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

To: SeekAndFind
I think you just about have it.

There are those who think to be a natural born citizen one must be born in the USA or territories of parents who were U.S. citizens.

AND-

There are those who think one must be born a citizen under U.S. law (which should always reflect our best understanding of natural law) to be a natural born citizen.

The U.S. Constitution only contemplates two types of U.S. citizens going forward, those that are natural born - and those that must be “naturalized” into that state of allegiance.

Based upon that the only type of U.S. citizen excluded by Article II section 1 from the Presidency (and thus the Vice-Presidency) would be naturalized U.S. citizens.

Rubio was not naturalized.

He was born a citizen of these United States according to U.S. law.

31 posted on 03/22/2012 9:09:20 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


He was born a citizen of these United States according to U.S. law.

That may be......but he was not "Natural Born". The Constitution implies both parents must be Citizens of the Country at the time of the birth of the proposed Presidential contender. That's why the qualification factors for Presidents are different from Senators and Representatives. Here's what the Constitution says:

[Article II Section I] No person except a "natural born Citizen", or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The qualifying factor being....what I have underlined. The reason it says....Natural born citizen "OR" a citizen is simply because there is a great difference.

When the Constitution was adopted many qualified men who were being considered for the Presidency had been born of parents who were not citizens of the Country.....because the country had not existed yet. The framers knew this would eventually be sun setted (as time went on) because future presidential candidates would have no reason not to be children of citizens of this nation at the time of their birth. And.....that was the qualifier for the presidency (and not the House, the Senate nor the Supreme Court). You were not required to be a child of U.S. citizens at the time of your birth to hold these other offices. But to be called a "Natural Born Citizen" your parents must have been citizens as well.....at the time of your birth. The other elected (and appointed) offices of the Federal Government had no such requirement to be "Natural Born".

Now.....during the eighteenth century.....what did this term imply? What was its understanding among the populace? Here is what was written in 1758 by a Frenchmen, Emmerich de Vattel in his great work called "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Laws". This work was read throughout the world and understood to be the common explanation for the term "Natural Born Citizen". Here is the defining paragraph:

[Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 "Citizens and Natives"]

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

For this very reason both Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are neither one....."Natural Born Citizen". Their parents were not citizens at the time of their births.

This is also the reason the current occupant of the White House is not a "Natural Born Citizen". His father was a British subject at the time of his birth......and this is also the reason why his birth certificate controversy is such a waste of time. It makes no difference if he was born in Hawaii; Bozeman, Montana; Shangrila or the lobby of "Independance Hall in Philadelphia on the fourth of July with the Marine Corps band playing the National Anthem outside on the lawn. His father was not a citizen of this country and as such........he should have been vetted and disqualified. Unfortunately, no Republican had the cojones!

Now...........one more time for those in Rio Linda. You can be born in this country and be born a "Citizen"......but you are not considered a "Natural Born Citizen" unless both parents are citizens as well....at the time of your birth.

98 posted on 03/22/2012 2:14:28 PM PDT by Diego1618 ( Put "Ron" on the rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

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