Posted on 08/29/2011 6:07:11 PM PDT by rodguy911
“My guess is that he may run for Governor of Fla. is the chance comes up.”
Seems like a logical and intelligent step.
Second - the Resolution provides only one alternative for the designation (the most obvious one - but no where in the Constitution does it refer to this alternative as being ‘exclusive’ to “natural born” “Citizen”).
Mr. Titan. First I quoted a resolution to show that every US senator agreed with that statement. Certainly, a resolution, “I resolve that”, is not actionable. Neither is any law when interpreting or amending The Constitution is concerned. My point was to demonstrate that every US Senator in 2008 knew that natural born citizens most issue from US Citizen parents. While I didn't state it before, is there any doubt that every US Senator knew that Barack Obama was born a British Subject, a natural born subject of the British Commenwealth? Of course not. Barack told all of them, and all of us that he was born a 14th Amendment citizen, like Wong Kim Ark, who, like Obama, was not a natural born citizen.
But I did quote the supreme court decision by the Chief Justice in 1874, Morrison Waite, who told us exactly who were natural born citizens; a definition, Waite told us, which was never doubted. Waite affirmed the definition of and for the court, and there were no dissents. That made the definition, with which all our framers were certainly familiar, legal precedent. (Thanks again to Leo Donofrio) Waite told us “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.” It doesn't get much clearer than that. If you can't accept our common law, or precedence, you don't want a nation of laws. All decisions will be based upon power - as Andy Stern put it, “Either the power of persuasion, or the persuasion of power.” It is a sure path to revolution.
Read the Constitution and count the number of definitions you find for the terms used by our framers. As Mark Levin pointed out in Liberty and Tyranny, on p 37, quoting James Madison “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.” He further told us “In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.” That is why there are very few terms defined within the document. To keep the document from filling walls of bookshelves with legal dictionaries, to insure that the content remained understood as written by our framers forever, the definitions were explicitly designated as Justice Waite explained - “the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.” Understanding the thoroughness with which the Chief Justice established the definition upon which the Minor case depended takes a number of readings. But Waite's decision seems to have missed nothing. The only class of citizen defined before the 14th Amendment, was a natural born citizen. Citzens are all either natural or naturalized. Since Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen, she was well-defined, and was a citizen. Think about it. Read the case.
If you are an Anita Dunn employee no explanation matters, but for those who are new to this history, the most cited legal reference in US jurisprudence between 1779 and 1821, by a large margin, was Vattel’s Law of Nations. The press told us it was the first book on George Washington's desk in New York on his first day in office in 1789. It was our first law book as a nation, at our first law school, carved out of William and Mary by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, who also defined the law curriculum and specified Vattel. Benjamin Franklin read Vattel in its original French and passed early English translations to his colleagues in the Colonies in 1762. Chief Justice Marshall cited Vattel in the Venus, 12 US 253, quoting the definition “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Rather like a felony or misdemeanor, which aren't defined in the Constitution, everyone understood their meanings as “common law,” not Blackstone's or English Common Law, but commonly understood law, which is what common law is.
Whatever you intended referring to “founders wanted to “limit”” makes little sense, since the Constitution was written by a committee of its “framers” who all understood what a natural born citizen was. The important point, one which shows the complicity of our press, and or their ignorance, is that Minor v. Happersett elevated the definition of what is a natural born citizen from common law to precedence. It is our legal definition. To deny precedence requires an explicit decision, and that has not occurred. It remains to be seen what effect Obama's illegitimacy will have the enourmous body of legal contracts he has signed. But if his legal transgressions are not addressed, the value of and legitimacy of the Constitution are rendered no more important than for an occasional footnote in subsequent judicial decisions. The tragedy will then be played out as the Constitution was our protection from the tyranny of the state.
Of course, that is nonsense. No provision of the Constitution can be “superseded” implicitly, and certainly not by an amendment which nowhere mentions natural born citizenship.
As I said earlier, almost no words or terms are defined in the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court repeated the common law definition, born on the soil of citizen parents, at least a dozen dimes as "dictum". But in Minor v. Happersett, they defined it forever, since it was the core of their decision. Now it will be the job of Obots to confuse you. Don't waste time, unless for sport. Most of Obama's lawyers seem to have retreated, perhaps because this turn will be Hillary's. Read Minor v. Happersett. It is elegant reasoning, and unequivocal in defining as precedence the definition of natural born citizen.
Minor v. Happersett and a half dozen cases after the 14th Amendment make reference to natural born citizens. Wong Kim, repeats the fact that there are two general classes of citizen, naturally born and naturalized. Those made citizens by Congress are naturalized citizens. Those made citizens by God are natural born citizens. There was the least doubt if both parents were citizens, and if the child was born on our soil.
Minor v. Happersett used the fact that Mrs. Minor was a natural born citize, and not a 14th Amendment citizen (try to find any document in the US Code defining the status of someone born on our soil to citizen parents. The only mention by Congrsess of natural born citizenship, the 1790 Nationality Act, was probably a mistake, and was superseded in 1795, removing any mention of natural born citizen.
Congress was ordered to create an uniform code for naturalizing citizens. Most US citizens, thirty or so years after the Constitution was ratified, were natural born citizens. As Justice Waite said “about those there was never doubt.” As late at 1939, Marie Elg, born to naturalized Swedish parents in New York, but taken back to Sweden as a child and raised there, was determined by the court not only to have retained her citizenship, but informed that because she was a natural born citizen, she could, after 14 years residency and after attaining the age of 35, run for the presidency. For the other class of citizen, citizenship would follow the naturalization chosen by the parents. A child born to alien parent on our soil, but taken to another country where it assumes the citizenship of the parents must apply for citizenship if, upon majority, it wishes US citizenship. Such a child is not eligible to be president.
Our framers meant what they said. Too bad there are so many who don't understand the brilliance of our framers, or for whom the end justifies the means, and who don't admit understanding. We had one congressman willing to put his job on the line in 2009, Nathan Deal of Georgia. The henchmen of the non-president ran him out of town, but we should never forget that he knew what most everyone else knew - certainly every Senator because they signed SR511. He got the Scooter Libby treatment, and knew he could not fight the justice department as they pored over decades of tax filings. Now, thank goodness, he is Governor of Georgia.
Rubio can't win because too many know the truth. It would serve him well, if he understands the law, to use the attention he is getting to expose the emperor with no eligibility. He could tell the world
"I would love to be able to run for the presidency of my country, but for sound reasons, our framers reserved that position to natural born citizens. My parents always intended to naturalize, but to claim, as did John McCain, that my qualities supersede the Constitution, would further weaken the Constitution I have sworn to preserve, honor, and defend. I am no more eligible to be president than Barack Obama. Barack was honest when he told an Illinois radio audience that he didn't respect the constitution, but dishonest when he took the oath of office. I do respect the Constitution, and if you think me worthy, I would welcome an effort to explore the wisdom of an amendment to the Constitution which might allow me to run legally for the presidency."
If John McCain had had the courage and integrity to face his ineligibility head on, rather than try an end run around the Constitution, he might have inspired the constitutional amendment needed to insure that, as Barack Obama and Clare McCaskill said in the SB2678 filed in Feb 2008, "To Insure that foreign-born child of military citizens are eligible to become president." They knew a bill couldn't amend the Constitution, but they had a different objective. They wanted McCain as an opponent to silence the Republicans about Obama's illegitimacy. There should be an amendment, but McCain's legacy is that he tried to cheat, as did Charles Evans Hughes; Chester Arthur cheated successfully. We are seeing the results of Obama's success.
If we lose the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution this discussion won't be possible. Already we see the the affect of our money being spent to turn our press into a propaganda machine. Every power company advertising green energy has been bought off. Government Motors spends our 401ks on silly cars no one will buy, and for which there won't be the electrical generating power to charge. Then they write bonds which they themselves buy so there is credit to spend buying influence from those business who know they are insolvent without the government. All this, and for a patently unconstitutional chief executive!
No one said understanding the truth would be easy, but our framers did an amazing job in a very short time of turning the idea of a republic into the doctrine for a working government. If you really want to read that plan, read Law of Nations, and compare it to the structure of the Constitution.
‘____catching Mrs. Reagan’
Anyone who escorts Nancy Reagan has got to be super vigilent on the pathway.
I know people who were at the Reagan Library when Mrs. Reagan, ecorted by Marco Rubio, started to fall.
As they were walking, to thunderous applause, seems she was probably too close to one of the many posts in the floor which were roping off areas for seating, thus making an aisle in which to walk from the back of the room to the front.
Her cane seemed to poke a bit into one of the post’s holes, causing a mis-step of course.
It was also said this aisle may have been a tad narrower than ‘usual,’ to allow for seating.
Because of these post hole ‘traps,’ one must be sure to keep Mrs. Reagan in the center of the aisle.
This was 2 people’s take on the incident.
It is my opinion that she needs to be walking in the center of the aisle, which would be the escort’s job. Personally, I think a second escort should flank her right side - just in case.
Mrs. Reagan has gone to many Library events over the years, and is usually escorted by the featured speaker.
She is frail, but a good sport, I think.
Thanks!
Marco Rubio can be SO much more effective by staying right where he is.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a Palin/Santorum ticket or perhaps Palin/Bolton
That does sound really good to me. I am familiar with Wong Kim Ark but its tough to keep all the details fresh all the time.Thanks much.
I’m so glad this came up. I think we are getting some clarity here,looking good for Marco, IMHO.
A number of people suggested it last night.
I agree. However, applying the rationale that you artfully demonstrated, this would mean that someone like Marco Rubio would not be considered a "Natural Born" citizen. Hence, he would not even be considered a "legal" citizen unless he had taken a Citizenship Test to have attained the status of "Naturalized" citizen. Since, you say that you are either "Natural" or "Naturalized".
Bottom line, unless a state decides to reject a candidate's application to be on the ballot for President of the United States, and consequently litigated, the issue will always be one of speculation and debate.
I haver a hard time disagreeing with your statement. But, it would definitely help the ticket without question.
It would be very nice if this Republican wunderkind explained the exact citizenship status of his parents at the blesséd hour of his birth. It would be nicer still if he sought the advice of eminent jurists in regard to his Constitutional Eligibility.
The confusion sown by "The Birther Movement," does not change Article II of the COTUS. Pardon me if I hold your pronouncement in abeyance. You may be correct, but it would be just nicer all around if a court agreed to hear an eligibility case, and then agreed with your POV. Until then, I think Marco Rubio is constitutionally ineligible for national office, and my POV is just as good as yours.
BTW, he is a wonderful guy and I think he could become a great Senator, for which post he is eligible as a NATIVE (if not NATURAL-Born) citizen who has met the residency requirements.
Yes the speech he gave was off the cuff, completely extemporaneous, and clearly articulated with a profound message.The problem I had was amazingly most of the audience was county staff and staffers whose agendas and daily activities are diametrically opposed to Rubio’s message, manifested by thwarting small business and capriciously destroying lives. What the hell were they doing there? In no way are they fiscal conservatives, nor friendly toward business. All of them are aligned with the global warming myth as well. The ardent sycophantic toadies accompanying the staff members have no idea of what capitalism really is, they were more interested in keeping their political alliances. Believe me, Marco’s message shoots completely over their heads.
Whether intentionally misleading, or naive, let's clear up the confusion. Marco Rubio, like Wong Kim Ark, was born on our soil to non-citizen parents, and is therefore, like Wong Kim Ark, a citizen. He is eligibile to hold every US Government office but the presidency or vice presidency.
Sadly, the state's attorney's general did not consider it their duty to validate the candidacy of presidential candidates. Calero, the Green Party candidate, wasn't even a citizen, and appeared on most ballots (looking to see which states kept him off might be interesting).
Some say that Hawaii actually required the candidate to say that he was natural born citizen, and that Nancy Pelosi submitted an alternative document which was not legally accepted. Most of the states apparently provided by the parties a form which did not attest to the candidate's natural born citizenship; but Hawaii and perhaps Arizona did. Since that issue is peripheral to Obama’s ineligibility I am only repeating it.
It is sufficient to note that Barack Obama himself told us he was born a Subject of the British Commonwealth. Morrison Waite nailed the definition of natural born citizenship in the post 14th Amendment case, Minor v. Happersett.
But just to include a bit more clarity about the intent and understanding of our Supreme Court justices and our Congress, here is one of the two statements in the Congressional Record (Globe in 1866) clarifying what the 14th Amendment didn't address, the definition of who was a natural born citizen. John Bingham, Ohio congressman, abolitionist, judge in Lincoln's assassination trial:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
While Bingham’s statement is informational, it reflects the intent of the framers, and was not questioned during or after his speech to the Congress in the ratification process of the 14th Amendment. Bingham uses language about sovereignty which was applied to a number of citizenship disuputes. It also certainly reflects the concensus about the status of dual citizens, who have, by definition, divided sovereignty.
Think about why our framers chose the requirement enunciated and established as precedent by Chief Justice Waite. Various estimates are that as few as twenty percent of Colonists wanted to discard their subjugation to the King. Many of those did not leave America after the revolution, and many had property on both continents. That was the topic of Chief Justice Marshall's The Venus, 12 US 253, where Marshall cited Vattel's “born on the soil of citizen parents.” A child raised on our soil by royalists could, if he had the power of the presidency, instigate a counter revolution. That fear was the topic of the first four Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, who reminded Washington to include the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility in the Constitution.
We have as many as fifteen million illegal immigrants, many giving birth to make them “anchor babies,” born to illegal immigrants, but made citizens by Wong Kim Ark. While that interpretation of The 14th Amendment, which was written to correct the non-citizenship status of blacks, is being questioned, some anchor babies are active today claiming to want the return of our Southwest to Mexico (and even though neither they nor Barack seem to know that we acquired the territories from Spain).
Barack is a 14th Amendment Citizen, as is Rubio. Rubio’s policies are policies, from what I've read, with which I agree. But we have a legal foundation which has done a pretty good job of protecting us. Article II Section 1 is not a perfect provision, but it has thus far survived twenty six or more attempts at amendment.
There is little doubt that Charles Evans Hughes would have been a better president than Woodrow Wilson, but had he won, he had already been challenged in our largest legal newspaper by an excellent Democrat attorney, subsequent Asst. Attorney General under Roosevelt, Breckenridge Long (thanks Sharon Rondeau) because Hughes' parents were British Citizens. Long cites exactly the doctrine presented here, though he doesn't refer to the precedence established in Minor v. Happersett. Chester Arthur hid his illegitimacy. Barack Obama simply said, I'm a 14th Amendment Citizen, but I've got control of the media and the political process (by making McCain his opponent), so there is nothing you can do about it. He also told us all that he, Barack, didn't have a high regard for the Constitution because it prevented him from doing what he believes the country needs. He owns the justice department, controls the judiciary, and had super-majorities in Congress. But he didn't amend the Constitution. He ignores it. We'll see if people care.
The chance came up in 2010, and Rubio ran for the Senate instead. I think that his grasp of federal issues are among his greatest strengths, and that he would rather be a U.S. senator than governor. But I also think that he’d rather be president, and being elected VP is the best way to optimize one’s odds of becoming president someday; and I’m sure that Rubio wants for the GOP to defeat Obama in 2012, and if joining the ticket would further that goal, I don’t think that he would say “no.” Plus, if the GOP ticket somehow lost in 2012 with Rubio as the VP candidate, he would still be a senator and could run for reelection in 2014, and then decide whether to run for president in 2016 (when he’d likely be the frontrunner).
But, of course, we do not know who will be the GOP presidential nominee, or who he or she will select as the VP nominee.
Also, this 1844 (pre-14th Amendment) NY state court case ruled that the phrase “natural-born citizen” means just what the words imply: a citizen since birth (as opposed to a “naturalized citizen”): http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
The SCOTUS made no decision defining a Natural Born Citizen. In fact, the SCOTUS confirmed jus soli alone could be an option. Regardless, this statement is only an observation of the court, and not a decision of the court. Only Congress can clear the doubts, and define "Natural Born Citizen". It has done so only once, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and only to confer Natural Born Citizen status jus sanguinis to a child born offshore of two U.S. citizens.
As for birthright citizenship jus soli of one born to two legal, resident aliens, that was confirmed 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
The Perkins v. Elg decision repeatedly refers to the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Perkins v. Elg also repeatedly uses "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" interchangeably. Perkins v. Elg also reaffirms only the law determines how citizenship is acquired.
The founders may well have intended only Citizens born to Citizens as the definition of Natural Born Citizen. And I agree there can be issues with dual-citizenship of a jus soli child born to an alien parent, but I would add this could happen to a jus soli child born of a naturalized parent.
Arguably, the SCOTUS could divine the intent of the founders and issue a decision which defined Natural Born Citizen. But every time it had the opportunity, the SCOTUS deferred to the law. And only Congress to codify the definition of a Natural Born Citizen into law.
Good Magellan. Let's clarify the meaning of “obiter dictum”: “Words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case. A remark made or opinion expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause, “by the way”, that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before the court or upon a point.”
Why did Justice Waite explicitly cite the meaning of the term natural born citizen twelve times and refer to it over thirty times when discussing citizens BORN or naturalized? The core of the decision rested upon the allegation that the 14th Amendment changed the rights of citizens, and in particular, female citizens, to vote.
To build his case Justice Waite chose to prove that no citizen's eligibility to vote existed before the 14th Amendment, except as granted in state's constitutions, and some states granted suffrage to non-citizens (that is an obiter dictum!). Since Virginia Minor was the plaintiff, and was conveniently one of the majority of citizens who were natural born citizens, Waite could use the only constitutional definition of citizenship that existed before the 14th Amendment, a definition provided in the Constitution because John Jay, and every other framer, realized that our survival as a republic was more dependent upon our president than upon any other citizen of the new nation.
He repeated the familiar “citizens are either born, or naturalized.” Since the 14th Amendment was the subject of the decision, he chose a citizen from the class of born citizens, and Virginia Minor was handily in that class. To use that class as the CORE of his decision, he needed to affirm the “common-law” definition for born, or natural born citizens. He did. That is precedent. That established the common-law definition, a definition which had been repeated in a dozen other supreme court cases, and cited in Wong Kim Ark, but which was not necessary to the decisions in other cases.
Once again, Waite needed the constitutional definition of a citizen as established before the 14th Amendment. The only definition for a citizen provided in the Constitution was in Article II, and that was for our most numerous class of citizen, natural born citizens, born on our soil of parents who were citizens when the child was born. Every word must be assumed to have meaning. Before you repeat the shibbolith "but it was never defined in the Constitution," almost no terms, besides treason, were defined in the Constitution, for the reason that the meanings of words change over time. That is why Justice Waite told us "with the nomenclature of which the framers were familiar,..."
Your two other comments are the usual distractions. Wong Kim Ark was made a citizen. Gray, in that mess of a decision, did cite Minor v. Happersett, and did differentiate the two classes of citizen, pointing out (from memory) that a citizen, like Wong Kim, had all the privileges and protections of a natural born citizen. Kind of sneaky, but being president is not a constitutional privilige. He was acknowledging the difference. Otherwise every senator, or every anchor baby could be president.
As to Perkins v. Elg. Marie Elg was both a native born and a natural born citizen. That she could return to the US at 21, stay resident for 14 years, and run for president was another “obiter dictum.” But it also raises the worthwhile question of whether, even after so many attempts, it wouldn't be wise to include the children of military citizens serving overseas?
When the framers were considering how best to protect us, being born on our soil of citizen parents are the obvious, the natural criteria to help insure allegiance. There are many immigrants with a much greater appreciation for the protections granted by our Constitution than many natural born citizens, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn for example. It was, and is not an easy problem. The more the twenty five attempt to amend Art.II S 1 attest the political differences in such and amendment. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal would almost certainly not be trying to destroy capitalism were they in Barack’s place.
I don't think I grasp your “jus soli child born of a naturalized parent.” Jus soli (born on our soil) children of naturalized parents are unquestionably natural born citizens, because the parents are citizens. If you are referring to a child of a single naturalized parent, that child is defined in US code as a citizen, and is thus a naturalized citizen, like Rubio and Jindal.
And no, Congress cannot define who are natural born citizens. We pretend to have separated the jurisdiction of our three branches, though we are currently learning how monarchies work - you have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it. The only mention, ever, by congress about natural born citizenship was in the 1790 Nationality Act, and natural born citizenship was removed from the the Act in 1795, never again to be mentioned by Congress.
Imagine what would have happened if the Democrat super-majority could have amended the constitution between 2009 and 2011. The 1st and 2nd Amendments would be gone. Obama would eliminate the two term presidency and become King for life. They are still doing all sorts of patently unconstitutional things, like declaring mileage standards and creating an amnesty for illegal aliens without consulting the congress, but there is till hope, particularly if we can follow the footsteps of Germany and eliminate electronic voting, institutionalized cheating which permits no audit trail, and renders elections a useless gesture, that the damage can be repaired.
The got Senator McCain to show his birth certificate.
Some claim that a natural born citizen must have 2 citizen parents, but there is absolutely nothing in US law to support this.
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.