Skip to comments.The Good News: Rubio's Eligible
Posted on 02/29/2012 9:00:57 AM PST by no dems
Conservatives are right to be deeply committed to constitutionalism and to test all government actions against the plumb line of that great charter of liberty. We would never dismiss concerns about the constitutionality of legislation or the eligibility of persons to hold office under that Constitution the way former Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed objections to the legitimacy of ObamaCare. The former Speaker looked incredulously at her questioner and said: "Are you serious?" Happily, such disdain for constitutional concerns is one reason why she is the former Speaker of the House.
Don't worry, dear readers -- be happy. The good news for us is that Sen. Marco Rubio is eligible to be elected president in 2012. And so are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley. There's been a lot of attention devoted to the original meaning of "natural born citizen of the United States," the governing phrase from Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. Happily, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution resolves this question for us. Clearly, says this respected source, what the Founders sought to avoid was foreign intrigue, or intriguers, becoming president. Wise Founders. (Too bad they didn't also say "Marxists need not apply.")
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I would rather see Allen West than Rubio for VP, especially since Rubio’s beat down on Newt.
GOP are usually eager to kiss and make up the moment that dust has settled from the Republican brawl du jour. Something similar happened in the lead-up to the nomination of George W. Bush in 2000.
Chet Arthur is in love with Rubio.
Arthur has written several articles about how wonderful Rubio is. It sounds he has a sexual fixation/attraction on him...Yeck!!!!
Read the comments and you will see how the article was clearly lacking and wrong. So do we do like liberals and give up on the Constitution for political expediency? Methinks not.
Not interested in Mr. Open-Borders Rubio.
....and eligible, schmeligible....
The bar is officially set so low any anchor baby qualifies.
I will say it again —
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural = both parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”)
The 1790 act was repealed and replaced by the 1795 act!
NOTE- the 1795 act states
1. children of citizenS of USA shall be considered US citizens.
2. right of citizenship shall NOT descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...!
obozo’s father was neither a USA citizen nor a resident in USA! (he was only a student)
Rubio’s father and mother were NOT citizens of USA at time of his birth!
if obozo was really born in USA he can be a US citizen by virtue of his birth place, but he is NOT a nbc!
Rubio was born in USA so he is a USA citizen but he is NOT a nbc and NOT constitutionally elig to be the president of USA!
nbc = born in USA to 2 USA parentS!
So even before I read the article, YOU must be endorsing that Barry Soetoro, Soebakah, the illegal undocumented alien and usurper is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, in a faked and unConstitutional election, right???
I have no comment on the nbc question.
I do have a problem with your understanding oc the plural in citizens and parents. Because the object is plural, each member of the set can be singular even with the s.
Example: “The children of heads of state shall be accorded diplomatic immunity” does not imply that any nation has more than one head.
BTW, I don’t know who this writer is and I wonder why American Thinker would allow this contrived, synthetic, drivel to be published but his intent is to despoil the field by outright deception.
I understand that there have been Supreme Court decisions that complicate this; it will be interesting to see how it all works out.
This bozo got hammered in the comments section at American Thinker.
Guy is an ass clown.
If Rubio, Haley or Jindal ever gets nominated, and I hope all of them will be sooner or later, watch the mainstream media go into a frenzy about their eligibility. They have no shame.
Rubio’s parents left Cuba in 1956. Fidel was hiding out in Mexico - nobody “fled” him at that time.
Are you aRINO, hmmm???
Regardless of voting for Marco Rubio, we are a “few” who DON’T care what conventional wisdom says. We care about WHAT the Consttitution says. Period!!!
There are no legitimate conservative lawyers who will touch any of this with a ten foot pole for very good reason, including the fact that these self "educated" birthers can't comprehend plural sets. Although the eyes of dogs come in sets of two, there are one-eyed dogs. However, there are no eyes which have two dogs.
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.