[Yosemitest]

I just needed a laugh and I figured you did too.
I trust Mark Levin (post #63) because he's one of the best legal minds in the country.
I would also think that you would trust Dean C. Haskins (post #70) since he's the Executive Director of The Birther Summit.
Lets read his reply to Bernard Goldberg's

Who Is A “Natural Born Citizen”?
Posted: July 19, 2011

So I’m on the O’Reilly Factor and I say
if the Republicans don’t put Marco Rubio on their national ticket they need to get their heads examined.
Such is my regard for the freshman senator from Florida.

What followed were emails from people who told me
that Rubio can’t be vice president
because the Constitution says only “natural born citizens” can be president or vice president,
and he doesn’t fit the description.

Some went a tad further.
Ray said I need to “wake up.”
Gregor – who signed his name “American by Birth – Patriot by Choice” said my comment about Rubio was both “uneducated” and “foolish.”
Edward said, “I’m sure you have read the Constitution but I urge you to reread Article I, Section II which gives the qualifications for president.”
David simply stated that,
“Neither of Marco Rubio’s parents were citizens of our country when he was born.
Therefore, Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.”

I’m always amused when I get letters from self-appointed “scholars” who have no doubt – none! – about how knowledgeable they are
when it comes to constitutional law even though not one of them spent even 10 minutes in law school.
How do I know?
If they had, trust me, they would have mentioned it – IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

Many of these people, I suspect, have another agenda, which I’ll get to shortly. But first …

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen.”
And as Wikipedia explains,
“scholars and politicians have not agreed as to whether U.S.-born children of non-citizens … qualify as natural born citizens.”

Also from Wikipedia:
“The natural born citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts,
but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural born citizen.”

So what did the Founders have in mind when they used that term they didn’t bother to define?
Well, after the Constitution was ratified, some of the Founders opined about the meaning of the clause.
Here’s what James Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution, had to say on the subject in a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789:

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage;
but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

So Mr. Madison, speaking directly to the question of who is and who is not a “natural born citizen” states
that here in the United States “place” – or where you were born” – trumps “parentage”
– the citizenship of your mother and father.

Now let’s get to what I believe is the real motive behind all of this.
And it has a lot less to do with Marco Rubio than Barack Obama.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I think some of this is birther nonsense,
just the latest lame attempt to make a case that Barack Obama is not a legitimate president.
His father, after all, was not a U.S. citizen, therefore, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen,
and ipso facto, he should never have been allowed to become president.

In fact, one of my email pals, Cyndee, said just that:
He [Barack Obama] is not a natural born citizen because of his father. Case closed.
While the Republicans let the Democrats get away with it, I doubt the Dems will return the favor [if Rubio becomes vice president].”

Well, case not closed.
As Wikipedia states,
“Although numerous claims have been put forth that the current president, Barack Obama, is not a natural born citizen,
the relevant courts have so far dismissed all lawsuits brought over this question.”

I hope the Republicans heed my advice and the advice of many others and put Marco Rubio on their ticket.
And I hope the ticket wins.
Then Cyndee or Ray or Edward or David or Gregor the Patriot can go to court and make a federal case out of it.
When they lose, I hope they will stop beating the dead horse.

Now read Dean C. Haskins' reply.

July 19, 2011 | 2:14 pm


Mr. Goldberg, I am in a bit of quandary right now.
I see that you have lifted a graphic from a video I produced entitled, “Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.” Since you neither attributed the graphic to me, nor did you give your readers an opportunity to view the video,
please allow me to provide the link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJdN2KPf0g.

It is also quite apparent that you actually never watched it,
for if you had, you would have realized that whether or not the term “natural born Citizen” is defined within the Constitution (it isn’t a dictionary),
that issue is irrelevant, as the Supreme Court set a binding precedent in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett,
in which they ruled that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen because she was born in this country to two citizen parents.
The “It’s-not-defined-in-the-Constitution” is an intellectual copout, as there is ample historic evidence for the framers’ intent,
and SCOTUS set the definition as binding precedent, which has never been overturned.
Minor v. Happersett is the only case in which SCOTUS construed Article II, section 1, and thus, it is the law of the land.

Dean C. Haskins
Executive Director, The Birther Summit
http://www.birthersummit.org

“Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.” is 10 minutes and 48 seconds of time well spent, especially the last 2 minutes.
The two articles he referenced 10 minutes 22 seconds into this video from deanhaskins.wordpress.com are below:

Leo Donofrio's Natural Born Citizen

Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen-A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers.

Here are links to searches of Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio.
Enjoy.

[Mears]

bfl

[patlin]

I trust Mark Levin (post #63) because he's one of the best legal minds in the country.

As I said before, Mark publicly stated that citizenship is not his area of legal expertise, he then went on to excerpt the work of experts whom he respects, experts I had already quoted & linked to many moons before Levin even broached the subject on air. Experts who in their work say that the 14th Amendment did not give US citizenship to any child born of aliens, legal or illegal, period. But Mark conveniently left out those parts of the legal experts whom he quoted. Thus, Mark Levin is a political hack & jackka$$ who now has used his name & radio show to spread lies & propaganda for his own personal political choices over Constitutional law. But that won't stop me from buying his new book when it comes out. He does have a very solid stance on other areas of constitutional law & thus we still can learn from him. But as I have always said, listen to Mark, take what he proffers & then test it so you are absolutely 100% able to debate him on it using his own words against him. Why do you think he has never had one of these experts on the air? They are close associates of his you know? Why is that?

I would also think that you would trust Dean C. Haskins

I do not support Dean Haskins...there I said it!!!

As far as Apuzzo & Donofrio, well you'll find some of my researched tucked into their work and we 3 all agree that both parents must be US citizens PRIOR to the child being born. Period.