Skip to comments.Citizen Tells California Republican Party: “Marco Rubio Is not Eligible”
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 ...
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 doesnt 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?
Its probably good that we gave him a pass, since his father was serving his country abroad on Johns birth date. However, it does muddy the waters a bit.
It seems that Marcos dad didnt 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.coms 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 wouldnt 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.
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.
Being closer to eligibility than Obama does not make one eligible.
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?
I’ve got my issues with Rubio (and his support for Amnesty), but this is just plain stupid.
If he runs for President, expect the Left’s birthers to dog his heels and make his life generally miserable.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
“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:
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.
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.
Thanks for the chuckle.
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.
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!
I’ll go with McClintock! I know his lawyers would throughly check this out before letting him speak to the issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another clever hammer-use of words that hits nails on heads.
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.
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.
“If he runs for President, expect the Lefts 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.
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.
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 Calvins 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.
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.)
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.
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.
That is your opinion which I do not share for many reasons.
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.
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.
The left doesn't care for the 2nd Amendment either. Should we should just ignore that and confiscate all your firearms?
Have you been following the last 6 presidential elections?
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. Ive been told, but dont know for sure, that Marco was born here, but that his parents didnt 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 doesnt meet the minimum Constitutional qualifications to be President. This means that he cant be VP either.
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?
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.
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.