Posted on 09/05/2011 4:20:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
Florida’s young Republican Senator Marco Rubio gave an important speech at the Reagan Presidential Library in California that has set off the liberal talking head universe.
He had the temerity to suggest that the huge growth in government’s role in American life over the last century “actually weakened us as a people.”
The resulting onslaught from liberal blogs and cable hosts comes as no surprise because Rubio directly took on the idol at which liberals worship – Big Government.
But his analysis was courageous and profound.
Eighty percent of Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. And, new Gallup polling shows that only 17 percent are positively disposed toward the federal government.
Americans want answers.
Senator Rubio, in this speech, stepped up to the plate to provide answers.
If liberals disagree, they are going to have to get equally serious. They’ve certainly got to do better than MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, calling Rubio “a political hack” who wants “to get rid of social safety nets.”
Our fiscal crisis is undeniable. The trillions in debt we’ve taken on to finance massive government spending has resulted in the unthinkable downgrading in rating of our government’s bonds.
But Senator Rubio took a bold step beyond looking at our problems just as an accountant.
He suggested that we cannot separate our budget from our culture. The culture of government has displaced the culture of personal responsibility.
I have been making the point for years regarding what the welfare state culture has done in our black communities. How it has created a permanent underclass, defined by family breakdown, sexual promiscuity, disease, and crime.
American culture has changed profoundly over these years that Americans have come to increasingly believe that government social engineering can solve life’s problems and challenges.
A snapshot of today’s American family shows how much things have changed, even compared to 1981 when President Reagan took office.
Since 1980, the percentage of babies in America born to unwed mothers has doubled, from 20 percent to 40 percent.
Fifty two percent of Americans over the age of 18 are married today, compared to 72 percent in 1960.
Among blacks, 44% of the population over 18 has never been married, compared to 17% in 1960.
Sixty four percent of American children today live in a home with two married parents, compared with 75 percent in 1980 and 87 percent in 1960.
And, according to the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of those between ages of 18 to 29 “agree marriage is becoming obsolete.”
We used to be a nation, as Senator Rubio pointed out, where parents raised and cared for children, then those children cared for their aging parents. Where neighbors cared for neighbors.
We might note that the welfare state idea is not an American invention but an import from Europe. We also might note that about 20 percent of Europeans attend church regularly, half that of Americans.
Europe is characterized today by low birth rates – so low that they are not replacing themselves – and high unemployment rates. The unemployment rate in France has hovered between 8 and 11 percent over the last 25 years.
We must wonder if even we can take on our fiscal problems, if traditional American family life can be restored, and if we believe it even matters.
It is to Senator Rubio’s considerable credit that he has stood up to argue that we must look at the picture of our nation in its entirety. That we cannot separate our budget matters and our attitude toward government from our overall culture and our personal behavior.
What is before us today is not a battle of competing numbers but a battle of competing visions.
Is America to continue in the direction of welfare state materialism? Or will this be a free nation under God?
Consider United State vs Rhodes (1866):
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well [**18] as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.
Rubio's parents were not ambassadors nor is the slavery exception operative.
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) makes a distinction only between "adopted citizens" and "natural born citizens" rather than an third class. Clearly Rubio is not an "adopted citizen" because he was a citizen by birth rather than naturalized.
There are yet other court precedents suggesting Vattel is not operative.
As far as I can determine, Rhodes was a Circuit Court case. At that time, mid-1860’s, the 14th Amendment was being debated in Congess and we have discussed the debates involved in its adoption here on FR ad nauseum. The congressional players took a rather strict interpretation, if memory serves.
Forget any application of the common law to this problem. When we are born here, we are not “subjects” of anyone, we are citizens. Natural born if born in the US of citizen parentss so there can be the least posssible doubt as to allegiance.
BTW, the idea of “citizenship” is unknown in English common law. SCOTUS erred in the Ark case in 1898 by determining it to be a CL matter.
Allegiance is the crux of the matter: Look at the problem of Obama: what is HIS allegiance? Just to Obama, I would argue.
Do you want a repetition of the eligibility question with the Republican Party? The Democrats would jump all over Rubio, just as they did McCain. At least Marco is smart enough to realize it, which is why he plays it so coy.
Vattel irrelevant? Not to the Founders. His authority on international and citizenship law was incontrovertible in 1787. For the sake of conciseness, the Founders used great brevity in constructing the Constitution. They saw no need to elaborate on NBC, anymore than they did to elaborate on Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press. Any educated person would know the meanings.
If you need any more clarification of doubt, read John Jay’s letter to George Washington. It follows Vattel down the line.
Another little fly in the ointment: Mr. Rubio is claimed as a Cuban citizen by the Castro regime, as is his mother and was his late father. That would need an up-to-date ruling on what constitutes a dual citizen in the view of the US court system.
SCOTUS has been very vague on this subject over the years and needs to step up and clarify. If all the plaintiffs in Obama suits hadn’t been deemed “without standing” maybe we’d havet some clarification. But there isn’t much in the way of guts on the federal bench these days.
You are hearing this from one of Rubio’s first and most fervent supporters who encouraged him to run against “Suntan Charlie” Crist. He ran a great campaign and shows every sign of being a crack US Senator. I would love to see him replace weak sister Mitch McConnell as Leader.
Rubio doesn’t want to be on the national ticket. Please-—let’s let sleeping doga lie and go after Obama with people who WANT to run....we can get rid of him without creating a constitutional mess——and the Dhimmis will cause one. Count on it.
Native born is not a legal concept....it just fills a gap.
Please read my reply to newzjunkie
There are no "constitutional issues" with Marco Rubio's candidacy.
Nobody wants smaller government more than I; I am an ultra-strict constitutionalist.
Not that an explanation is warranted but the reason some of us jump on these threads is that some supposed conservatives are more interested in politics-—short term matters-—than they are the Constitution. Look at schmucks like Dick Morris or O’Reilly-—they see only the poltical side of this question. That atttitude would lead to direct and chaotic democracy and the rule of men and not laws.
You want Rubio, or Jindal, or Ahnold to run? Simple....convince the nation to amend the Constitution.
It is a shame that it will take the Democrats to explain them to you.
Finally, why all the fuss for years hunting down Obama's birth certificate when it was a known fact that his father was a foreigner at his birth? If this issue was so "obvious" no need to hunt for that birth certificate. Just use the fact that one parent was a foreigner.
That there was barely a peep on this issue until recently is quite telling.
Very true! I believe that important fact was revealed by our friend Atty. Leo D’Onofrio on his Natural Born Citizen blog during the last campaign. Arthur was accused of having an Irish father but he lied his way out of it way back when. And the fact is that the old man was NOT a naturalized US citizen until Arthur was something like 15 years old.
The fact that Arthur went to such great extremes to lie and conceal important information about his background to the point of burning personal records tells me that at least HE, like most Americans of the 19th Century, understood the meaning of NBC.
The BC thing was always a mystery to me. The fact that Obama PUBLISHED the British citizenship of Daddy O on his website was enough for me. You have to be “special” like Obozo to get away with such a thing. I would bet the rent that no Republican could possibly pull it off. McCain got a pass only because the ‘rats had Obozo prepared to run so a compromise was struch.
You are wrong about your “natural born” opinion, and there is indeed a USSC definition of the Constitutional requirement for eligibility.
JC
Republican Senator Marco Rubio gave an important speech at the Reagan Presidential Library in California that has set off the liberal talking head universe... the huge growth in government's role in American life over the last century "actually weakened us as a people." ...Eighty percent of Americans are not happy with the direction of the country.... only 17 percent are positively disposed toward the federal government... We used to be a nation, as Senator Rubio pointed out, where parents raised and cared for children, then those children cared for their aging parents. Where neighbors cared for neighbors... the welfare state idea is... an import from Europe... Europe is characterized today by low birth rates -- so low that they are not replacing themselves -- and high unemployment rates. The unemployment rate in France has hovered between 8 and 11 percent over the last 25 years.
Marco Rubio, Sr. entered the U.S. from Cuba 1956!
He applied for U.S. citizenship in 1975!!
Senator Rubio, (Jr.) was born 1971!!!
Anymore question???
You’ve got it.
Marco, God bless him, will remain an outstanding senator from Florida but he is NOT a natural born citizen according to the founders’ understanding of the term (or mine).
“Born in the country of citizen parents. That is the old and most cautious understanding of NBC.
Beyond that, Cuba claims Rubio and his parents as citizens.
We should not let politics influence our application of constitutional principles. Marco is an attractive politician but do we want another eligibilty mess a la Obama?
The Democrats would raise hell about a Rubio candidacy. Who needs that? Rubio ought to prepare himself as a future replacement forMitch McConnell-—something he is eminently qualified for and I believehe would give the GOP senatorial delegation some strong leadership for a change.
I believe that Marco understands the ticklish position he is in which is why he remains coy about running for higher office in the future.
Want Marco to be able to run without controversy? Get Congress to pass a constitutional amendment.
Even when we voted for him, likes him, we CANNOT have a double standard on the Constitution’s requirements for a President/VP!
I would say he should shoot for Reid’s position after 2012!!
However, I’m disappointing of him and the rest of TTP’s candidates NOT willing to take on the NBC issue, as soon as they enter the District of Corruption = D.C.!!!
I agree, his path should be to senate majority leader. I don’t want to wait until he’s had a decent amount of experience in the senate to replace McConnell, however. I want McConnell gone by January, 2013.
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.