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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last
To: Former MSM Viewer

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.


51 posted on 02/10/2012 8:07:23 AM PST by baiamonte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

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.


52 posted on 02/10/2012 8:08:11 AM PST by kiltie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
"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."

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…

53 posted on 02/10/2012 8:08:42 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
>> There is NO magic third definition. <<

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.)

54 posted on 02/10/2012 8:10:44 AM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

‘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!


55 posted on 02/10/2012 8:15:10 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kiltie65
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.

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.

56 posted on 02/10/2012 8:31:11 AM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Good guy, but not a NBC for my money. Let the supremes sing out.


57 posted on 02/10/2012 8:32:54 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

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.


58 posted on 02/10/2012 8:36:58 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
Are you going to don a super-hero suit and save the day as "Constitution Man"?

Your personal attack has been noted to the Admin Moderator.

What am I doing? Preparing to fight enemies of the Constitution like you.

59 posted on 02/10/2012 8:52:29 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 27 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

The territory of Kansas was part of the United States, just because it had not reached statehodd did not remove it from the US.


60 posted on 02/10/2012 9:00:53 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

According to the birther movement, it does remove it from being a part of the U.S.


61 posted on 02/10/2012 9:07:16 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
Your personal attack has been noted to the Admin Moderator.

What am I doing? Preparing to fight enemies of the Constitution like you.

I asked what you are going to do about Obama trampling on the constitution. Were you going to argue with Freepers or "don a Constitution Man super hero suit?". All you did was tattle to the moderators that "someone attacked me".

In other words, you real answer was "argue with Freepers".

I am sick of posts that suggest that everyone who is not a birther does not care about the constitution. Particularly when those of you who claim to care spend all your time caring on a conservative message board.

62 posted on 02/10/2012 10:12:41 AM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: backwoods-engineer

This is the opinion of the Supreme Court.


65 posted on 02/10/2012 11:23:48 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
Be assured, I am working on it every day.

Good for you. Most of the time, the Freeper Birthers do little more than insult those of us who think nothing can be done about Obama's trampling on the Constitution, other than working toward defeating him in November. If you are doing something more, that's good.

66 posted on 02/10/2012 11:30:01 AM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: bvw
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.

Why should Rubio embrace this nonsense? Nobody else is.

67 posted on 02/10/2012 11:36:31 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I am everybody. I endorse it, Dave. Does that make YOU a nobody?


68 posted on 02/10/2012 11:42:26 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]




Click a Kitty         Thank you, JoeProBono

Sweet Young Dragon Adopts Some Orphans

Lend a helping hand
Donate monthly

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

69 posted on 02/10/2012 12:39:20 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

The founders had to reject English common law in order to declare themselves to be U.S. citizens. ECL required perpetual allegiance. There’s no parallel for this in U.S. citizenship. ECL prohibited expatriation. This is another part of the law that had to be suspended and/or rejected in order to become citizens. Eventually, the U.S. signed a treaty with England that according to the Supreme Court made persons born in the U.S. British subjects if they adhered to the crown. The Minor court defined NBC as: all children born in the country to citizen parents. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark cited a ruling that said the white children of aliens born in the country were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States PRIOR to the 14th amendment. Ark then cited Minor as saying that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizen. Yes, the Supreme court has plenty to say and NONE of it would make Rubio eligible to be president.


70 posted on 02/10/2012 12:45:27 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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.

No Eric; what is absurd is not understanding that the birthplace and allegiance of the parents shapes the child. Our Founders wanted to guarantee that we did not let the boogieman into the White House. We should have paid attention.


71 posted on 02/10/2012 12:53:30 PM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The Constitution of the State of New York in 1777 explicitly defines English Common Law as the basis for the State’s jurisprudence. Habeaus corpus, jury trials, etc. were all elements of English Common Law.

The Ark case in fact would argue that Rubio is a natural born citizen, because in fact it found that Ark was a natural born citizen.

Ark was born in the U.S. to Chinese parents who left the U.S. to go back to China when he was a young child. When he tried to get back into the U.S., during a period where there was strict limits on Chinese immigration, he argued that since he was born in the U.S. he was a U.S. citizen by birth.

The Supreme Court agreed with him. And in that case, the Supreme Court established that there are two, and two only, ways to be a U.S. citizen: you are born a citizen, or you are naturalized a citizen.


72 posted on 02/10/2012 12:53:40 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

Complete and total nonsense.


73 posted on 02/10/2012 1:35:57 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
The Constitution of the State of New York in 1777 explicitly defines English Common Law as the basis for the State’s jurisprudence. Habeaus corpus, jury trials, etc. were all elements of English Common Law.

Wonderful. That's one state. If we'd lived in the United States of New York, you might have a meaningful point. The Supreme Court used a case in New York however to explain that the United States relies elsewhere for citizenship.

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.

- - -

If born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority; which never having been done, he remains a British subject, and disabled from inheriting the land in question.
The Ark case in fact would argue that Rubio is a natural born citizen, because in fact it found that Ark was a natural born citizen.

No, actually it didn't. The Ark case only found Ark to be a citizen of the United States. The Ark court relied on Minor for its definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. That's why it affirms that the holding in Minor is based on both jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...
The Supreme Court agreed with him. And in that case, the Supreme Court established that there are two, and two only, ways to be a U.S. citizen: you are born a citizen, or you are naturalized a citizen.

You misunderstand the decision. It says there are only two ways to become citizens UNDER the 14th amendment. This court ruled that the 14th amendment only applied to former slaves and to resident aliens. It said the 14th amendment did NOT define natural-born citizenship. It noted that because of Minor's decision, the Supreme Court was " committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..."

74 posted on 02/10/2012 1:59:07 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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.

So why was I always told as a kid that you had to be born in the US to be president?

If 'natural born Citizen' is synonomous with 'citizen at birth', why does it matter where you were born? You are a citizen the instant you are born no matter where you are born, as long as one of your parents is a US citizen.

So, with that logic, if your mother had fallen in love with Mao Zedong, you could have been born the son of Chairman Mao, in the middle of tiananmen square, and you would still be a 'natural born Citizen' of the US, and eligible to be president?

That makes sense!

I mean the reason that the whole 'natural born Citizen' clause is in the Constitution in the first place is because John Jay wrote to Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

So...even though you were born the son of Chairman Mao, and you were born and raised in communist China, that really doesn't make you, what Jay called a 'foreigner'? Does it? Just because you were born and raised by a communist dictator should not exclude someone from the right to be President of the US. Is that correct?
75 posted on 02/10/2012 2:28:01 PM PST by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Natural born citizen means Citizen at Birth and NOTHING ELSE!

I know of not a single elected official or judge in the entire country who disagrees with me on this point.


76 posted on 02/11/2012 12:01:15 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Natural born citizen means Citizen at Birth and NOTHING ELSE!

I know of not a single elected official or judge in the entire country who disagrees with me on this point.


77 posted on 02/11/2012 12:01:25 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Natural born citizen means Citizen at Birth and NOTHING ELSE!

I know of not a single elected official or judge in the entire country who disagrees with me on this point.


78 posted on 02/11/2012 12:01:44 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Yes, he is eligible, spot on and thank you for the history lesson.

Birthers tend to be stubborn, know it all fools. They have every right to waste their time, but I am tired of them demanding conservative allegiance to their stupid, wrong headed, false beliefs.

79 posted on 02/11/2012 12:03:55 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

You are wrong.
You do not know what you are talking about.

Not a single elected official agrees with you.
Not a single judge agrees with you.
Not a single conservative legal organization agrees with you.

RUBIO WAS BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL
RUBIO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!


80 posted on 02/11/2012 12:06:58 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

You are wrong.
You do not know what you are talking about.

Not a single elected official agrees with you.
Not a single judge agrees with you.
Not a single conservative legal organization agrees with you.

RUBIO WAS BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL
RUBIO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!


81 posted on 02/11/2012 12:07:04 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Wrong.
Rubio is eligible.
You do not know what you are talking about.
82 posted on 02/11/2012 12:08:23 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: iontheball
You are wrong.
It is not at all “conservative” to bend, twist and distort the law of this country to achieve a desired end result.
Obama, if born in this country, IS a natural born citizen.

Marco Rubio IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!


“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
83 posted on 02/11/2012 12:12:48 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


84 posted on 02/11/2012 12:13:50 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


85 posted on 02/11/2012 12:15:03 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


86 posted on 02/11/2012 12:16:41 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
You are wrong.
I refuse to bow to your errors.
Rubio is eligible.
My views are entirely Constitutional.
87 posted on 02/11/2012 12:19:07 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: waynesa98

You cant find a single member of the Constitutional Convention who agrees with you.

NOT ONE!

Madison said clearly that the location of birth was the most important issue:


“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


88 posted on 02/11/2012 12:22:08 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


89 posted on 02/11/2012 12:24:59 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


90 posted on 02/11/2012 12:26:42 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JohnG45

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


91 posted on 02/11/2012 12:27:54 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

James Madison said, clearly, that legilation was needed to more clearly define the rules of citizenship.

This was after the ratification of the Constitution, in a case that even you legally ignorant birthers agree was a solid case of citizenship!


“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


92 posted on 02/11/2012 12:30:26 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

James Madison said, clearly, that legilation was needed to more clearly define the rules of citizenship.

This was after the ratification of the Constitution, in a case that even you legally ignorant birthers agree was a solid case of citizenship!


“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


93 posted on 02/11/2012 12:30:26 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

James Madison said, clearly, that legilation was needed to more clearly define the rules of citizenship.

This was after the ratification of the Constitution, in a case that even you legally ignorant birthers agree was a solid case of citizenship!


“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


94 posted on 02/11/2012 12:30:26 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

None of those cases proves anything other than the fact that you do not understand how law works, how legal decisions are to be read, and that you do not understand the English Language.

There is not a case, anywhere, that says you MUST have two citizen parents and be born on US Soil to qualify.

-—you can find a case that says you ARE a Natural Born Citizen if you do have two citizen parents, but you can find NO COURT CASE, ANYWHERE THAT SAYS YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN IF YOU DONT HAVE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS!

You need to learn the difference between inclusive and exclusive language. Clearly, you don’t know how to read.

You are wrong.


95 posted on 02/11/2012 12:35:28 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

None of those cases proves anything other than the fact that you do not understand how law works, how legal decisions are to be read, and that you do not understand the English Language.

There is not a case, anywhere, that says you MUST have two citizen parents and be born on US Soil to qualify.

-—you can find a case that says you ARE a Natural Born Citizen if you do have two citizen parents, but you can find NO COURT CASE, ANYWHERE THAT SAYS YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN IF YOU DONT HAVE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS!

You need to learn the difference between inclusive and exclusive language. Clearly, you don’t know how to read.

You are wrong.


96 posted on 02/11/2012 12:35:34 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


97 posted on 02/11/2012 12:36:48 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

You are wrong.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth, and NOTHING ELSE!

NOBODY WITH ANY AUTHORITY AGREES WITH YOU!


98 posted on 02/11/2012 12:43:01 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

You are wrong.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth, and NOTHING ELSE!

NOBODY WITH ANY AUTHORITY AGREES WITH YOU!


99 posted on 02/11/2012 12:43:01 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

If you’re going to spam the thread, at least fix that first link so it brings up your reference to Zephaniah Swift. Who the hell is he??


100 posted on 02/11/2012 12:45:03 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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