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

Skip to comments.

(vanity)Yet another point of the Natural Born Cit. Requirement
none | 6/23/2012 | myself

Posted on 06/23/2012 6:13:41 AM PDT by urtax$@work

Contemplating about the subjects of Citizen and natural born Citizen , if anything, has shown me that the few words in the Constitution have sooo... many aspects that have been discovered, realized, understood thru discussions here on FR since 2008.

The FReeper postings from individuals across the country with varied backgrounds and educations have shown me all those varied aspects of better understanding of a subject, specifically the qualification aspects to hold federal office in our country.

Sometimes understanding or epiphanies of the NBC issues have come to me when i was not expecting such. The latest instance was yesterday when i was digging thru my college boxes (to show our youngest college bounder) and ran across my US History Survey text and leafed thru it. Flipped back to the appendices to the US Constitution . I was rereading the requirements to hold office and thinking about how to explain to a noob about the issue. ( I would show bar graphs of the stiffer requirements from US Rep to US Sen to President.)

Then it came to me that sometimes its more than just the plain words themselves that describe our laws but it's how the words are ARRANGED. Reread the qualifications of Rep., Sen., and president. There is one thing missing from the presidential citizenship phrase that is in the other two office holders citizen phrases.....It's the NUMBER OF YEARS. There are prescribed years for Rep and Sen to be Citizens. There are NO PRESCRIBED YEARS FOR NBC- which (again) reinforces the idea that it is attained only at birth.

I know NBC has been well discussed here but i don’t recall specifically the lack of prescribed years wording in conjunction with NBC and what that implies. If i did miss this little point in any previous discussion sorry to have wasted your time.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; rubio; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last
FReeper comments welcome.
1 posted on 06/23/2012 6:13:46 AM PDT by urtax$@work
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

The framers of the Constitition most definitely knew what they were articulating, the Congress that is sitting, has little regard to the LAW, and a whole lot of regard to polls and surveys...public opinion of the MSM. Politicians like DOGS are easily trained by giving them repeated whacks with a newspaper.


2 posted on 06/23/2012 6:20:01 AM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

Excellent point.

It is now after three and a half years of the kenyan jackass that I truly appreciate, admire and awe at the brilliance, vision, and leadership that our founding fathers had. I do not think we will have the likes of men like them again since we have become a distracted society that no longer values intellect, critical thinking and tutelage. Today’s Americans cannot retain an attention span to even think about reading John Locke et al.


3 posted on 06/23/2012 6:58:07 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work
Yes, good work. I'm so old that citizenship variables were taught in social studies classes in elementary and junior high school.

I learned that a natural born citizen is one in which " no further action was ever required to by a citizen with regard to his place or standing in our civil society" - and that is why Barack Obama and Marco Rubio, while being eligible for US representative status (questionable in Obama's case)are NOT qualified for the office of the presidency.

Rubio is a naturalized citizen and Obama's father was a British subject.

Obama MAY be a naturalized citizen, but there is not a generally accepted argument that he is even that.

I tend to almost believe that the so-called "botched swearing in redo" ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won't touch any "birther" claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.

4 posted on 06/23/2012 7:02:53 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atc23

I tend to almost believe that the so-called “botched swearing in redo” ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won’t touch any “birther” claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation

*******

I always thought it was because he wanted to be sworn in using the koran and not the Bible. He didn’t want us to know he’s muslim.

As for the issue at hand, I don’t believe Rubio is eligible. If he’s being vetted and they find he is not, I certainly hope they will be honest with us and bypass him.


5 posted on 06/23/2012 7:14:33 AM PDT by mardi59 (THE REBELLION IS ON!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: atc23

“I tend to almost believe that the so-called “botched swearing in redo” ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won’t touch any “birther” claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.”

Any evidence for that?

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen”

-”Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”. Congressional Research Service report. Federation of American Scientists.


6 posted on 06/23/2012 7:16:21 AM PDT by Flightdeck (If you hear me yell "Eject, Eject, Eject!" the last two will be echos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: atc23
I tend to almost believe that the so-called "botched swearing in redo" ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won't touch any "birther" claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.

I hadn't considered THAT! Truly stunning, if true. That would make Roberts complicit in this fraud.

7 posted on 06/23/2012 7:20:07 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work
I wonder if Obama would even submit himself to a public recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I suspect he would botch the words. Of course the morning call to worship from the Koran - he's certainly got that down.

The founders of this nation, were they able to return from the dead for a week to inspect the Capitol, would likely tell us that a Republic can only be held by the willing and that we have surely fallen short in that regard - therefore, we've installed a form of government unrecognizable to them.

8 posted on 06/23/2012 7:20:17 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

I hadn’t thought about that until reading your post, so, thank you!

My feelings on the subject is that it just doesn’t matter anymore. Obama is not a NBC, there is no doubt of that. Does the GOP care? No.

If a GOP candidate didn’t meet the NBC requirement, would the GOP or the Dems care. No, because if you think about it, neither national party gives a flying crap what the Constituion says, or else they would be following it once in awhile. The Constitution limits power, so it’s in their interests to ignore it, and they do, daily.

Another thing that has bothered me about the NBC topic, is how almost every court in the nation says none of the plaintiffs have “standing” to sue. When it comes to our President, we ALL have standing. I have seen an opinion from a court saying that it’s the job of Congress to investigate a candidates qualifications for President. If that is the case, which I believe it isn’t, then what happens if Congress refuses to do it? Like they refuse to protect out borders. If Congress refuses to do its job, then it’s our responsibility as citizens to do it for them. It would be next to impossible to wait for elections to replace enough of Congress to where they would actually do what was required of them. It would be a hopeless situation if not for one thing.....our Constitutions Second Amendment.

I’ll do what I can with my vote, but in reality, nothing in our government will really change until we water the tree.

That’s my two cents....


9 posted on 06/23/2012 7:37:52 AM PDT by Sporke (USS-Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

An excellent point framed in a way not before cited at FR, as far as I can recall.


10 posted on 06/23/2012 7:41:35 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
That old tripe again?!

The link, since you didn't provide one...
@ Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that “some authorities” hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case.

Now, one has to look at the rulings (what was "held") issued in @ Minor v. Happersett (see specifically #2) and also read the following from @ LOCKWOOD, EX PARTE, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) to know that Jack Maskell is...misleading...readers with such a conclusion.

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.

He doesn't know the difference between dicta and a ruling yet he is supposed to be informing Congress?

Sorry, try again.

11 posted on 06/23/2012 7:46:38 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

Very good point!


12 posted on 06/23/2012 7:47:17 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work
FReeper comments welcome.

Sometimes the obvious has to be pointed out.
Good observation.

13 posted on 06/23/2012 7:48:01 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
“I tend to almost believe that the so-called “botched swearing in redo” ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won’t touch any “birther” claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.” Any evidence for that? If there was, we certainly wouldn't know it

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen”

The above is ridiculous - "by birth" and "at birth" (as used here)are two diametrically opposed phrases and cannot exist together regarding the subject.

By the above "opinion" from "legal and "historical" authorities, there would be no difference between a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen and an illegal immigrant. A naturalized citizen has been through a PROCESS to acquire citizenship status e.g. - classes, paperwork, oaths, etc. They have been "IZED" In Rubio's case, his parents went through the process and therefore he has had, apparently, guardianship transferral of legal status. He's apparently safe from being arrested and deported and he's even eligible to be a congressman or a senator - and that's all. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand, but more importantly, why it's not enough for the the latest FReeper subgroup, the Rubio at Any Cost assembly. Why the push for Rubio?

I understand the legislative branch of our government and their push to water down and make unrecognizable the citizenship requirements for certain government bureaucrats. We all know that the agenda is an eventual, anything goes, open borders, World Government of Peaceful Coexistence - but some of us resist.

14 posted on 06/23/2012 7:51:34 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: atc23
We all know that the agenda is an eventual, anything goes, open borders,
World Government of Peaceful Coexistence - but some of us resist.


15 posted on 06/23/2012 7:55:49 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: atc23; Flightdeck
...meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."
And people still try to use @ USC 8 § 1401 as a means of rational without realizing what they're actually saying and doing.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

Natural born citizens need no "legal requirements" to be natural born citizens "at birth".

16 posted on 06/23/2012 8:05:24 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: atc23; Flightdeck
Oops...forgot an "e"...rationale
17 posted on 06/23/2012 8:07:47 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Of course Roberts is complicit, regardless of the content of the second oath.

He botched the word order of the first so he performed the second out of an abundance of caution. What that says is that he was very keen to fixate upon the proper recitation of the oath, while remaining blind to the illegitimacy of the one taking the oath.

No wonder he bumbled the word "faithfully." It probably said more about Roberts than the usurper.

18 posted on 06/23/2012 8:10:08 AM PDT by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Ping


19 posted on 06/23/2012 8:12:22 AM PDT by urtax$@work (The only kind of memorial is a Burning memorial !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work; atc23
If I understand both of you correctly, you are saying that a natural born citizen is anybody who is born a citizen. It makes a lot of sense to me. But a number of Freepers have added that both parents have to be citizens at the time of that person's birth. How does that fit in with your definition? What is your opinion on this last requirement?

I'm just curious, I am a naturalized citizen so I know that I will never be eligible. I understand that and accept it. When I joined the club I swore to go by the club's rules. But since 2008 I've wondered about my children more than once. They both were born in the US, from a US citizen father, but I only had a green card at the time of their birth. Should they want to run one day, are they eligible or not? I don't think their case is unique, so I wish the SCOTUS would give a final definition of natural born citizen. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it!

20 posted on 06/23/2012 8:20:05 AM PDT by Former Fetus (Saved by grace through faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus
If I understand both of you correctly, you are saying that a natural born citizen is anybody who is born a citizen.

Born of parents who are US citizens at time of birth is what I have always been taught. My stepfather was born in Winnepeg and became a US citizen after going to classes and taking tests, taking the oath, etc. He was a naturalized US Citizen. A natural born citizen would never have to do anything other than enjoy the good fortune of his/her two US citizen parents.

The big push now, with the Obama precedent, is to make the presidency open to all comers and both parties are simpatico on this issue - that's why there is so much disagreement - IMO

21 posted on 06/23/2012 8:30:50 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: atc23; urtax$@work; Red Steel; David; LucyT; Brown Deer; Seizethecarp; Danae; GregNH; ...
Rubio is a naturalized citizen.

No, Rubio was born in the United States, making him a citizen at birth and eliminating the need to be naturalized.

But the issue of Rubio's NBC status or lack thereof, and theerefore his constitutional eligibility for the vice presidency (the eligibility requirements for VP are exactly the same as for President, according to the Twelfth Amendment), boils down to whether or not his foreign-born parents were naturalized by the time of his birth.

Does anyone know the date on which Marco Rubio's parents were naturalized?

22 posted on 06/23/2012 8:34:43 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus
...since 2008 I've wondered about my children more than once. They both were born in the US, from a US citizen father, but I only had a green card at the time of their birth. Should they want to run one day, are they eligible or not? I don't think their case is unique, so I wish the SCOTUS would give a final definition of natural born citizen. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

According to the Vattel definition of "Natural Born Citizen," from which the writers of the Constitution undoubtedly took that term, your children are ineligible for the presidency and vice-presidency because you, their father, were not a citizen at the time of their birth.

But they are eligible for any other federal office.

23 posted on 06/23/2012 8:41:36 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

Good point.

I was talking with a college student this week and he thought white and Christian were part of the requirements for POTUS. He had no clue about NBC.


24 posted on 06/23/2012 8:41:54 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Does anyone know the date on which Marco Rubio's parents were naturalized?




25 posted on 06/23/2012 8:46:51 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: atc23

For all your focus on detail, why would you claim that Rubio is a naturalized citizen, when by your own (and everyone else’s) definition, he is not?


26 posted on 06/23/2012 8:48:28 AM PDT by Flightdeck (If you hear me yell "Eject, Eject, Eject!" the last two will be echos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bgill; All
I was talking with a college student this week and he thought white and Christian were part of the requirements for POTUS.

What a freakin' idiot he is, a product of a dumbed down leftist controlled public school education I would think.

BTW, the Constitution explicitly prohibits any religious test for any federal public office.

The sad thing is that he votes and his vote counts the same as yours or mine.

27 posted on 06/23/2012 8:51:24 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Rubio is a *native* citizen, under the 14th amendment. A statutory citizen.

I had read that his father became a US citizen when Rubio was four. I had also read something supposedly from Rubio himself that his parents had kind of always hoped to be able to go back.


28 posted on 06/23/2012 8:51:24 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

That’s cool RedSteel - is there one for his mother?


29 posted on 06/23/2012 8:55:28 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: atc23

Even the usurper acknowledged the definition of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS when he signed SR 511 in committee. He signed it again when it went to the Senate. Every Senator who signed the resolution to vet McCain can’t wiggle out of it now. By SCOTUS’ own words, they are “evading” the NBC issue. They’re evading it because they know he’s not eligible. The big question is why was it Roberts who did the swearing in? Why wasn’t it a lefty? Who decided it’d be Roberts? The answer is whatever went on behind closed doors, Roberts was party to it so now they have power over him. It’s the same with Congress who signed off on the TWO CITIZEN PARENTS definition. They allowed it to happen and now they’d lose everything if they dare speak up.


30 posted on 06/23/2012 8:57:50 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Ladysforest; Sean Hannity; All
Thanks for the info on Rubio's father's naturalization.

Rubio is now engaged in a farce. By not making it clear to the Romney people that he is constitutionally ineligible for the vice presidency (since his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth) and acting in every way that his, he is helping to trash the Constitution of the United States.

Let's hope that the Romney folks choose someone constitutionally eligible as the VP nominee, rather than create another constitutional crisis.

31 posted on 06/23/2012 9:01:35 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Brown Deer
But the issue of Rubio's NBC status or lack thereof, and theerefore his constitutional eligibility for the vice presidency (the eligibility requirements for VP are exactly the same as for President, according to the Twelfth Amendment), boils down to whether or not his foreign-born parents were naturalized by the time of his birth.

That's a really silly thing to post for someone who is not a professional.

You are flying in the fact of a large volume of professional literature; an able opinion of an experienced expert professional published by the Congressional Research Service; and a volume of recent court experience, most recently the ALJ in Georgia who refused to even hear the argument, the answer is so clear.

The issue is about a forecast of what the U S Supreme Court would hold if confronted with the question of Rubio's eligibility to hold the office because of an objection based on the citizenship of his parents--the objection would not get any serious consideration; the Court will hold him eligible.

If what you mean is that the "natural born" clause ought to include some ancestral citizenship or residency or citizen commitment in edition to citizenship at birth of the candidate, I agree.

But as to the state of the law at present, you are simply living in a dream world.

32 posted on 06/23/2012 9:02:19 AM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest
That’s cool RedSteel - is there one for his mother?

Not that I am aware of that's in the public domain. Likely that her husband became a US citizen before she did.

33 posted on 06/23/2012 9:06:58 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

I’m unclear why this was a revelation to you.

AFAIK everybody is in agreement that NBC status can only be acquired at birth.

The debate is between all “citizens at birth” being NBC, and NBC being a subset of “citizen at birth.”

Using the first definition, there are two categories of US citizens: NBC/CAB and naturalized.

With the second, there are three: naturalized, NBC, and CAB but not NBC.

IMO there are legitimate arguments for Obama falling into either of the second two categories (assuming there’s a difference). Which is why we need a Supreme Court ruling.


34 posted on 06/23/2012 9:26:09 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David
The issue is about a forecast of what the U S Supreme Court would hold if confronted with the question of Rubio's eligibility to hold the office because of an objection based on the citizenship of his parents--the objection would not get any serious consideration; the Court will hold him eligible.

Unfortunately, you're probably correct about what the current SCOTUS would do; unfortunately, people who have a decent respect for the original meaning of the Constitution are few and far between in today's federal judiciary.

That's one reason why today's federal judiciary, especially the SCOTUS and some of the more outrageous Circuit courts, is held in such low esteem by so many of us (even though the SCOTUS might throw us a bone by disabling Obamacare next week). They too often go with the political winds, rather than the Constitution.

I know it's only hypothetical, but how do you think the Minor v. Happersett Court would rule on Rubio's eligibility?

35 posted on 06/23/2012 9:27:09 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

If it’s for POTUS purposes, there’s no need for his mother’s naturalization as he’s already out of the race with his father. Same as Hussein’s daddy not being a US citizen at the time of his hatching.

Of course, this new crop of RINOS don’t care about what the founding fathers’ invisioned. They’re one and the same as the imposter squatting in the WH. The RATS got one ineligible candidate posing as POTUS so it’s just a matter of months before the RINOS get their ineligible candiates in office as the final stake in killing Article II. Go back through all the 2008 POTUS candidates and their VPs and you’ll be shocked at how many weren’t eligible. In order of most votes:

Obama/Biden - Obama not
McCain/Palin - McCain not born on US military base
Nader/Gonzalez - Gonzalez not
Barr/Root - finally an eligible ticket


36 posted on 06/23/2012 9:29:48 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

At least that one is teachable. There are many who aren’t. A few months back another college student told me how great Obama was because he caaaaared about people and that we didn’t need anymore old white men as POTUS. He didn’t have a clue about the requirements nor did he care to learn because he and his parents are liberals taking stimulus money for their green business that contracts overseas. If only I could remind him about old white men when he becomes an old white man.


37 posted on 06/23/2012 9:41:22 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Unfortunately, you're probably correct about what the current SCOTUS would do; unfortunately, people who have a decent respect for the original meaning of the Constitution are few and far between in today's federal judiciary.

Yes, he's likely correct but not likely in the long term as long as the pressure keeps up. I could be wrong, but I don't think Rubio will be selected as VP by Romney because enough of us have made a racket about the NBC issue. The ABC news report were probably correct that inside sources said Rubio was not being vetted, and Romney had to come out to say Rubio "is being vetted" after Hannity, et al, came out chanting, after hearing about the report, - Rubio, Rubio, oh my Rubio. ;-) The effort is working.

38 posted on 06/23/2012 10:01:13 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Brown Deer; justiceseeker93
This topic has a couple of points.

The argument is not that a "natural born" citizen is a person who became a citizen at birth because of the place, condition, or circumstances of their birth.

You should note that lawyers, particularly the immigration bar, tend to use the phrase "natural born" as a form of shorthand, when they mean "citizen at birth". They are not thinking about the the question as a legal issue under the only circumstances in our law where any requirement of "natural born" would make a difference which is Article II, sec. 1 of the Constitution.

The requirement that a person become a citizen at birth because of the place, condition, or circumstances of their birth is one of the requirements of Natural Born Citizenship, but it is not the only requirement.

The other remaining substantive requirement of natural born citizenship is that it occur within the geographical territory of the several states.

Thus a person who was born in an embassy offshore; or on a military base; or on a territory not subject to permanent sovereignty of the US; does not qualify as Natural Born.

Although I am on the hook for the proposition that, for example, Goldwater, who was born in the territory of Arizona prior to statehood would qualify, I wouldn't be embarrassed to make the contrary argument if I were on the other side for the reason that the prospect of possible sovereignty in some other jurisdiction than the United States presented the exposure of exercise of that sovereignty over the President.

I suppose that the academic answer of the day which was that risk was eliminated by the fact that prior to the time he became a candidate, Arizona had been admitted as a state was the likely result if the case got to the Supreme Court.

But the point is that to the extent any requirement other than citizenship at birth was incorporated in the "natural born" clause, whatever the original intended scope of that requirement--what exists today if the issue reaches the Supreme Court is a requirement that the birth have occurred under circumstances where the person could not have ever been subject to the sovereignty of some other head of state as a consequence of the place or circumstances of birth. That requirement necessitates that the birth have occurred within the territory of the several states.

Technically, as someone points out above, the language in Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) stating that the holding encompassed citizenship by birth in the several states and parental citizenship is dicta to the extent of the parental citizenship language.

Technically adept lawyers recognize that language as dicta for two reasons. The parental citizenship fact was not required to find that the Plaintiff was a citizen at birth--she was a citizen at birth even if her parents were not citizens. Further, the language is dicta because the technical issue presented did not include the question of "natural born" citizenship.

That is, the question of whether or not a person is a "natural born" citizen or not is relevant for only one purpose under our law and that is under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to test the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States--that was not the issue in Minor.

As to the guy in the White House, Barry, his issue is a place of birth problem only whoever his parents were.

In my opinion, if he was born outside the US, he is not Natural Born and is not eligible; if he was born inside the territory of the several states, the answer is to the contrary. It is that simple and there is pretty clearly enough record on the proposition that anyone who wants to read any of the judicial pronouncements or literature on the question should recognize that is how the Court would come down.

The discussion here also includes the topic of the swearing in ceremony.

Someone says there is no evidence of an issue other than the technical reading of the oath that there was some other cure issue in the later swearing ceremonies.

The evidence is the appearance of Vice President Cheney in a recorded element of a second alternate swearing.

See there were really a total of three swearing in ceremonies--the first the public which was ineffective; the second a private ceremony the circumstances of which were recorded with Cheney's presence; the third the ceremony with Robert's of which the video is in circulation.

The one that counted was the second.

39 posted on 06/23/2012 10:14:13 AM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; Brown Deer; LucyT; Fred Nerks
I know it's only hypothetical, but how do you think the Minor v. Happersett Court would rule on Rubio's eligibility?

Same way.

Somewhere there is out there floating around, an inside baseball story which had credibility with the Con Law bar that the language about "natural born" was incorporated for a reason not related to the argument in Minor.

Having researched the history of the Constitutional provision extensively, I will tell you that I think the argument is pretty clear that even as to original intent, the founder's were directly focused on the legal substance--they were primarily concerned only about place of birth and that because they were concerned about the prospect that someone who was under the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign would become head of state of the US.

I don't even see a more Constitutionally committed Court kicking an elected President or Vice President out over the birthplace of his parents--if the issue were ever relevant, it would be because you could argue that they were the parents on vacation in the US; the kid was born in the US but because they were sojourners or other happenstance presence persons, the kid was subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of the place of the parents citizenship.

In the modern world, even that argument doesn't have much force either. I have had a case where US taxing authorities have sought to collect millions of dollars of tax from a German national because in 1946, his mother accompanied his father for a week at a post war business conference in New York when he was born and he was therefore a US Citizen who owed tax on his multi millions of world wide income over the intervening period.

In the case of Rubio, there isn't any argument that he was only the result of a temporary event in the US.

40 posted on 06/23/2012 10:33:50 AM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
...Hannity, et al, came out chanting, after hearing about the report, - Rubio, Rubio, oh my Rubio. ;-)

Hannity, BTW, did his whole pre-taped one hour show on Rubio last night, almost as if to introduce Rubio to his audience as the VP candidate. And there was even mention of Rubio as President at some time in the future. Yes, Rubio has been a frequent guest of his, but it's outrageous that Rubio should get so much play on Hannity's show!

41 posted on 06/23/2012 10:38:35 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus; urtax$@work; atc23

“But a number of Freepers have added that both parents have to be citizens at the time of that person’s birth. How does that fit in with your definition?”

It doesn’t, but there is no ‘two-parent’ requirement.

Prior to Independence, everyone born the in the colonies was a “natural born subject” of the King, including those born of alien parents. Between Independence and the adoption of the Constitution, state legislatures used two terms interchangeably: ‘natural born subject’ and ‘natural born citizen’. Although the Constitution used the phrase NBC, the legislatures sometimes used ‘natural born subject’ in their citizenship laws.

With time, only NBC was used, and by the mid 1800s, most people simply used ‘citizen’, since the only distinction in US law between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen is that the latter can run for President.

In 1898, the US Supreme Court discussed at length the meaning of both NBC & the 14th Amendment, and concluded they were interchangeable - that anyone who met the NBC clause met the 14th Amendment wording, and vice-versa.

Thus, since 1898, there has been no doubt in the law. A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen by birth, not needing naturalization. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your butt. You will notice that no birther arguing for a two citizen parent requirement has EVER won in court. You should also notice that 0 of 50 states agree with them.


42 posted on 06/23/2012 10:51:44 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: David
That is, the question of whether or not a person is a "natural born" citizen or not is relevant for only one purpose under our law and that is under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to test the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States--that was not the issue in Minor.
Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?
43 posted on 06/23/2012 11:02:59 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: David
As to the guy in the White House, Barry, his issue is a place of birth problem only whoever his parents were.
That is your opinion, correct?

...the kid was born in the US but because they were sojourners or other happenstance presence persons, the kid was subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of the place of the parents citizenship.
Isn't that the very case with Sr. who was only here on a student visa?
And since his father was an "alien" (the legal definition) doesn't the citizenship follow the father?

I don't even see a more Constitutionally committed Court kicking an
elected President or Vice President out over the birthplace of his parents...

Could you see a more, or even a less, Constitutionally committed Court kicking an
elected President or Vice President out over the citizenship of his parents?

44 posted on 06/23/2012 11:12:23 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work; LucyT; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; ...
FReeper comments welcome Ping...........

Yet another point of the Natural Born Cit. Requirement

45 posted on 06/23/2012 11:13:01 AM PDT by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist, Ph.D in L0w and H0lder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen by birth, not needing naturalization. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your butt.

Absolutely correct, but won't stop you from being flamed. And any appeal to original intent is going to be as successful as appealing to original intent regarding the interstate commerce clause or the general welfare clause.

46 posted on 06/23/2012 11:17:39 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

This is great that you found this, and yes, it can be overlooked. Being a natural-born citizen is a state of grace — it can never be attained, it is a GIFT bestowed by citizen parents and grandparents.


47 posted on 06/23/2012 11:30:05 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; Red Steel; Ladysforest; Sean Hannity; LucyT
Let's hope that the Romney folks choose someone constitutionally eligible as the VP nominee, rather than create another constitutional crisis.

Added to my nightly prayers.

48 posted on 06/23/2012 11:39:28 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jjotto; Mr Rogers
A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen by birth, not needing naturalization.
What makes naturalization unnecessary?
49 posted on 06/23/2012 11:51:46 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bgill

“If it’s for POTUS purposes, there’s no need for his mother’s naturalization as he’s already out of the race with his father”

Good point.

I haz an inquiring type mind. Anyone out there know when Mama Rubio became a citizen of the US?


50 posted on 06/23/2012 12:04:54 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 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