Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Citizen Tells California Republican Party: “Marco Rubio Is not Eligible”
The Post and E Mail ^ | 7 Nov 2011 | George Miller, Ventura Tea Party

Posted on 11/08/2011 2:41:50 AM PST by bushpilot1

In a discussion about the eligibility of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to serve as President or Vice President, the following email was sent to the president of the California Republican Assembly after she stated in an email that the U.S. Constitution states that one must be “born in the U.S.A.” to qualify as a “natural born Citizen:

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: birther; marcorubio; naturalborncitizen; rubio
To Celeste Greig, President:

1. I assure you that I have read the Constitution VERY carefully, as well as related case law, founders’ papers and statutes, on the question under discussion.

I have also read volumes on this and consulted with with real experts, such as Herb Titus, Mario Apuzzo and others, who specialize in eligibility.

They are far more knowledgeable on the subject than Neocon media commentators for media companies dependent upon government goodwill and even Dr. John Eastman (who once told me that he doesn’t believe in the Tenth Amendment, which indicates that he is selective about the Constitution). Our experts have a very different version to tell.

2. Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the applicable passage, specifies 35+ years old, not 36 as you said.

It says natural born citizen, NOT born in the U.S., NOT citizen. Do you know the difference?

It does NOT say “the person should be over 36 years old and born in the U.S.,” or anything like it, as you stated.

By the way, John McCain was not born in the USA, was not even born in the Canal Zone- he was born in Colon, Panama.

So, using your definition, he was/is not eligible. So why did you endorse him, then? Because of S 511, co-sponsored by “Barack Hussein Obama” and carrying no legal weight, according to its own verbiage?

It’s probably good that we gave him a pass, since his father was serving his country abroad on John’s birth date. However, it does muddy the waters a bit.

It seems that Marco’s dad didn’t bother to become a citizen before Marco was born, even though he had ample opportunity and a red carpet rolled out by the US, to do so.

While the Constitution never got around to defining just what a natural born citizen is, it is crystal clear to objective legal experts that there is a definite difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”

As a matter of fact, “natural born citizen” is only mentioned once in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. “Citizen” is mentioned multiple times elsewhere.

3. Here is some clarification from a real expert, who has researched it extensively and actually knows what he is talking about:

Lots more backup in reserve. I assure you that I do not mouth off without checking these things first.

4. The Minor vs. Happersett ruling is the applicable case law precedent for natural born citizenship.

It has been upheld continuously, notwithstanding Justia.com’s disgraceful scrubbing of references to it (detected, publicized and subsequently restored), or the fraudulent CRS memo on the subject, which misled unschooled Congress-critters, such as McClintock.

Several of us have corresponded with Tom on the subject. He made himself look pretty foolish by parroting falsehoods fed to him, while ignoring educational materials we sent him. “Constitutional expert?” Maybe on some aspects of it, but not eligibility. You wouldn’t know he was an expert, from what I read of his words. One would think that with hundreds of millions of actual natural born citizens, that we would not need to go so far afield to source good candidates. One would be wrong, evidently.

If CRA should be so foolish as to attempt to endorse such an ineligible candidate, I and others will oppose it. If it should go ahead and do it, I will leave CRA.

If the Republican party should nominate an ineligible candidate. ditto.

I will be far from the only one. Both organizations seem to have a penchant for endorsing/nominating ineligible candidates, as we saw in CA last year.

1 posted on 11/08/2011 2:41:52 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Marco Rubio is far more eligible to be president or vice president that Barack Obama. As long as Rubio was born in the US he’s a citizen regardless of his father’s citizenship. That’s the current interpretation of the law (not one that I agree with but one that is in force).

That’s far more than Obama can prove. Rubio has a legitimate birth certificate.


2 posted on 11/08/2011 2:53:56 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Being closer to eligibility than Obama does not make one eligible.


3 posted on 11/08/2011 3:21:59 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

Who cares? Let the Left make a fuss about his eligibility. If they don’t care for the “natural born” clause - why should our side?


4 posted on 11/08/2011 3:31:50 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

5 posted on 11/08/2011 3:40:28 AM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I’ve got my issues with Rubio (and his support for Amnesty), but this is just plain stupid.


6 posted on 11/08/2011 3:48:21 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Don't Tread on Me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

If he runs for President, expect the Left’s birthers to dog his heels and make his life generally miserable.


7 posted on 11/08/2011 4:03:15 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

I didn’t know he was for amnesty? Also, who actually supports him? Does the Republican establishment support him; and if so why?

What a disgrace if we are being abused and used again.


8 posted on 11/08/2011 4:17:47 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Megadittos !


9 posted on 11/08/2011 4:29:35 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
I didn’t know he was for amnesty?

Marco Rubio on the Arizona Illegal Immigration Decision

Perry's Not the Only GOP Star to Support Tuition Breaks for Illegal Immigrants' Kids

In Dallas, Rubio urges fellow Republicans to take positive stance on immigration

Rubio Criticizes Arizona’s Immigration Law

10 posted on 11/08/2011 4:45:03 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Don't Tread on Me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Of course the matter in question is NOT whether Rubio is a “citizen”! Obama may be a citizen but unless his parents are other than who he says he is NOT a “natural born citizen”.


11 posted on 11/08/2011 4:57:52 AM PST by RipSawyer (This does not end well!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

The sole body that can determine Presidential eligibility is the Congress of the United States. It alone counts the votes and entertains challenges under the Constitution. Neither the United States Supeme Court or any Article III federal court have any jurisdiction in this matter. Their opinions and precidents do not apply.


12 posted on 11/08/2011 5:06:29 AM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

f***ing retards, the lot of them. No-one has a clue about natural law these days. But then such ignorance is no excuse for trying to shoe-horn facts that don’t fit their case. Marco Rubio’s Dad was hardly rejecting citizenship that he might have gotten; citizenship should be granted slowly, and only after strong ties are developed. But that in no way lessens the fact that Rubio’s Dad had chosen to dwell in America.

This abominable definition of “natural-born” would create a category of second-class citizens, of qualified citizenship which is an affront to the very notion of “natural” citizenship.

What does “natural-born” mean? Look to the word “naturalize.” It is “natural” that a man’s citizenship is to the land he has chosen as his home. He may be born with such citizenship, and thus be “natural-born,” or such citizenship may be conferred on him, as he is “naturalized.”

The only qualification included in the concept of “natural-born” is that one is not “naturally born” a citizen of another land if he is there in the service of another nation; hence, McCain is naturally born of the United States, and not of Panama, even though he was born in Panama.

The opinions of tyrants in France, notwithstanding.


13 posted on 11/08/2011 5:09:51 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
The Minor vs. Happersett ruling is the applicable case law precedent for natural born citizenship.

Nope, not in the case of someone born of non-citizen parents.

Minor v. Happersett asserts that someone born of citizen parents on U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen. (Certainly true.) It makes no claim (and directly says that it makes no claim) regarding someone born of non-citizen parents on U.S. territory, because it wasn't relevant to the case at hand.

You can't draw a legal conclusion from a precedent that goes well out of its way to say that it isn't addressing the issue about which you want the conclusion.

14 posted on 11/08/2011 5:10:13 AM PST by Campion ("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
Not true. This is just made up law from the Vattle Birthers. Rubio and Jindal both are eligible.

Making Swiss Cheese of Vattel

15 posted on 11/08/2011 5:18:04 AM PST by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

“By the way, John McCain was not born in the USA, was not even born in the Canal Zone- he was born in Colon, Panama.”

FYI: He was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, which was within the Canal Zone. It was near Colon not in Colon. Note boundary map below:

http://americahurrah.com/images/CZaColon.jpg


16 posted on 11/08/2011 5:36:03 AM PST by allen08gop (Insert appropriate picture here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

There is a fresh killed deer hanging on a limb in my neighbor’s back yard.

Its a lot closer to being alive than the frozen turkey in my freezer.


17 posted on 11/08/2011 5:57:59 AM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Minor v. Happersett asserts that someone born of citizen parents on U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen.
Is this "asserted" in the opinion or in the dissent?
Do you need a link 'cause I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion?

Nope, not in the case of someone born of non-citizen parents.
And the man known as Barak Hussein Obama was born to a non citizen parent. Oh, wait...you said parents. Do you mean one parent or both of them being non-citizen?
Nuances are hell.

18 posted on 11/08/2011 5:59:27 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

Thanks for the chuckle.


19 posted on 11/08/2011 6:08:49 AM PST by Rannug ("God has given it to me, let him who touches it beware.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; bushpilot1
“Marco Rubio Is not Eligible”

No, he's not, because he, like Obama, is not a natural-born citizen. Neither Obama nor Rubio had fathers who were citizens of the United States.

Obama had an additional problem in that he probably wasn't even born in the U.S., and faked a birth certificate.

20 posted on 11/08/2011 6:23:55 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

He’s a citizen = Yes, a natural born citizen = NO

To be a natural born citizen you must be born on US Soil to citizen parents = plural.

Allegiance lies with the US not with any foreign influence!

Obama = not natural born by any definition!


21 posted on 11/08/2011 6:37:40 AM PST by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I’ll go with McClintock! I know his lawyers would throughly check this out before letting him speak to the issue.


22 posted on 11/08/2011 6:43:57 AM PST by CAluvdubya (I'm leaning towards a Cain/Newt ticket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Minor v. Happersett asserts that someone born of citizen parents on U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen.
Is this "asserted" in the opinion or in the dissent?

There is no dissent in the Minor decision. The definition of natural-born citizen was used exclusivedly by this unanimous court to describe only those persons born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Those persons NOT born to citizen parents were characterized by the unanimous court as aliens or foreigners ... who MIGHT be citizens by some authorities ... but of which the citizenship would be in doubt that needed to be resolved. For those persons born to citizen parents ... natural-born citizens according to the unanimous court ... there is no doubt ... no nuances. Nuances = NOT natural-born.

23 posted on 11/08/2011 6:49:55 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Minor v. Happersett asserts that someone born of citizen parents on U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen. (Certainly true.) It makes no claim (and directly says that it makes no claim) regarding someone born of non-citizen parents on U.S. territory, because it wasn't relevant to the case at hand.

Sorry, but this is wrong. The Supreme Court, in the Minor decision, defined natural-born citizen to justify its rejection of the 14th amendment as creating citizenship for women as a class. This was affirmed more than 20 years later in the Wong Kim Ark decision that noted that the Supreme Court was committed to the view that persons born in the country of citizen parents were EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. Further, the NBC definition was specifically given to satisfy the meaning of the term as found in Art II Sec I of the Constitution.

Person born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents, the court said, are recognized by "some authorities" as citizens, but their citizenship is in doubt and needs to be resolved, either by statutory or Constitutional means. Natural-born means "without doubts" that need to be resolved.

24 posted on 11/08/2011 6:55:49 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: edge919
There is no dissent in the Minor decision.
I know. It was meant as a rhetorical question.

Is this "asserted" in the opinion or in the dissent?

My thing is...don't decisions declare and/or determine things? If they only "assert" something then what good are they, for they have no force.
It sounds like weasel words to me, though I could be wrong.

25 posted on 11/08/2011 7:00:25 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
There is a fresh killed deer hanging on a limb in my neighbor’s back yard. Its a lot closer to being alive than the frozen turkey in my freezer.

:-)

26 posted on 11/08/2011 7:09:29 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I agree that “assert” is not the correct term to use, and it’s also important to stress that there was NO dissent in the Minor decision, lest there be any Obot confusion. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a claim of 14th amendment citizenship by declaring that natural-born citizenship already defined the citizenship for all persons born in the country to citizen parents.


27 posted on 11/08/2011 7:10:51 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
....."One would think that with hundreds of millions of actual natural born citizens, that we would not need to go so far afield to source good candidates"....

Another clever hammer-use of words that hits nails on heads.

28 posted on 11/08/2011 7:30:33 AM PST by urtax$@work (The only kind of memorial is a Burning memorial !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
I have a problem with letters like this one to anyone in authority. There's too much pontificating and posturing. Get to the point quickly. Something like this:
To Celeste,

I recently saw where you expressed a common misunderstanding of the Constitutional requirement for the office of president. It is not sufficient according to this country's highest legal authority to simply be born on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court has noted in several landmark decisions that the term "natural-born citizen" is defined as a person born in the country to citizen parents. This definition is characterized as natural-born because it the only citizenship definition for which there are no legal or ethical doubts.

Our founders understood as well as we do today, that citizenship can be gained under a variety of circumstances, some which may be questionable. The Supreme Court said citizenship is in doubt when persons are not born to citizen parents and that the doubts must be resolved, such as through applicable statutes or constitutional provisions. Citizenship that depends on statutes or constitutional provisions does not meet the standard to be characterized as natural-born. This is why some babies born in this country are described as "anchor babies." Their citizenship, if it legally exists, is neither natural nor inherent. While we can respect the general idea that birth in the United States confers citizenship on most people, it is not equal to natural-born citizenship unless both parents are citizens. The standard for presidential office is natural-born citizenship and not just ANY type of citizenship at birth. As such, our current president and potential candidates such as Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal are Constitutionally deficient.

The clearest definition of natural-born citizen was presented in the unanimous Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett. That definition and the principle of exluding natural-born citizenship from the 14th amendment has been upheld and affirmed in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. The same definition is cited in other Supreme Court decisions. This is the perfect time to address this common misunderstanding that you expressed. Remember, "born in the country" only means natural-born if the parents are citizens. We need to insist that our voting public adheres to this proper and exclusive definition as stated by our nation's highest authority.


29 posted on 11/08/2011 7:34:20 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Click the Key

Free Republic’s Key to Success
Is Monthly Donors


Donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

30 posted on 11/08/2011 7:38:48 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm; Mind-numbed Robot; RipSawyer; backwoods-engineer
To be a natural born citizen you must be born on US Soil to citizen parents = plural.

You can't tout this as fact. This is one of many interpretations. There has be a host of different interpretations throughout our history but what constitutes a "natural-born" citizen was never decided legally. Please see Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

Rubio fits some of these definitions simply because there is proof that he was born in the US. Show me where the Supreme Court clearly defines natural-born citizen and then we can discuss if Rubio fits the category. Obama, try as they might, cannot make the same claim. Let's see his college records and see if he applied for foreign loans. Let's see the original birth certificate-not a photocopy.

31 posted on 11/08/2011 3:55:58 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“If he runs for President, expect the Left’s birthers to dog his heels and make his life generally miserable.”

Sure, but not on eligibility. Remember that prospective Rubio-birthers will have the cautionary tail of the Obama-birthers. Who’d want to heap all that failure and defeat upon themselves?

The only Rubio-birthers we’re seeing are a fringe from the Right, boxed into their crank theory against Rubio because they so vehemently, albeit uselessly, asserted it against Obama.


32 posted on 11/08/2011 7:42:47 PM PST by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

ineligibility bump


33 posted on 11/08/2011 7:50:15 PM PST by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
You can't tout this as fact. This is one of many interpretations. There has be a host of different interpretations throughout our history but what constitutes a "natural-born" citizen was never decided legally. Please see Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. There's no legal authority higher than the Supreme Court that said persons born in the country to citizen parents (plural) were distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The court recognized that having a foreign parent meant there would be doubt about the citizenship of the child, which would have to be resolved by statutory or Constitutional means. Natural-born on the other hand has NO doubts that need to be resolved. That's why they applied this term EXCLUSIVELY to persons born in the country to citizen parents.

34 posted on 11/08/2011 8:01:59 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Why do you keep fibbing to people about this case??? I have explained it to you numerous times, and you just keep lying about it so that people here will think that Rubio and Jindal are not eligible. This is NOT hard to understand.

1. People born here to two citizen parents - no doubts.
2. People born here to two alien parents - doubts.
3. People born here to one citizen and one alien parent - doubts.

Minor v. Happersett - “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

23 years ater, Wong Kim Ark DOES solve the doubts:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens [exceptions] Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “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.”

101 years later, Ankeny v. Governor Indiana Appeals court says the same thing:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

Mark Rubio IS eligible. Bobby Jindal IS eligible.

YOU can blabber your trash all day long and give your opinion until you are blue in the face, but these words are in simple plain English and DO NOT need interpretation by YOU, a anonymous pretend legal expert on the Internet. A “expert” who can’t even figure out the Minor v. Happersett did not solve the doubts, when those same judges give you a really BIG HINT and tell you, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

I am NOT going to waste bandwidth and engage in another cut and paste war with you, because I do not think you have any desire to be honest with people here, and I think you just want someone to pay attention to you and argue with you about your nonsense, while you pretend not to understand the law.

If anybody else here has any questions about the law on this, just Freepmail me,and I will do the best I can.


35 posted on 11/09/2011 9:13:53 AM PST by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Squeeky

I’ll make this simple for you. Read Minor and tell me which of your three options was specifically characterized as “natural-born citizens.” (Hint: There is only one.)


36 posted on 11/09/2011 9:38:58 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
unless his parents are other than who he says he is NOT a “natural born citizen”.

Gee. And in the over 130 years since Chester A. Arthur (British citizen parents) was president, not a PEEP until now over this fantasy that your parents must be citizens for their children to be considered natural born despite being born in the USA. Not a PEEP. Which just demonstrates the IDIOCY of the birth bozos.

37 posted on 11/10/2011 6:55:50 PM PST by PJ-Comix (Free Depends for OWS Protesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Squeeky

The ghost of Chester A. Arthur is laughing at the Birth Bozos. What makes their case really ridiculous is that Arthur had a lot of enemies in the Republican party who tried to prevent his VP selection by James Garfield on the basis that he wasn’t born in the USA. However, it was well known that his parents were British citizens at the time of his birth. So why wasn’t he disqualified on that basis? It was a slam dunk yet his enemies neglected to use the current bizarre definition of Natural Born Citizen. Why? Because Birth Bozoism did not come into being until about the last couple of years.


38 posted on 11/10/2011 6:59:44 PM PST by PJ-Comix (Free Depends for OWS Protesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

That is your opinion which I do not share for many reasons.


39 posted on 11/11/2011 3:53:41 AM PST by RipSawyer (This does not end well!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

There is a reason why they have certain classes of drivers licenses and the restrictions.

There should be a national political licensing agency, any person being elected to any office must have this license.

And with it the definitive restrictions if any.

Such as having one limited due to being not a natural Born Citizen due to parentage from another country.

Sorry to say fate can be cruel. Rubio, Jindal and who knows, they mean well but they are by technicality ineligible to hold the highest elected office, anything up to that is open.


40 posted on 11/11/2011 3:59:58 AM PST by Eye of Unk (E-Cat is the future, unless we want to live in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squeeky

The government of the United States was established by the people, to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. This is in the preamble.

The descendants of the original citizens are the posterity... are the natural born citizens.

The framers limited the presidency to the posterity these are the natural born citizens. They must have citizen parents.

It is not possible Rubio and Obama can be natural born citizens.


41 posted on 11/11/2011 1:12:38 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"Who cares? Let the Left make a fuss about his eligibility. If they don’t care for the “natural born” clause - why should our side?"

The left doesn't care for the 2nd Amendment either. Should we should just ignore that and confiscate all your firearms?

42 posted on 12/11/2011 8:52:01 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
One would think that with hundreds of millions of actual natural born citizens, that we would not need to go so far afield to source good candidates

Have you been following the last 6 presidential elections?

43 posted on 01/25/2012 10:52:57 AM PST by Starstruck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squeeky
YOU can blabber your trash all day long and give your opinion until you are blue in the face, but these words are in simple plain English and DO NOT need interpretation by YOU, a anonymous pretend legal expert on the Internet.....If anybody else here has any questions about the law on this, just Freepmail me,and I will do the best I can.

Perhaps you should take it up with this source, then. Currently our best hope for a legal sanction against Obama's eligibility. One of three legal challenges simultaneously under consideration in a GA court, whose subpoena was ignored by the Obama camp.

The definition of Natural Born Citizen, as defined by the Supreme Court, has two elements: 1) you must be born in the U.S.; 2) both of your parents must be citizens of the U.S. at the time of your birth. If both of these elements are fulfilled, you are a Natural Born Citizen. Assuming Mitt was born in the U.S. and both of his parents were U.S. citizens at that time, then he is a NBC. I’ve been told, but don’t know for sure, that Marco was born here, but that his parents didn’t naturalize until Marco was 14 years old. If this is true, then Marco Rubio can never be a Natural Born Citizen. He can be a Senator, his children could be President, but Marco doesn’t meet the minimum Constitutional qualifications to be President. This means that he can’t be VP either.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1667/what-about-mitt-and-marco/

44 posted on 01/29/2012 11:31:47 PM PST by zipper (espions sur les occupants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

This is getting ridiculous!
Mitt Romney’s father, former Michigan Governor George Romney, ran fir POTUS and he was born in Mexico! Mitt’s mother was born in Wales. Is he ineligible too?


45 posted on 01/29/2012 11:44:30 PM PST by Cincinna ( *** NOBAMA 2012 ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

This site has researched the subject more than any one. We’ve all the information regarding the meaning of a natural born citizen.

Visit our Vattel research thread. Read the NBC threads that discusses a natural born citizen.

All citizens are not natural born citizens.

The politicians have trashed the Constitution to get votes to remain in power to steal from the Treasury.

The country is beyond corrupt, Free Republic and the Tea Party stand alone.


46 posted on 01/30/2012 2:16:28 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson