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

Skip to comments.

Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship
WND ^ | 9/01/2012 | Larry Klayman

Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH

[SNIP]Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.

Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”

(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthers; bithcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; scalia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last
Will it ever be resolved?
1 posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:50 AM PDT by GregNH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GregNH

It has been resolved by the 14th amendment - for good or bad.


2 posted on 09/01/2012 6:35:22 AM PDT by Perdogg (Mutts for Mitt all agree - Better in the crate than on the plate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

This just goes to show that no one ..and I mean NO ONE..knows how a ruling would come down from SCOTUS on this issue...despite FREEPERS who claim to know exactly what would happen.

Scalia does talk about it in the oral arguments of Nguyen.


3 posted on 09/01/2012 6:36:41 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

It would seem that many of our FReepers are more qualified to sit on the bench than Scalia.


4 posted on 09/01/2012 6:37:25 AM PDT by patriotsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
One hundred years from now, someone will write a book entitled "The Illegitimate President".

In the meantime, and for another 140+- days, we have to live with "an empty chair".

5 posted on 09/01/2012 6:38:23 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Unfortunately, it also goes to show how we are viewed as the crazy uncle in the basement. Despite the plethora of articles and discussion about this topic over the past four years here and in the conservative blogosphere, the concept has not even appeared on the radar of the most conservative of Supreme Court justices that it is a legitimate issue.


6 posted on 09/01/2012 6:40:56 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Scalia didnt look and sound flumuxed because he didnt know the answer...

he did not want to put himself in the position of having to recuse himself from an Obama Natural Born Citizen case, by taking a side on it, before a decision is to be made.

what a jerk the author is.


7 posted on 09/01/2012 6:40:56 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
This is a crock. Why?

The author supposedly asked, “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?

Am I supposed to believe that Scalia doesn't know there is a difference between a citizen born and one naturalized? My daughter-in-law was naturalized a week ago. She is not eligible for President because she wasn't born in the USA. I find it incredibly hard to believe someone who claims Scalia doesn't know the difference between being born in the USA and being naturalized...

8 posted on 09/01/2012 6:41:32 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

His answer is consistent with his comments in a SCOTUS case during oral arguments.


9 posted on 09/01/2012 6:42:02 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
In the meantime, and for another 140+- days, we have to live with "an empty chair".

From another thread....

Lets see empty chairs in every front garden nation wide.

10 posted on 09/01/2012 6:42:28 AM PDT by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Let's put it this way:

The media is totally disinterested in Obama's past records.

The media is totally fascinated by Romney's past records.

The media is totally fascinated by Todd Akin.

The media is totally disinterested in Paul Ryan's black college girlfriend.

The media is totally disinterested in Obama robo-signing letters to dead and wounded SEALs.

The media was totally fascinated by Bush robo-signing letters to dead and wounded Iraq & Afghanistan veterans.

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

11 posted on 09/01/2012 6:42:32 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

I thought Roberts was the SC poker player.


12 posted on 09/01/2012 6:42:33 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.

Who is this guy? He's gone from assertion to conclusion with no argument or evidence. The Constitution is not always as clear as the nose on your face. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. It takes diligent research sometimes to uncover the intended meaning and original understanding of the text, sometimes going back to English common law which was much of our framers point of reference.

The point is, the Constitution doesn't mean what somebody WANTS it to mean. It's meaning is found in the understanding of the text which, again, may be clear, but should be verified by looking at the historical context of the intent and understanding of the framers.

13 posted on 09/01/2012 6:43:22 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriotsblood
It would seem that many of our FReepers are more qualified to sit on the bench than Scalia.

come on....THINK. he is the BEST we have. do you really believe he would answer that question and have to recuse himself when a decision on Obama needs to be made....

14 posted on 09/01/2012 6:43:53 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Not just that, but Scalia is smart enough not to allow Klayman insert him into the middle of the Election.


15 posted on 09/01/2012 6:44:59 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
In the case of "natural-born citizen", it appears to be an open issue. Here's what I posted recently about this issue and Marco Rubio:

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), was a case about a woman who wanted to vote. It had nothing to do with qualifications for POTUS. It does, however, address the issue of what a natural-born citizen is, but leaves open the question of children born in a U.S. jurisdiction to non-citizen parents. In my quick search, I don't see any subsequent cases that shed any more light on the subject. Relevant part of the opinion below:

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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Minor, 88 U.S. 162.

Nevertheless, there may be an issue because Rubio's parents were not citizens at the time Rubio was born. WorldNetDaily's research shows a native-born citizen born to non-citizen parents may not be what is meant in the Constitution as a "natural-born citizen." http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/rubio-autobiography-proves-hes-not-eligible-for-vp/

There are also those who assert that a native-born citizen IS a natural-born citizen. It almost certainly would have to be decided at the SCOTUS level, if Rubio were to run for POTUS. (What the Immigration Service says is not a deciding factor.)

It seems to me to be a minor point that his parents became citizens two or three years after Rubio's birth in the United States. I guess more research will need to be done to find what was the the intent of the framers was in their use of the term "natural-born citizen". I believe in strict construction of the Constitution by ruling as close as possible to the original intent of the framers, not what a judge or Justice WANTS their intent to have been. My guess is SCOTUS would most likely allow Rubio to be a natural-born citizen for purpose of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution. This may in fact be what the framers intended, but SCOTUS is generally not strict in constructing textual Constitutional meaning, which is why I think they would rule in favor of Rubio, whether or not this was the original intent and understanding of the text of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution.

16 posted on 09/01/2012 6:46:08 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

During the oral aruments of Nguyen, the attorney says that the naturalized term in the Constitution can include natural born citizens as suggested by Rogers V Bellei.

What is clear from the oral argument is that the definition of Natural Born citizen is up in the air.

It is interesting to note that when a case came up again discussing Nguyen..no mention was made of natural born citizen- perhaps because it was now the topic across the country.


17 posted on 09/01/2012 6:47:55 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

What I would have loved to have seen would have been a projected image of an empty suit slowly coming into focus and then appearing behind Eastwood as he spoke, and Eastwood would turn slightly and address the empty suit rather than the chair.


18 posted on 09/01/2012 6:49:43 AM PDT by FrdmLvr (culture, language, borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave
I'm putting a doll house chair in the rear window of my car today.

I really don't want my car keyed to death....but my deductible is only $200.

19 posted on 09/01/2012 6:49:59 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

That was my first thought as well.


20 posted on 09/01/2012 6:51:30 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

From my understanding, if Barack Sr. was really his father and he wasn’t born in the US, Jr. isn’t rightly a US citizen at all. (Since his mother was too young at the time to by the laws at the time to pass on US citizenship in those circumstances.)


21 posted on 09/01/2012 6:52:27 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

This is very disappointing.


22 posted on 09/01/2012 6:54:17 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

You can bet it will be resolved if the Republicans attempt a similar stunt


23 posted on 09/01/2012 6:54:36 AM PDT by reefdiver (zer0 One and Done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

There is no reference to a candidate’s parents in the constitution.


24 posted on 09/01/2012 6:54:42 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (I didn't post this. Someone else did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
There was also US v Wong Kim Ark. I have already stated my posititon which is supported by Mark Levin and Fred Thompson, both of whom are lawyers.
25 posted on 09/01/2012 6:55:08 AM PDT by Perdogg (Mutts for Mitt all agree - Better in the crate than on the plate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
It has been resolved by the 14th amendment

How does the 14th Amendment resolve the meaning of "natural born citizen" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5?

26 posted on 09/01/2012 6:55:34 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

bfl


27 posted on 09/01/2012 6:57:37 AM PDT by TEXOKIE (Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. EdmondBurke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

I disagree. They use to give legitimacy to this administration.


28 posted on 09/01/2012 6:57:53 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Roberts sold his soul to the devil for his wife’s Beltway social life.


29 posted on 09/01/2012 7:00:01 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

A lot of people are lawyers. I’m about to become a lawyer also. Doesn’t matter who’s a lawyer, what matters is a diligent inquiry into the original understanding of a word or phrase in the text that is unclear on the face and applying that original intent to the case at hand.


30 posted on 09/01/2012 7:01:06 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Mi>I have already stated my posititon which is supported by Mark Levin and Fred Thompson, both of whom are lawyers.

You keep your lawyers and I'll raise you the author of the 14th!

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.


 
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.


31 posted on 09/01/2012 7:01:52 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

This is the problem with theories. in 2009, Jerome Corsi claimed B0’s father was Barack Sr.

Corsi contested that presumption that 0bama was born Hawaii, however, it appears that Corsi now claims that Frank Marshall Davis was 0bama’s father which would complicate the theory that 0bama was born in Kenya.


32 posted on 09/01/2012 7:02:18 AM PDT by Perdogg (Mutts for Mitt all agree - Better in the crate than on the plate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Scalia would be a fool to answer the question. He’d just get himself disqualified if the issue ever came up.


33 posted on 09/01/2012 7:02:36 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Shouldn’t this issue have been ruled on long ago, to state who is qualified to be president? The SCOTUS is the most derelict branch of government, and that is saying something.


34 posted on 09/01/2012 7:02:36 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
There is no reference to a candidate’s parents in the constitution.

Bingo. Hence the need to look at what was meant and intended by our framers in the use of "natural born citizen" in the context of non-citizen parents who subsequently became citizens.

35 posted on 09/01/2012 7:04:20 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

pay close attention to the “Well,..maybe...” of Scalia

Justice Breyer: Yes, I mean, their... their citizenship is conferred by statute, and they are citizens from birth, and there are probably tens of millions of them, and George Romney was one of them, and I had not thought that they were naturalized citizens.

I thought they were citizens who were citizens by virtue of their birth, and they’re citizens from birth, but you were saying they’re the same as naturalized.

Or maybe I misunderstood.

Ms Davis: Yes.

Your Honor, the wording of the Constitution is natural born citizens for purposes of being President or Vice President.

And what... I haven’t done the research myself.

What commentators say is that natural born is the equivalent of... includes, encompasses jus soli and jus sanguinis.

But that’s a different term than naturalized.

Justice Breyer: If that’s so, then those who... then those who are born abroad of an American parent are natural born citizens in your view?

Ms Davis: That’s correct.

Justice Breyer: Contrasted with naturalized citizens who would have been aliens who previously were aliens and would have become citizens by virtue of a naturalization law; is that right?

Ms Davis: Your Honor, I guess the question is whether the term naturalized in the Constitution also encompasses natural born citizens.

In Rogers versus Bellei suggested that it did.

Justice Breyer: Well, I... for present purposes what we’re interested in is what standard of review to apply, and whether the extremely deferential standard applies to these natural born citizens.

Ms Davis: I think it’s... I think it’s totally clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally by this Court as well as by Congress been treated differently.

Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship?

I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

Ms Davis: Yes, by the same token...

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

Ms Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.


Also note..from that exchange...born on US soil might be enough for Scalia.


36 posted on 09/01/2012 7:04:33 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Right.

I don’t know how the law deals with such issues, but I’ve taken it that if push came to shove, were he really born abroad and it were so proved, that Barry could and would play the ‘really Frank Davis’s son’ card.


37 posted on 09/01/2012 7:05:23 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

You are correct. However, allegiance that you bold is in reference to obedience to US Federal Govt, not where the parents came from. If you are legally in the US, you give birth to a child, that child is naturally born. You can argue with Mark Levin, I love to hear that.


38 posted on 09/01/2012 7:08:46 AM PDT by Perdogg (Mutts for Mitt all agree - Better in the crate than on the plate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Will it ever be resolved?

Resolved? Probably not. Decided? Oh yeah, just like obamacare was decided and Kelo was decided and Roe v Wade was decided.

They'll find and decide what they need to to keep their masters happy and then go back to enjoying their lifetime perks.

They aren't going to decide against obama and that voting block and they aren't going to decide against people like Rubio, the GOPe's counter to obama.

Anchor babies are natural born now, illegal immigrants soon will be. Who cares what a bunch of old dead white men had to say? What did they know? We have Kagan and that wise latina Sotomayor to guides us now.

39 posted on 09/01/2012 7:10:01 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Nice find.

Thank you


40 posted on 09/01/2012 7:10:25 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

great info. thanks !


41 posted on 09/01/2012 7:10:37 AM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
I can't remember when a non issue chewed up so much band width in FR in the 14 years I've been visiting this page.

Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney are both fully qualified to become president. Where their parents were born has nothing to do with their qualifications.

I have some doubt as to Obama’s actual birthplace but it is a bit late to raise a challenge on where he was born. We'd be better served by focusing on what he's done while in office...

42 posted on 09/01/2012 7:10:45 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (I didn't post this. Someone else did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

I would love to have more stuff to show that 0bama is a fraud. However, this issue would not change the last three and half years (i.e. laws signed, appointments, etc).


43 posted on 09/01/2012 7:11:06 AM PDT by Perdogg (Mutts for Mitt all agree - Better in the crate than on the plate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Chester Arthur’s father was not a US citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.

In another 100 years it is possible that a Mexican citizen born in Mexico can become US President...and no,I am not joking. We are throwing the doors wide open


44 posted on 09/01/2012 7:15:11 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I don’t see this issue being resolved anytime soon by a definitive Supreme Court ruling. Which is probably a good thing knowing now a little more about Chief Justice John Roberts’ judicial philosophy.


45 posted on 09/01/2012 7:16:08 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
My son was born in this country and his father is an immigrant from our closest ally. My husband became a citizen on our son's birthday a few years later. My family has been here since before the Revolutionary War. If anyone told me my son is not eligible to be President of the United States of America, I would call them a liar.
46 posted on 09/01/2012 7:17:26 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
I still see an open issue tied to the meaning of "natural born citizen" as relates to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

[P]arents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty here is in the context of who can vote and falls short of "parents who are United States citizens", leaving open the question about Marco Rubio, who is native born and whose parents became citizens a few years after his birth.

47 posted on 09/01/2012 7:17:49 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: phockthis; Elendur
I still see an open issue tied to the meaning of "natural born citizen" as relates to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

[P]arents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty here is in the context of who can vote and falls short of "parents who are United States citizens", leaving open the question about Marco Rubio, who is native born and whose parents became citizens a few years after his birth.

48 posted on 09/01/2012 7:20:13 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

I think when McCain was challenged on his citizenship, it was to distract the country from the fact that BO is NO American.

JM fell for it but should should have countersued. Too many times BO goes on the offensive and no one stands up to his bullying tactics.


49 posted on 09/01/2012 7:21:30 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Will it ever be resolved?

It's already been resolved.


50 posted on 09/01/2012 7:21:33 AM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 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