Posted on 09/07/2011 4:33:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Edited on 09/07/2011 4:35:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
We cannot have it both ways. Obama is not a NBC and should be removed, thus Rubio is not eligible IF he is not a NBC. What will be interesting is if a case goes to SCOTUS after Obama is out of office, which declares he was ineligible.
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.
I sure hope so - unless he changes in the next few years (which does happen to politicians), Rubio’s great!
How many times have we heard this?
Black people didn’t vote for George W. Bush because of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell. They didn’t vote for Bush Sr. after he put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
As for “Hispanics,” Marco Rubio is a Cuban, and Cubans vote Republican because they are Cubans, successful business people in South Florida. In Florida, the Puerto Ricans aren’t going to vote for the Cuban Rubio. Neither are the Mexicans in the Southwest.
If Rubio proved he was capable of being a great president, then fine he should have his chance down the road, after he has been given the chance to prove himself. But we shouldn’t vote for someone just because they are black or Hispanic.
We’re living under the Obama disaster right now. Obama wasn’t even in the Senate a full term before he ended up in the White House. It was a disaster.
I’m not knocking him because he is “Hispanic.” I love Clarence Thomas because he is a great Supreme Court justice. But he isn’t qualified to be President of the United States.
Sorry, that's not going to fly as a "Gotcha!"
True dat! If there is any group of Spanish speaking people who reflects America, as-is, it is the Cuban immigrants and there offspring, IMO.
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 not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Such are not binding as precedent.
I think the Nancy wing would like that, but they think it would split the party, but 30 days is a life time in politics., the front runner stuff today is wishing BS, anything can still happen.
Yeah, and the next line says that some have supported born on soil only. And then they go on to say that the answer to the soil only question was not germane to the case, so it would not be ruled on.
And a later case, US vs Wong Kim Ark supported jus soli. Their interpretation was that being born in the US to parents not subject to a foreign government granted citizenship at birth. And the court argued that the English common law at the time of the founding regarding natural born citizenship would grant citizenship unless the person had parents who were foreign diplomats, born on foreign ships, or born to a country we were at war with.
Dang man he was naturalized just like his parents. It has been reported a thousand times.
So minorities can only learn from or listen to a fellow minority member? Total nonsense.
Wrong, the courts sent the children of coolies back to china.
And just how are the parents not subject to a foreign government?
I lived in Canada for seven years with their equivalent of a Green Card. While I was subject to laws of residency in Canada, as a US citizen, I was most certainly subject to US jurisdiction. I registered for the Selective Service and I sent income tax returns to Philadelphia.
I never said it was a good thing but I grew up in Hialeah, FL which is 95% Hispanic now so it’s nothing new to me.
Nothing in my post was wrong. 3 of Ark’s children were given citizenship after the court case.
I would suggest that refugees, like those from Cuba, would not be subject to the Cuban government, even if Clinton’s goons thought so. If you go from the US to Canada and maintain US citizenship, pay US taxes, and register for the US military, then you are subject to the US government. If you leave the US for Canada with not intention to go back and stop paying taxes to the US, then you are renouncing your right to be subject to the US government. Its very simple.
ineligible bump
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.