RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

26 Plus years of military service, and I've always been briefed by the military that

if you had a child while overseas, and your wife was a U.S. Citizen, that the child would be considered a "natural-born-citizen".

And that was because military bases, the base hospital, where the child would be born, is United States property, sovereign land, just the same as being state-side.
After reading all this on this paper-chase, I find nothing to support what the military told me all those years.
Working for the military, U-S-A-F! (yoU Sure Are Fouled)
NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!

[edge919]

Now you are back to mis-leading people about the Minor case, which does not even have the word VATTEL in in nowhere.

No one who can read was misled. I said Waite did NOT cite Vattel, only that he used the exact same words Vattel used in his definition of natural citizenship. Read it AGAIN.

They match so much that Waite should have been sued for plagiarism (since he failed to cite Vattel).

Here is what the Supreme Court said about the Minor people, in 1898, and I quote:

I already quoted the passage that Gray used, except that I explained that Waite did NOT cite English common law. His definition of NBC matched Vattel's side by side, which is why I put them side by and underlined the matching phrases.

Plus, if you will notice, you just said there is no such thing as English common law which the Supreme Court just said there was and then starts to review it, and I quote the same Supreme Court again:

I didn't say there is no such thing as English common law. I said there's no English common law in the Minor decision. Waite did NOT cite ANY English common law when giving his definition of natural born citizenship.

squeeks, you're posts are bordering on delusional because you are claiming things that I never said and you're ignoring what I did say.

Sooo, women and minors who were born here were already citizens because they were born here. Not because of who their parents were.

You're not reading ALL the words. Waite said "native women and minors." Waite has already said "natives" are those who are born in the country to citizen parents.

Judge Waite said "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts" which is just the opposite of what you are saying which is that this case solved in favor of Vattel, who is not even mentioned in the case. What you are doing is misleading people.

Sorry, but this is babbling nonsense. Waite said it was not necessary to solve the doubts about the second class of citizens, because V. Minor fell within the first class of citizens ... natural born citizens ... those who are born in the country to citizen parents. We KNOW this is what he meant because it was explained as much 20 plus years later by Gray in the Wong Kim Ark decision, who said:

The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...

Sooo, you need to quit being a Vattle Birther, and quit misleading people about Mark Rubio not being eligible.

This isn't about Vattel. It's specifically about what the SCOTUS ruled on multiple occasions:

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.

Now ... you said this was somehow misread backwards. You still have not explained why you believe so.

[patlin]

After reading all this on this paper-chase, I find nothing to support what the military told me all those years

It is true, the US Govt, after the founding era abandoned our brave men & women in uniform who serve overseas. Although it has never been true that military installations overseas are owned by the US, it has always been the view of natural law that was adopted by our founders, that men & women, no matter where they serve can not be assumed to have quit their country & attached their loyalty to another as long as they are considered “active”, thus the lie that keeps being served up to our military.

BTW, thank you for your service. We are eternally indebted to you.

[patlin]

I'm a bit different than the Vattel Sec 212 hardliners as most they refuse the common sense of Vattel Sec 217 that coincides with Sec 212 that I believe our founders would have agreed with as none of them talked of soil, they only mention the nationality of the father which automatically included the nationality of the mother as nature always intended it to be:

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

[Squeeky]

I caught you doing this last night and I showed you how MISLEADING you are being. Let me do it again:

You said:

NBC: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Citizenship by birth: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."

=========

What the The Supreme Court ACTUALLY says:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

=========== Plus, here is your quote, which you cut off, and didn't give a COMPLETE quote of:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

BUT, here is the COMPLETE quote:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

THEN the judges [in section II] go through about a zillion cases of that English history stuff and sum it up as:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

After saying this about the English Law, then they start in on American law cases

[And then they start section III and they say] III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

And then they say, quoting another case:

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 as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Which is what I told you before: Every body, regardless of parentage born here, is born in the allegiance of the US (with two exceptions) and if you are born here in the allegiance of the U.S, then you are a natural born citizen.

Very simple. No Vattle stuff. No difference in 14th amendment citizens and NBCs. None of what you say.

If anybody here doubts this, then here is the link to the case and you can just read it for yourself:

Wong Kim Ark

[noinfringers2]

I read your posting to mean that if a child is born to ‘citizens’ then that child is a ‘natural born citizen’. The followup concerning a father could muddy the status if the father has never been a resident IN the USA. I prefer to avoid shenanigans like Obama by keeping eligibility for POTUSA as discussed and I believe the Founders intended.

[Squeeky]

You said:"I didn't say there is no such thing as English common law. I said there's no English common law in the Minor decision. Waite did NOT cite ANY English common law when giving his definition of natural born citizenship." FIRST, here is what the Minor judge said:

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. . .

Now let's look at that. First, the Minor judge went to common law in the very next sentence.

SECOND: Look WHO and WHEN they did it "framers of the Constitution" means it was done before it was framed, or signed, which at that time we were under. . .ENGLISH LAW!!! Which included ENGLISH COMMON LAW!!! Even after the constitution American still used and USES UNTIL THIS VERY DAY English Common law. (Which I learned in my 6 hours of Business Law in college)

Plus, I am not sure if I caught you pulling the "but" stuff on one or two threads, sooo if you have only done it once, then just ignore me fussing at you again above.

If you are innocent of that one, then I want to substitute that fussing for this fussing:

I looked at the page numbers where you picked sentences out of context, and the two sentences you put together were not only about two different things, but were 48 PAGES APART in the court case. How could you!!! Have you no shame!!!

[edge919]

Now let's look at that. First, the Minor judge went to common law in the very next sentence.

The so-called "common law" as I've shown already used Vattel's definition of NBC verbatim. One more time. Here are the TWO definitions side by side:

Justice Waite: "... 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 ..."

Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Both definitions says "natives" and "natural-born citizens." Both definitions are dependent on birth to citizen parents. Do you think that definiton of NBC looks like English common law?? If so, cite the passage that matches the way the Vattel definition matches. I'll wait.

[edge919]

What the The Supreme Court ACTUALLY says:

This SUPPORTS my point. Thanks for shooting your own arugment in the foot. READ IT.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

The first part of this citation says specifically it is a reference to the Constitution ... specifically the 14th amendment. Then it cites the citizen clause and the verb of the sentence, which you omitted. Here's the ENTIRE first part of the passage:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.

The 14th amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship. This does NOT contradict the earlier statement that NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution. Gray is now ONLY talking about birth as defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment. He does not call it natural born citizenship, nor does he suggest that it is the same concept. The next passage is STILL talking about the 14th amendment. He is pointing out that the 14th still reserves naturalization authority to Congress, but that that it defines the circumstances for what he calls "citizenship by birth." READ IT.

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

BUT, here is the COMPLETE quote:

The complete quote referencing Minor still says that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. The definition in question, which is quoted, is a verbatim match of Vattel and NOT English common law. Again, the Minor definition did NOT cite ANY English common law. When it said "at common law" it is referring to the Law of Nations since that definition is where their definition of NBC OBVIOUSLY came from.

Which is what I told you before: Every body, regardless of parentage born here, is born in the allegiance of the US (with two exceptions) and if you are born here in the allegiance of the U.S, then you are a natural born citizen.

Sorry, but this is simply not true and the citation of U.S. v Rhodes is acutally a citation from Shanks v. Dupont which recognized that persons born in the United States could be British subjects ... and not just those who were born to foreign ministers, etc. It applied to ANYONE who adhered to the Crown. READ IT:

All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown.

Understand it. All thoses natives or otherwise ... those born in the country who adhered to the British crown were subjects of the crown. Being born in the allegiance of the United States meant ADHERING to the American states as it says above.

[Squeeky]

Quit chopping stuff up and leaving out important stuff. Here is the REAL Minor quote:

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.

It does not say that children of aliens who are born here are NOT NBC's. It says "some say yes" and "some say no" and there are "doubts", which I think is pretty obvious because 24 years later in Wong Kim Ark, there were doubts. If there weren't any doubts about kids of Chinese people, there would NOT have been a case. I mean like DUH!!!

In 1874 there were DOUBTS as to whether or not a heavier-than-air machine would ever fly. Do we still have those doubts??? Not me. Those doubts got answered in 1903 at a place called Kitty Hawk.

Same here. Whatever doubts there might have been got answered in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark. Sooo, I mean where are you coming from quoting a 1874 women's voting rights case to try to over rule a Supreme Court case of 24 years later??? How do you even form that ludicrous a thought???

But let's go further and assume, for this thread, that Minor said "OH heck no--no way the kid of some alien is a natural born citizen just because he was born here in the U.S. Assume that for a minute.

What happens the second that Wong Kim Ark is decided 24 years later. The Minor case would be bad law. Even if it had came right out and said that, in 1874, that there wasn't any doubts and the only NBCs were kids born here to two citizens. Twenty four years later, its no longer the law. For example, is Dred Scott still good law???

Sooo, there is one question about why you try to turn "doubts and they aren't relevant to this case" INTO "Whoopee!!! This case proves there are NOT any doubts." But there is a second question of why are you screwing around with a 1874 case in the first place, when there is a 1898 case that actually addresses the issue???

Don't you think it is kind of a goofy law theory to use a earlier case instead of the later case??? Don't you feel kind of silly trying to convince people to disregard the later case for the earlier one??? Are Vattle Birthers like Benjamin Button and time goes backwards for them??? Oh Tee Hee!!!

[Squeeky]

Put the facts and the dates into the Shank case. Give a link. I have repeatedly asked you to do that sooo that I don’t waste my time reading more Vattle Birther screwed up misrepresentations. Present the basic facts of the case, the dates, and how a earlier case over rules a 1898 case.

Thanking you in advance!!!

[edge919]

It does not say that children of aliens who are born here are NOT NBC's.

It does when it says, "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." It goes on to cite the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it makes a distinction between "native women and native minors" as opposed to "alien women and alien minors" ... AGAIN, keeping in mind that NATIVES are those who are born in the country to citizen parents.

Also, you're misunderstanding the importance of the "doubts" comment. Virgina Minor claimed to be a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected this argument because they were making a distinction between two classes of citizenship. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to talk about not needing to solve doubts, because they could have solved the doubts easily by accepting Minor's arugment. They did NOT do this.

Third, the Minor decisions notes a separate type of citizenship at birth through the naturalization act of 1790.

... the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.

If the United States subscribed to English common law, there should have been no need for such a provision to be inserted into a naturalization act. William Blackstone had noted in 1765 that English common law already recognized persons born abroad as natural born subjects.

But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

Do you understand. The U.S. did NOT follow English common law. The Naturalization Act covered everyone who was not naturally a citizen by birth which was aliens, their wives and children, and children born abroad of citizen parents.

And yes, Wong Kim Ark resolved doubt for the child of Chinese subjects ... because there would be NO DOUBT if Ark was a child of citizens and fit the definition of natural born citizen. Marco Rubio falls in the category of doubt. His citizenship is not natural, but is instead dependent on a Constitutional amendment and/or naturalization law.

[DiogenesLamp]

DiogenesLamp, if you don't mind, I'd like your opinion to the above quote from the bottom of the linked page next to last paragraph.

Okay, My first point is that the article seems to be based on the Wong Kim Ark court decision which declared Ark a "citizen" based on their understanding of the 14th amendment. A lot of people who have looked at the court's ruling on the Wong Kim Ark case believe the court decided the issue wrongly *, but even if they did, they did not go so far as to say that Wong Kim Ark was a "natural born citizen", they just declared him to be a "citizen." It appears some subsequent bureaucrat or lawyer type asserted that citizenship based on the court's version of the 14th amendment citizenship was the same thing as "natural born citizenship." The 14th amendment does not grant "natural born citizen" status, it grants only "citizen" status. In other words, it does not redefine the term as understood in 1787 written into Article II.

My next point, is the source of your article is "Dr. Conspiracy." He is a liberal activist that has consistently made misleading arguments to prove Obama is eligible. He runs a website called "Obamaconspiracy.org" and in my opinion he is dishonest and a liar. I have personally argued with him extensively for a couple of weeks, and I found him to be impenetrable in both his idiocy and his partisanship. He has been banned here at Free Republic. Using "Dr. Conspiracy's" arguments on this issue would be like asking a Nazi for his opinion on Jewish law. He is hostile to the truth and he has an agenda.

At this point, I think your best argument is that the founders were willing to accept the children of resident aliens as "natural born citizens" provided their father eventually became a citizen. I see a little bit of support for this argument in the historical record. I would look for more supporting examples from the founding period. If I were you, I would contact freeper "xzins", because he seems to have information which i've not seen elsewhere claiming Marco Rubio's father had stated his intention to become a citizen prior to Marco's birth. (Though Patlin points out that the documentation we have doesn't support this assertion.)You might also check out the congressional debates on the "naturalization act of 1790". Be sure to check out both the HOUSE and SENATE portions of the Debate. Here is the index to the HOUSE debate. Here is the index to the SENATE debate. Just look up the word "naturalization" and refer to the correct page number for the beginning of the debates.

I hope this helps.

* Several Members of the House of Representatives and Also the Senate, stated specifically that the 14th amendment was NOT meant to apply to the Children of Aliens, rather it was to apply only to those owing allegiance to this nation. However, there have also been statements by some congress members indicating that it WOULD apply to the children of aliens. It appears that there may have been some confusion as to which it was, hence the court rendering a confusing verdict. The Civil rights act of 1866, (upon which the 14th amendment was based) is clearer. It says:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"

[DiogenesLamp]

Dude, I strongly urge you to waste no time in accepting her theories. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Seriously, I know screaming children are hard to ignore, but if you pay attention to them they will think they can get away with it. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Doesn’t the bible mention casting pearls before swine? :) You have the patience of a saint.

[Yosemitest]

Good morning, and thanks for your response.
I've spent so many hours researching this, and then to find out that some of these sources are fake is really aggravating.
I really trust Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and others who say Rubio is legit. I believe that they too have good information, but after this, I don't know where it is, and I'm tired of looking.
I know I shouldn't give up, but I just don't have the time, and Rubio is great, but he isn't my favorite choice.
There are too many other great choices out there.

Thanks for the links. My personal belief, which isn't worth much, is that Rubio was born in the States and his paperwork was started before he was born, but wasn't finished until after he was born. Therefore, the confusion.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to clear this up, defining "Natural Born Citizen", if I read it correctly, since an act of Congress alone can't change it, and that's not going to happen.

Thank you for your time.

[Yosemitest]

Yes, it does.

[edge919]

I really trust Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and others who say Rubio is legit.

There's no question that Rubio is much closer than Obama in meeting the requirements of natural born citizenship, but until the Supreme Court comes up with a ruling that can logically put aside the definition in Minor v. Happersett, then that definition is the gold standard: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The only legitimate way to get around that is to amend the Constitution by changing the NBC requirement.

[DiogenesLamp]

No problem. Hope I helped.