Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Marco Rubio eligible to be President?
http://www.freerepublic.com ^ | 2-10-2012 | self

Posted on 02/10/2012 6:27:16 AM PST by Former MSM Viewer

Did Rubios parents become citizens before he was born?


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: born; citizen; natural; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nbc; rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last
Rubio understands American Exceptionalism better than most. Can he be Prez one day?

Can he run as VP?

1 posted on 02/10/2012 6:27:25 AM PST by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

No . But that didn’t stop Obozo .


2 posted on 02/10/2012 6:29:59 AM PST by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

He cannot run as VP if he is ineligible to be President. I’ll leave the determination of his NBC status—and his eligibility for the Presidency to others on FR.


3 posted on 02/10/2012 6:31:25 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas before it was a State. According to the ludicrous “a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is different than a citizen at birth” contingent, he would not have been eligible to be Vice-President.

And yet, he was.

So yes, since Marco Rubio was born as an American citizen, he is eligible to be President and therefore eligible to be Vice-President.


4 posted on 02/10/2012 6:32:03 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
The NBC “issue” regarding a candidate's parents is absurd. These people should check under their beds or dark closets for another boogieman.
5 posted on 02/10/2012 6:35:27 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Is Romney eligible to run???


6 posted on 02/10/2012 6:36:35 AM PST by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Well the courts have essentially decided that part of the constitution doesn’t matter so why not?


7 posted on 02/10/2012 6:36:51 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
"So yes, since Marco Rubio was born as an American citizen, he is eligible to be President and therefore eligible to be Vice-President."

Obot nonsense.

Article II of the Constitution requires natural born Citizenship to be eligible for the office of POTUS.

Marco Rubio was also born as a Cuban citizen, the American-born child of two Cuban foreign nationals.

8 posted on 02/10/2012 6:40:05 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Perhaps the SINGLE MOST exceptional and BOLD COURAGEOUS act a man, this man, Marco Rubio, might do for AMERICA and the restoration of the G-dly values of the Constitution, the Declaration and our Founding Era, is to claim that according to his best understanding of the proper meaning of the US Constitution’s requirement of “Natural Born Citizen” that he himself is ineligible.


9 posted on 02/10/2012 6:41:09 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
In deciding in favor of Obama in the recent Georgia case, the Georgia judge referenced an Indiana case:
The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was\ ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive

If that is how the decision is made, Rubio is eligible to run for President, and so aren't the anchor babies of illegal aliens. - tom

10 posted on 02/10/2012 6:41:50 AM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
Alan West was born here.

Personally I try to avoid jumping on a politician's bandwagon because they happen to be an ethnic minority member of my party, but Congressman West really IS the best candidate for VP IMHO. In fact I wish he were running for the top spot - he'd have BO crapping his drawers.

11 posted on 02/10/2012 6:42:06 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
The NBC “issue” regarding a candidate's parents is absurd. These people should check under their beds or dark closets for another boogieman.

_______________________________________________
You need to go back in history and read why the framers put those “natural born citizen” words in the Second Amendment. Here we sit with an impostor in the WH and you fail to see the harm in advancing the argument that any old “citizen” can be president. Can't you see that Obama proves the case for insisting that a president be born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents. If the law would have been followed with Obama, look at all the strife that this country would have avoided. It proves that Obama never had loyal American parenting to be fit for being the president.

12 posted on 02/10/2012 6:47:04 AM PST by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Good God, yes. Please stop it already. Nobody is buying this birther nonsense. Nobody.


13 posted on 02/10/2012 6:49:02 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
"The NBC “issue” regarding a candidate's parents is absurd. These people should check under their beds or dark closets for another boogieman.""

The U.S. Supreme Court has never defined natural born Citizen any other way than born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. Citizen parents.

14 posted on 02/10/2012 6:50:10 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

What is your opinion on Charles Curtis? Born outside of the U.S. Or Grover Cleveland, whose father was a British citizen at the time of his birth?


15 posted on 02/10/2012 6:50:45 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

I meant to say Second Article not Second Amendment.


16 posted on 02/10/2012 6:51:20 AM PST by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
Did Rubios parents become citizens before he was born?

Public records say no, though some dispute them.<

Can he be Prez one day? Can he run as VP?

As far as we know, NO.

But that didn't stop Obama.

Apparently, if we want to follow the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions on this topic, we are "birthers" and are to be despised, even on FR.

17 posted on 02/10/2012 6:55:32 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

The answer is NO, rubio’s parents were not citizens and rubio is NOT eligible. However, under the communist-rino agreement that provided the hussein dunham usurpation, rubio and jindal will now be waived through. The senate resolution 511 for mccain will now be 513 and 514 for both marco and bobby. Somehow, the commies forgot resolution 512 for dunham.


18 posted on 02/10/2012 6:55:45 AM PST by biggredd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

What possible difference can it make to know whether any of the proposed candidates are qualified for office.

No one cares.

Those that do care are shot down, mostly with the argument that you will never win the argument.

SO Obama violates to the free exercise of religion.

Who cares?

Even our supreme Court Justice says that Constitution would not be passed if they tried it today, and she would prefer the South African Constitution.

All I can say is, if the Constitution not longer matters for you, then beware that it no longer matters for me, either.

If you want a dictator in office with all powers, then beware when someone whom you do not support gets in there to be his or her own kind of dictator.

Meanwhile, the powers that be destroy the economy, free enterprise, and stifle free speech everywhere, and no one even notices.

A pox on them all.


19 posted on 02/10/2012 6:57:45 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

The Supreme Court has said:


“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”


and then


“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”


So there you go. Based on common law (the basis of jurisprudence in the United States), a person born in the country is a citizen of the country at birth. The Supreme Court then says that there are only two ways to be a citizen of the United States: to be born as a citizen or to be naturalized as a citizen.

There is NO magic third definition.

That’s what the Supreme Court says.


20 posted on 02/10/2012 6:58:36 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goseminoles
Is Romney eligible to run???

Normally, when people are naturalized, they are proud of it. Any politician would have this info in their biographies and use it to full advantage to garner votes. Do you see anything anywhere where Papa George was naturalized? Nope. I don't either. There were questions over this when he ran for POTUS but he dropped out before any serious investigation began. I'd like to see the new improved version of SR511 on vetting Mitt. It isn't going to happen because the RATS are wanting him in the running. As soon as the GOP elects an ineligible POTUS, bam! that's the end of any questions about the kenyan's appointments and rulings while in office.

21 posted on 02/10/2012 6:59:16 AM PST by bgill (Romney & Obama are both ineligible. A non-NBC GOP prez shuts down all ?s on Obama's admin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Please stop it already. Nobody is buying this birther nonsense. Nobody.

People like this are why this country is going down the toilet. If one section of the Constitution means nothing, it's all void, and Obama can do anything he wants. Until the next civil war, anyway.

22 posted on 02/10/2012 6:59:21 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
"What is your opinion on Charles Curtis? Born outside of the U.S. Or Grover Cleveland, whose father was a British citizen at the time of his birth?"

Charles Curtis? Enlighten me.

As to Grover Cleveland, he was a natural born Citizen as his father was a U.S. citizen when Grover was born:

Richard Falley Cleveland - was born on 19 Jun 1804 in Norwich, New London County, Connecticut and died on 1 Oct 1853 in Holland Patent, Erie, NY . He was the son of William Cleveland and Margaret Falley. Richard married Ann Neale. Ann was born on 4 Feb 1806 in Baltimore, Baltimore County, Maryland.

24 posted on 02/10/2012 7:09:53 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

I apologize (I’ll blame caffiene deprivation a while ago), it was Chester Arthur, not Grover Cleveland, whose Father was Irish and not an American when he was born.


25 posted on 02/10/2012 7:10:50 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1
The senate resolution 511 for mccain will now be 513 and 514 for both marco and bobby.

I suggest that Marco & Bobby won't be given a congressional "free pass" unless, in the style of the Missouri Compromise, the Democrats try once again to run another candidate of questionable NBC-status. Then a one-for-one bargain will be struck a la McCain-for-Obama.

Seriously, we are in an era where paternity is so devalued that many Americans, raised only by their mothers, don't know who their father is with any degree of certainty. Combine that with the overhang from all the "anchor babies" born over the last 40 years and you have a recipe for what he have now -- a president who just flouts the constitution because the vast majority of citizens don't give a rip.

26 posted on 02/10/2012 7:12:49 AM PST by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
People like this are why this country is going down the toilet. If one section of the Constitution means nothing, it's all void, and Obama can do anything he wants. Until the next civil war, anyway.

So, what are you going to do about it, other than argue with Freepers? Are you going to don a super-hero suit and save the day as "Constitution Man"? Like it or not, the precedent has been set with Obama. If we want to run Rubio or Jindal, then we can.

27 posted on 02/10/2012 7:13:05 AM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
When the Constitution is ridiculed by both the "Republicans" and the Demoncrat-Commies, they both have become domestic enemies.

Nobody is ridiculing the Constitution, but rather the made-up birtherisms that are found nowhere in the Constitution.

28 posted on 02/10/2012 7:16:45 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

The definition of NBC was understood by the founders, it didn’t need to be explained. As the constitution was being written, issues surrounding who could serve as our head of state, and what that would be were hotly debated. The one requirement they all wanted was that our leader only have allegiance to the new fledgling united states. I wish I could read french, but as a product of the US education system, I’m lucky to be able to read english. When writing the constitution the founders including GW leaned heavily on the Law of Nations by Vattel 1758. In fact it was only last year that the NY public library forgave GW a late book fine of over 300K for three outstanding books one of which was an english translation of Vattel’s seminal work.

In the Law of Nations, citizenship was clearly defined as flowing from the bloodline of the father, where one was born was not relevant. To be native born, however was to be born on one’s home soil of parents who owed no other sovereign their allegiance, by renouncing any other citizenship and being a citizen of their chosen sovereign.


29 posted on 02/10/2012 7:16:55 AM PST by waynesa98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Charles Curtis was not born in the United States. He was born in the territory of Kansas.

This is the same argument that was tried against Barry Goldwater as he was born in the territory of Arizona.

According to the strict definitions that have been put down as the line of legitimacy, neither Curtis nor Goldwater (nor McCain for that matter) would be a “Natural Born Citizen” according to Vattel.

This argument fails on all accounts, everytime it’s brought up.

There are two ways (and only two, according to the words of the Supreme Court above) to be a citizen. You are either born a citizen, or you are naturalized a citizen.

If you are born a citizen, you are a “natural born citizen”. Period.


30 posted on 02/10/2012 7:18:08 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
I apologize (I’ll blame caffiene deprivation a while ago), it was Chester Arthur, not Grover Cleveland, whose Father was Irish and not an American when he was born.

I thought perhaps that you were referring to Chester Arthur. But as I too was caffeine-deprived at the time I didn't want to jump on you. LOL!

31 posted on 02/10/2012 7:18:20 AM PST by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Pure obot disinformation.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Article II presidential eligibility and the term natural born Citizen is NOT mentioned even once in it's wording.

Natural born is from natural law, and requires no man made law or legislation.

32 posted on 02/10/2012 7:19:41 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

You have to give up on this crowd. They are beyond reason.


33 posted on 02/10/2012 7:20:59 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

No, and the way he talks about Cuba, there would clearly be a loyalty conflict.


34 posted on 02/10/2012 7:22:31 AM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

Look under your bed !


35 posted on 02/10/2012 7:25:58 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Keep calling it “Obot” misinformation so that everyone can see what a prick you are.

English Common Law was the basis of jurisprudence in the early party of this nation’s history. It was the lens that we viewed the law. The Marshall Court relied upon it exclusively, except in the matter of international and naval situations, and it is where many of our current legal precedence comes from.

The Supreme Court has plenty to say about the birther arguments, and none is good news for the birther movement.


36 posted on 02/10/2012 7:25:58 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

No Rubio’s parents became citizens after his birth. He is not eligible to be VP or POTUS but I’m sure the GOP will try to run him anyway. There is an unspoken agreement between the GOP and Dems to change the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Thats why Obama was allowed to run. They all knew he was not eligible.


37 posted on 02/10/2012 7:26:07 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Perhaps the SINGLE MOST exceptional and BOLD COURAGEOUS act a man, this man, Marco Rubio, might do for AMERICA and the restoration of the G-dly values of the Constitution, the Declaration and our Founding Era, is to claim that according to his best understanding of the proper meaning of the US Constitution’s requirement of “Natural Born Citizen” that he himself is ineligible.

Yes!

38 posted on 02/10/2012 7:36:17 AM PST by JohnG45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Again, pure obot disinformation.

Neither of your examples even mentions the term:

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

39 posted on 02/10/2012 7:37:36 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bvw

‘Perhaps the SINGLE MOST exceptional and BOLD COURAGEOUS act a man, this man, Marco Rubio, might do for AMERICA and the restoration of the G-dly values of the Constitution, the Declaration and our Founding Era, is to claim that according to his best understanding of the proper meaning of the US Constitution’s requirement of “Natural Born Citizen” that he himself is ineligible.’

Well-said!


40 posted on 02/10/2012 7:44:03 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

Is your point that if a law gets broken and the breaking goes undetected / punished, the law is forever null and void?


42 posted on 02/10/2012 7:46:03 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Limbaugh: Tim Tebow miracle: "He had atheists praying to God that he would lose.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
According to what I read, a “natural born citizen,” as defined by the Law of Nations, basis of U.S. constitutional law, means a person born in the country of interest to parents (actually maybe father only, since this was written long ago) who are citizens OR permanent residents of same. That would allow Rubio, but NOT Barack Obama, whose father was a temporary foreign visitor (student). LoN also allows a person born elsewhere to a member of US military, if that person is on military duty for the gov’t at the time. That was the basis of John McCain's claim to be a NBC, and which claim was endorsed by Congress.
43 posted on 02/10/2012 7:48:46 AM PST by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

I’m saying that these arguments have been used before, have been found to be without merit, and it is ludicrous to think that we have a better idea of what was in the Founder’s minds than John Marshall.


44 posted on 02/10/2012 7:49:31 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
I'm under the impression that Cuban refugees from that time frame became legal residents as soon as both feet touched dry land on US soil.

BTW the requirements for veep are the same as the requirements for president.

45 posted on 02/10/2012 7:52:28 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

Found without merit or found without standing? I have not seen the former and would love for you to point to where this has actually been adjudicated on the merits.


46 posted on 02/10/2012 7:54:01 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Limbaugh: Tim Tebow miracle: "He had atheists praying to God that he would lose.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: All

There are 4 kinds -
1. those who abide by the consitution, including article 2
2. those who couldn’t care less about the constitution, like the obots and the radical leftists
3. those who just go with the mob mentality - majority think it is ok to change the meaning of natural born citizen
without a constitution amendment, so be it. Why fight?
4. those who have no clue!

The constitution protects the minority. But if you the people, together with congess, judicial system and the gov don’t care about the constitution, you go with the majority and the minority is out of luck.


47 posted on 02/10/2012 7:55:52 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal

Just to make a very, very, very clear point.

Vattel’s “Law of Nations”

WAS NOT

the basis of the U.S. Constitution.

Our Constitution was based on English Common Law. It was only in 1938 that the Court abandoned Common Law.


48 posted on 02/10/2012 8:01:23 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; Godebert

Interesting. I looked up Curtis and you’re right. He wouldn’t qualify under the new birther interpretation of two parents.


49 posted on 02/10/2012 8:04:56 AM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

In the Ark case, many of the arguments used by the birthers (including heavy reliance upon Vattel) are used in the dissenting opinion.

I would say that those arguments were therefore presented before the Court, and as the Court (in it’s majority) discounted those arguments, those arguments were found to be without merit.


50 posted on 02/10/2012 8:06:08 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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