Posted on 02/10/2012 6:27:16 AM PST by Former MSM Viewer
Did Rubios parents become citizens before he was born?
Is your point that if a law gets broken and the breaking goes undetected / punished, the law is forever null and void?
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.
BTW the requirements for veep are the same as the requirements for president.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting. I looked up Curtis and you’re right. He wouldn’t qualify under the new birther interpretation of two parents.
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.
The answer to your question is simple. If Rubio were a Democrat, there would be no problem with him running for President. However, because he is a Republican, he must be deported and then sneak in through HI, become a professional C- student; community agitator; and then, and only then, a US Senator for 141 days. After doing absolutely nothing in the Senate for 141 days, he will be fully qualified to be the President of the free World.
The precedent HAS not been set because Obummer is the President now. A criminal act does not set precedent. If I rob a bank and get away with it, it does not set precedent for another robber to get away with it.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP - 1814
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling: Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
You're wasting your time. The NBC crowd are basically impervious to any argument or line of constitutional analysis that doesn't stop and start with Vattel. Some of them will, to be sure, produce page after page of verbiage and case citations, but what it all boils down to is, "Vattel reigns supreme. Period."
(One of the NBCers even told me that "natural born" and "naturalized by birth" were different concepts! You simply can reason with such a person.)
‘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.”
born in the US = US citizen, but not necessarily a natural born citizen!
If you are born in the US to one or more non-US citizen parents, then you are subject to more than 1 jurisdiction
( you are subject to jurisdiction of US and your parent(s)’s country.) In this case you can still be considered US citizen (if the ‘birthright citizenship’ stands) but most certainly NOT a natural born citizen!
Natural born citizen is citizenship by nature - acquired by birth place and parentage - totally natural, no law can confer this kind of citizenship!
It is not that hard to understand!
Do not purposedly mix US citizen with naural born citizen!
If by getting away with it, you mean no court will prosecute you for it even though they know about it, and no one arrests you; then, yes, I guess you would have set a precedent. Obama as Prez is a fait accompli.
Good guy, but not a NBC for my money. Let the supremes sing out.
The Constitution recognizes two, and two only, forms of citizenship. Citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization.
Those are the words of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your personal attack has been noted to the Admin Moderator.
What am I doing? Preparing to fight enemies of the Constitution like you.
The territory of Kansas was part of the United States, just because it had not reached statehodd did not remove it from the US.
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.