few days ago. A college professor in the 19th century explains the meaning of natural from Shakespeare's Henry the V: Henry the V.. "at honour would thee do, were all thy children kind and natural!" Photobucket
67 posted on 10/30/2011 10:38:14 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

Bank robbery is not a correct analogy. I will explain to you why. There is already a law on books which says bank robbery is illegal.

On the other hand, there is no law on book which says you are not eligible to be president of USA if your father was a citizen of Kenya or any other country at time of your birth.

So your comparison or analogy is not valid.


68 posted on 10/30/2011 11:23:01 AM PDT by federal__reserve (Perry is a good man but his one on one debates with Obama keeps me awake at nights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: federal__reserve
Welcome to Free Republic.

You missed the first three and a half years of FR discussion on the Natural Born Citizen topic. You can do an FR search using keywords "Natural Born Citizen". It might take only a couple of years to catch up on your reading of the discussions and related links.

Here is one direct link to get you started:

Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines “natural born Citizen” in 1789

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the Declaration of Independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

69 posted on 10/30/2011 11:57:31 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; rxsid; patlin; Spaulding

Why did Obama state the “US is no longer a Christian nation”..

The reason is simple...

“The law of nations is limited to Christian nations..” Vattel

Sarei v. RIO TINTO, PLC, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2011 citing

THE ANTELOPE, 23 US 66 - Supreme Court


70 posted on 10/30/2011 12:23:23 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
If your re-read what you posted it is the citizenship of the children of aliens about which the court had “doubts,” not the natural born citizenship.

This seems to me a pretty thin case to hang your hat on.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. My reading of this is this: His definition of Natural-Born Citizen is someone whom by virtue of their birth automatically becomes a citizen. The case of a child born within the United States to parents who are citizens at the time of the birth he says does not pose a problem. Neither does the question of a non-citizen giving birth to a child outside of the United States; they are not citizens.

There are two other cases that need to be examined. One, which is not alluded to here, are children born to parents who are citizens, but the child is not born in the United States.

The other is the case of the child that is born in the United States but to parents who are not citizens.

The Constitution suggests only two classifications for citizen. Natural-Born, or Naturalized.

He proceeds to suggest that some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

If this is read that they are citizens when they are born because they were born in this country but are not natural born citizens, then there would be a new class of citizenship that is neither natural born nor naturalized.

My reading is that he seems to be saying that there can be doubt about the citizenship of those born here but not to citizens, but if that question is decided that they are citizens then they are natural born citizens. It is the citizenship that is in doubt not the status of that citizenship as natural born.

I will read the WKA case a soon as time permits.

71 posted on 10/30/2011 12:37:08 PM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

First, did you get to the second para of my post and, “stop right there?”


72 posted on 10/30/2011 1:05:12 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

Hmmm, the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention were secret. IIRC Madison’s notes weren’t publicized until the 1830s by his widow.


73 posted on 10/30/2011 1:08:38 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

I wish very much that natural born citizen was clearly defined officially, such as a law already passed or clear definition in our great constitution. Further I wish only people born of parents who were both US citizens would be eligible to run for president. That would make me ineligible but my kids would be eligible since they were born after my naturalization.

Unfortunately, the fact that Obama was allowed to run, and was elected, and was sworn in, and is now almost end of his term, and still be the president, has cast the concrete. I just do not see how NBC can be anything different in the future than birth on US soil as the only requirement, or born to US citizens on official duty abroad.

We do not have to like it, but the precedent has been set. If Rubio is on a future ticket, he can litigate in SCOTUS using that precedent. Does any one realistically think SCOTUS will change the Obama definition of NBC? If they did it would mean every law signed by Obama and every executive order would be null and void. It would be the biggest legal mess in history. I do not see that happening. Incidentally Rubio is not even my choice to be on the ticket at this time due to his short history and I am afraid he would be soft on illegal immigrants. That is funny coming from me since I am an immigrant myself, but I could write a book on my difficult journey to US Citizenship.

And by the way appreciate your kind words of welcome.


74 posted on 10/30/2011 1:28:54 PM PDT by federal__reserve (Perry is a good man but his one on one debates with Obama keeps me awake at nights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
The Constitutional Convention: Selected Correspondence from Summer 1787

Get our Newsletter!

Home > Constitutional Convention > The Constitutional Convention: Selected Correspondence from Summer 1787 by Gordon Lloyd

The Constitutional Convention:
Selected Correspondence from Summer 1787

Compiled by Gordon Lloyd

See Also:
   Convention: Introduction to this Site | Introduction to the Convention | Four Act Drama | Day by Day Summary | Major Themes |
       Madison's Notes | Convention Attendance Record | Selected Correspondence

   Delegates: Age of Framers in 1787 | Educational Backgrounds | Continental Experiences | Delegates by State | Alphabetical List |
       Interactive Scene at the Signing of the Constitution | Interactive Map of Philadelphia | Committee Assignments |
       Entertainment of George Washington at City Tavern

Introduction to the Selected Correspondence

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia adopted a rule of secrecy right at the start of their deliberations. Writing from Paris to John Adams in London, Jefferson says: "I am sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their members. Nothing can justify this example but the innocence of their intentions, and ignorance of the value of public discussions. I have no doubt that all their other measures will be good and wise." This comes after he has declared the delegates to be "an assembly of demigods." The adoption of the secrecy rule also means, to the extent that it was observed—and it was pretty scrupulously observed—that subsequent generations of scholars have limited access to the private thoughts of the delegates during the time the deliberations were taking place. There are numerous post convention observations and reflections by the delegates, but these are not quite the same as an unfolding authentic observation.

What follows, then, is a list of essential correspondence. My criterion for essential is that they were written by people who played an essential part in the drama of the American Founding and that the letters reveal some of the twists and turns along with the initial hopes, the frustration during the middle months, the homesickness of the delegates, and the relief that it was all over. I have selected those letters that give a personal flavor to my coverage of the Constitutional Convention as a Four Act Drama. To be sure, there are other letters that could have been included, but they repeat the same twists and turns and the missing of the "felicity" of family life etc that have already been essentially included.

The fact that some of the delegates left Philadelphia—especially the New Jersey and Delaware delegates—for certain periods of time and exchanged comments with those still in Philadelphia provides some valuable information. They talked as openly and as frankly with each other in the mail as they would have done on the floor of the convention. The exchange in early July between Hamilton and Washington is particularly noteworthy in this regard. Also of interest is the correspondence that delegates received from concerned and influential folks back home who shared what they heard being "whispered" about the proceedings. Nor were people like John Jay and Nathan Dane reluctant to provide their own opinions to the selected delegates. And despite his protestations about how the secrecy rule demonstrated "an ignorance of the value of public discussions," Jefferson was kept informed by Madison of the general flow of the debates and, in turn, he openly exchanged ideas with Madison about the separation of powers and the construction of the executive branch.

Delegate Correspondence and the Four Act Drama

Act One

May 20. George Mason to George Mason Jr. How the Virginia delegates occupied themselves in Philadelphia waiting for a quorum of states to take place.

May 20. George Washington to Arthur Lee. The general is livid at the absence of a quorum: "the delays…sour the temper of the punctual members."

May 21. George Read to John Dickinson. Housing is at a premium and the Virginians have a plan.

May 27. James Madison to Edmund Pendleton. Finally, we have a quorum.

June 1. George Mason to George Mason Jr. What we do here will "impact millions unborn."

June 1. Robert Yates to Abraham Yates. He doesn't like the secrecy rule, but will obey it and keep "an exact journal."

June 3. Nathaniel Gorham to Nathan Dane. He is not supposed to tell what the delegates are doing, "but to you in confidence I can say" what has been agreed to.

June 3. Jeremiah Wadsworth to Rufus King. On Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman: "he is as cunning as the devil."

June 6. Edmund Randolph to Beverley Randolph. The former decides to send for his wife because the delegates will be in Philadelphia for a long time.

June 6. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. He is restrained by rules of confidentiality, but what we do here "will in some way or other have a powerful effect on our destiny."

June 6. James Madison to William Short. "The convention contains in several instances the most respectable characters" and "the eyes and hopes of all are turned towards this new assembly."

June 10. James Madison to James Monroe. The secrecy rule "will effectively secure the requisite freedom of discussion."

June 15. John Dickinson to Polly Dickinson. The "convention is very busy," and "of an excellent temper."

June 18. Nathaniel Gorham to Theophilus Parsons. He is not supposed to say anything, but here is what we are doing. "I beg you not to have heard anything on the subject from me, except to your brother."

Act Two

June 19. Nathan Dane to Rufus King. Delegate Pierce Butler from Philadelphia is in New York visiting his wife and attending Congress; he doesn't "fully understand the true meaning, full and just extent of the order not to communicate."

June 26. Oliver Ellsworth to Abigail Ellsworth. He longs for the sincerity of the "little domestic circle."

June 26. John Lansing to Philip Schuyler. "The business of the Convention is going along very slowly."

June 27. William Pierce to George Tucker. "We are enjoined in secrecy. I dare not say any thing."

June 30. George Mason to Beverley Randolph. Silence forbids giving information, but the next two or three days are decisive.

July 1. George Washington to David Stuart. "Everybody expects something from the convention." He anticipates opposition from local politicians unwilling to lose their current powers in state government.

July 2. William Paterson to Euphemia Paterson. "Much remains to be done, and the work is full of labour and difficulty."

July 3. Alexander Hamilton to George Washington. The people are ready for a "strong well mounted government."

July 7. William Jackson to William Rawle. He thanks Rawle for extending the library privileges of the Library of Philadelphia to the delegates.

July 10. George Washington to Alexander Hamilton. He despairs of "seeing a favourable issue to the proceedings of the Convention, and do therefore repent having had any agency in the business."

July 18. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. The Antifederalists are already mounting their out of doors pamphlet opposition to the new plan. Essays by A Mechanic and Columbiadis have appeared.

July 25. William Pierce to William Short: The "first principles" have been settled.

July 25. Edmund Randolph to David Shepherd. "A committee was appointed to prepare a constitution conformable to those (general) principles" that have been agreed on.

July 25. John Jay to George Washington. Only a natural born citizen should be President.

Intermission

July 27. David Brearly to Jonathan Dayton. "Westerday we completed the great principles."

July 28. James Madison to James Madison Sr. A committee is at work during the adjournment.

August 5. James McClurg to James Madison. Patrick Henry is stirring up opposition in Virginia.

Act Three

August 12. Richard Dobbs Spaight to James Iredell. The Committee of Detail Report is under consideration. He anticipates opposition by local politicians during ratification.

August 14. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington. Americans are "in the happiest political situation which exists."

August 16. Thomas McKean to William Atlee. The convention is still sitting; "some say, they will continue together about two more weeks, others say two months."

August 19. George Washington to Henry Knox. "I am fully persuaded it is the best that can be obtained at the present moment under such diversity of ideas as prevail."

August 21. Elbridge Gerry to Ann Gerry. "We meet now at ten and sit till after four, but entre-nous, I do not expect to give my voice to the measures."

August 23. William Paterson to Oliver Ellsworth. "It is said that you are afraid of the very windows, and have a man planted under them to prevent the secrets and doings from flying out."

August 26. Elbridge Gerry to Ann Gerry. "I am exceedingly distressed at the proceedings of the Convention."

August 28. Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King. He will return to sign. It is "whispered here" that the Constitution has recently taken on a "higher tone."

August 30. Thomas Jefferson to John Adams. "It is really an assembly of demigods." However they were wrong to adopt a rule of secrecy.

Act Four

September 1. William Johnson to Ann Johnson. He expects to be home in a fortnight.

September 4. James Madison to James Madison Sr. We won't be here much longer.

September 6. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "If the present moment be lost, it is hard to say what may be our fate."

September 7. Jonas Phillips to George Washington. Urges departure from state practices that require an oath to the New Testament as a qualification for holding office.

September 9. Elbridge Gerry to Ann Gerry. "I have every prospect at present of my giving my negative."

September 9. George Washington to George Augustine Washington. "I am homesick."

September 11. Joseph Jones to James Madison. "it is whispered here that the Virginia delegation is less than unanimous" on the mode of ratification.

September 15. John Dickinson to George Read. Due to a severe headache, "I am now setting off for Wilmington." (Read signed Dickenson's name to the Constitution.)

September 16. James McHenry to Peggy McHenry. "The plan of government passed by an unanimous vote." I am coming home.

Master of American History and Government

Liberty Fund Cosponsored Seminars:

Free Saturday Seminars for Teachers:

Free Summer Institutes for Teachers:

Online Audio Lectures and Discussions:

Support for TeachingAmericanHistory.org is provided by the Verizon Foundation.

TeachingAmericanHistory.org is a project of the
Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University
401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805
(419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)
info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org

© 2006-08 Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs | Design by Capital Idea Ventures, Inc. (CiV)


75 posted on 10/30/2011 1:49:28 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
First, did you get to the second para of my post and, “stop right there?”

Not that it matters to my point, but no, I read your entire article. Oddly enough the part I quoted didn't really have anything to do with the rest of your article either. It was odd that you even bothered putting it into your comments, as such a statement is a known lightning rod, and then to not be able to back it up?

After reading the rest of the thread I noticed a link to your quotes of Madison's notes. Nowhere in there did I see anything that indicated the Delegates discussed the subject during that time. The only thing that I think can be garnered from Madison's notes is that the agreement without comment indicated that they all believed they knew what the term meant. As virtually all of them had been reading Vattel's law of Nations since 1764 or so, I'm pretty sure they did. Alternatively some of them could have been reading this definition

from this 1736 book of English Law. Notice President John Adam's signature? It was his book.

The book goes on further to say:

I looked up "Cælum" and "Solum". It means "Sky and Soil." Therefore the sentence reads " For it is not Sky and Soil that makes a Subject, but the being born within the Allegiance, and under the protection of the King."

If you read further into this book, it shows how people born in England of Non English parents were not permitted to inherit anything. They were treated Defacto differently by English law from "subjects" born to English parents.

Blackstone also acknowledges this. Apparently not all "natural born subjects" are created equal.

76 posted on 10/30/2011 1:50:04 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: federal__reserve
Unfortunately, the fact that Obama was allowed to run, and was elected, and was sworn in, and is now almost end of his term, and still be the president, has cast the concrete.

You are absolutely wrong.

Precedents in court cases are not even universally binding. Such precedents can be reversed by subsequent rulings.

A "precedent" of fraudulent action definitely does not set any sort of binding legal precedent for either courts or congress or states or the people.

Please go back and tell your handlers that you are not up to the task of trolling a website where grownups are discussing stuff.

77 posted on 10/30/2011 2:01:14 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

Go Herman Cain!


78 posted on 10/30/2011 2:08:30 PM PDT by federal__reserve (Perry is a good man but his one on one debates with Obama keeps me awake at nights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
If this is read that they are citizens when they are born because they were born in this country but are not natural born citizens, then there would be a new class of citizenship that is neither natural born nor naturalized.

It would be a new subclass. "born" citizens who are not "natural born citizens" in the meaning of article II. For an example of such a "born citizen" who is most definitely NOT a natural born citizen, see Supreme Court case Roger v Bellei.

Prior to the Cable Act and the Women's citizenship act, being born in this country was a virtual guarantee of Natural born citizen status. Prior to 1922, women automatically took the citizenship of any man they married. All marriages were of the same nationality by the default position of the law. A foreign woman became instantly an American citizen by marriage to an American male. This business of having marriages of differing nationalities simply didn't occur during previous history. It is, in fact, new ground to which people still try to apply the old rules. Obviously Congress in 1922 and 1934 weren't trying to re-write presidential qualifications as outlined in Article II, but because of the unintended consequences of their actions, they've certainly thrown a wrench into the process.

I will read the WKA case a soon as time permits.

I would not bother. WKA is just the opinions of a few judges about the Opinions of the founders. For a more accurate understanding, you need to read the founders opinions directly without the filter of judges' opinions getting in the way. Besides, WKA was regarding 14th amendment "citizen" not article II "Natural born citizen."

79 posted on 10/30/2011 2:25:24 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. My reading of this is this: His definition of Natural-Born Citizen is someone whom by virtue of their birth automatically becomes a citizen.”

Your reading skips over the qualifying phrase “of parents who were its citizens.” I do not see how that phrase can possibly be left out and it leaves no room for Obama to be a natural born citizen.

80 posted on 10/30/2011 3:10:17 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-168 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson