But you might enjoy this with video.
Just click on it. It's called Rush Limbaugh - "Rollback Pelosi" 2/12/2010
Posted on 09/30/2011 12:35:26 AM PDT by Yosemitest
How do you get around the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that trumps all legislative acts? Therefore, Congress can not devine who is or is not a citizen if what they are are doing is unconstitutional? They do not have the authority to amend the Constitution. It would not be the first Congressional misadventure that is subsequently found to be unconstitutional.
Rubio is perfectly eligible, he’s a natural born citizen, and there has never ever been a case where someone was declared not a natural born US citizen on the basis of his parents’ citizenship. Place of birth is what does it; that’s why the Chinese can pay to come in and have babies here, who automatically are considered natural born US citzens, even though their parents live in China and take them back to China immediately and raise them there. Like it or not, the place is what matters.
In fact, if Rubio’s parents had been US citizens but if he himself had been born elsewhere, he would not be considered natural born. This was the whole argument over McCain, if you will recall, who was born to a military family in a hospital in Panama that was used by the military but was not actually on the base (not on US soil, in other words).
So Rubio is fully eligible. Whether he’d want to run, of course, is another matter, and I don’t think he would. He has a very nice young family to look after, and I think he’s happy with what he’s achieving in the Senate.
The author is a Rubiobot, I checked all his past articles.
No, you fail to understand how the Supreme Court works. Just because Congress has the authority to make laws does not mean that all such laws are Constitutional. If the Act you refer to is challenged in the Supreme Court, the Court will judge the law against Article II. It may or may not pass the test.
Made-up birther nonsense.
Rubio is eligible.
That's a distinction that doesn't exist in the law. Whether it existed in the framer's minds, or in their intentions, or whether it ought to exist, etc., is fine to argue about, but Rubio's eligibility or lack thereof is determined by the law.
The law says that a person born in U.S. territory of parents who are not "under foreign jurisdiction" (not diplomats, foreign military at war with the U.S., etc.) are citizens by birth, and the law does not distinguish between "citizen by birth" and "natural-born".
Untrue. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" has a specific meaning under the law. Resident aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" legally. Diplomats aren't. That's the difference.
Thanks for this post. I’m enjoying your replies as much as the original post. Lately, I’ve been thinking that, if Rubio were to run, it might bring the whole citizenship question really out in the open and settle the matter once and for all. What do you think? I’ll have to bookmark this as I’m off to work but look forward to more of this later.
LOL! I can't blame you for believing that - it's something we were all brainwashed by our public education to accept as a 'fact'.
--------
The point is, applying for citizenship is not enough. Until they ARE citizens they cannot pass their citizenship to their offspring.
That's how natural-borns are made - they inherit their citizenship from their parents.
No parental citizenship means NO NATURAL-BORN OFFSPRING.
The fact they had begun the process of naturalization is irrelevant.
[Wong Kim Ark's parents had begun the naturalization process as well, but the USSC still considered him to be native born, not natural born]
-------
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” —
John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
Citizenship is an absolute. There are no exceptions for a quasi state of 'almost' a citizen.
Rubio is not eligible for public office for the same reason Soetoro is not....and I will not be a hypocrite and say otherwise just because he is 'one of ours'!
Yes, it does.
Wong Kim Ark
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
------
This is like saying a car is just as much a vehicle as a truck.
A true statement on it's face, but it doesn't make a car INTO a truck.
Wong Kim petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen. The court agreed he was such, but the finding made the distinction between natural-born and native born.
Had there BEEN no distinction, the finding would not have been worded as it was.
Constitutionally, resident aliens are 'denizens' and are subject to the jurisdiction of the State in which they reside.
,/a>What part of March 26, 1790 don't you understand?
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.