Skip to comments.Is Marco Rubio eligible to be president?
Posted on 04/18/2012 2:29:47 PM PDT by TexasVoter
[B]irthers are focusing on U.S. Sen Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida.
Its nothing to do with him personally. But you cant change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules, said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo.
Forget about the alleged Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution which says no person except a natural born citizen
shall be eligible to the Office of President.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
“What would you say, if you were to learn that ‘soil babies,’ born to citizens in an unincorporated US territory, were found not to possess all the rights of natural born citizens, Tubalcane?”
If that were the case, they wouldn’t be “soil babies,” would they? Because they wouldn’t have been born on soil that qualifies under the 14th amendment’s “in the United States” requirement.
“The NBC clause was written in the US Constitution as a safe guard to prevent would be presidents to have other foreign allegiances”
This is my favorite birther non-argument. The Framers sought to forestall presidents with foreign loyalties, therefore “natural born citizens” can’t be born dual citizens. I could just as easily argue that because of the same intentions natural born citizens can’t have foreign grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.
Except that asserts too much. We cannot infer from the fact that they intended the president not to be a foreigner that the phrase contains all the anti-foreign safeguards you can think up. Same goes for all the extra language birthers want to tack onto the 14th amendment. You don’t like “anchor babies,” so you pretend the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause excludes them. But it doesn’t, as should be obvious by how many illegal immigrants are daily subjected to the jurisdiction of local police, INS, ICE, etc.
The Framers, meanwhile, attempted to forestall foreign influence by ensuring presidents would be born citizens, that’s all. The 14th amendment’s Framers, as well, forestalled children born to diplomats, invading armies, injins, etc. being born citizens via the jurisdiction clause.
“Well the crackpots in the Senate put forward their ridiculous ‘birther’ beliefs by passing a resolution to declare McCain a natural born citizen after much discussion.”
If memory serves, the controversy was that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which didn’t qualify as 14th amendment U.S. territory. Which means it was not over whether or not soil babies can be president, but over whether McCain was a soil baby.
“They held the crazy position that two citizen parents were necessary to qualify as natural born”
McCain’s parents were citizens, which I presume is why the Senate—if memory serves—declared him eligible. If he had been known to have been born in the U.S., they wouldn’t have had to affirm his qualifications through parentage.
“If this is allowed, it means any foreign power can send over a male to seduce a teenager and then supply the financial means to place that male in the office of President of the United States of America”
The financial means is not the end. You still have to be elected. The Framers did not set it up so as to be impossible for people with foreign loyalties couldn’t be president. If you can’t rely on the electorate to see through a scheme like that, then this whole self-government thing was a bad idea.
“This. Pretty simple, really. No. Divided. Loyalties.”
That’s not true just because you want it to be. The truth is much simpler: Born. A. Citizen.
What you don’t seem to notice is that neither of those cases said native borns aren’t natural borns. Because they weren’t about presidential eligibility, and weren’t compelled to exhaust all the different ways you could be naturally born a citizen.
“The two types of citizenship are citizens by nature and citizens by law”
I’ll never understand this mindset, and I suppose that means arguing with birthers will always hit a brick wall. Soil babies are not citizens by law any more than blood babies. Both are citizens by law, viewing it from one perspective, in that there are no natural born U.S. citizens without the positive law that is the Constitution.
From another perspective, both are citizens by nature, in that neither are made citizens by law after birth. Both are born citizens, and as ought to be obvious being born in one particular country is just as natural a thing as being born because of the union of two people with specific legal standing.
“The Framers did not set it up so as to be impossible for people with foreign loyalties couldnt be president.”
Let me try that again: the Framers did not set it up so as to be impossible for people with foreign loyalties to be president.
“there are no natural born U.S. citizens without the positive law that is the Constitution”
If this remains unclear, I mean by it that there would be no U.S. to recognize you as one of its citizens without there being a U.S. There would be no U.S. citizens without a U.S. to be a citizen of.
“The combination of being born in the country of two citizen parents is the only combination that is without argument.”
People argue about whether the right to bear arms exists, but that by itself does not mean no such right exist.
“All other combinations are defined by law, for instance the children of foreign diplomats born on U.S. soil are by law, not citizens.”
I don’t understand this for instance. You can’t be trying to say that the law can’t take away the children of diplomats’ right to NBC status. The law wouldn’t enter here, from your point of view. The children of diplomats would be excluded by Nature, and therefore couldn’t be NBCs.
What you’re looking for are people whom some consider NBCs but aren’t because they’re only so by law. Which would be 14th amendment babies, according to birthers.
Anchor. Baby. President.
Abraham Lincoln said he was the last President that would ever be elected by the people. He knew that the money of powerful people would decide who wins on election day.
Don’t try to tell me you don’t see this from the local level on up.
Watching the media, I have become convinced that all the hype from both liberal and conservative media folks is just to keep us divided so it isn’t so obvious what is going on. We are duped by these talkers into thinking we are playing a part in the process when we are not. If they were true to their ideals it would be more like an 80/20 difference in the polls instead of always so close.
I see very little difference between a Romney or Obama presidency. I see GREAT difference if Ron Paul were President, but the media will not allow him to be heard by the people. He doesn’t have enough money to go around the media and make his message heard.
The rich and powerful buy up media to make sure they control the message. So called Conservative media like Fox, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh are not going as far as a real conservative media would go if they really want a real conservative to win. They are only going far enough to keep us divided and make sure their guy (one from either party) wins.
Yes, they did set it up to make it impossible for a person with foreign loyalties to be President.
That was their intention and it makes perfectly good sense to me.
“The two types of citizenship are citizens by nature and citizens by law”
By the way, I’ve never checked, what is the birther answer to why we call citizens created by law post-birth “naturalized.” To me that term means “made natural.” How is that possible, when it’s done through the law, instead of God acting via the union of male and female gametes, or whatever you think makes for natural born citizens? Is it merely a term of art, with no real meaning?
“Anchor. Baby. President.”
You do realize that terrm, “anchor baby,” does not inspire sudden horror in regular people like it does birthers.
“Watching the media, I have become convinced that all the hype from both liberal and conservative media folks is just to keep us divided so it isnt so obvious what is going on. We are duped by these talkers into thinking we are playing a part in the process when we are not...”
And so on. Yeah, I know, of course it never was supposed to be about every single individual playing a significant role. In fact, it was the very opposite of that. We need not go over the subtleties of the electoral process, though. Suffice to say that if the people are too lazy, ignorant, duped, or whatever, not to elect people with foreign allegiances, the answer may be to take decisions out of their hands. But then we wouldn’t be a republic, as designed.
The Framers took some decisions out of our hands, but not all of them. Just because they didn’t want us electing presidents with foreign allegiances does not mean it is unconstitutional for citizens bron with the ability to be citizens of other countries to be president.
“I see very little difference between a Romney or Obama presidency”
“but the media will not allow him to be heard by the people. He doesnt have enough money to go around the media and make his message heard.”
One of the reasons he doesn’t have enough money is that he’s not popular enough. I’m sick of the media conspiracy rationale for why he’s a marginal candidate. His name is out there; he’s in the debates. At some point, he has to get support on his own.
“Yes, they did set it up to make it impossible for a person with foreign loyalties to be President.”
Are you serious? What about people raised by or spending extended time with foreign grandparents? What about people educated and/or living for a extended periods overseas (who have are sure to come back)? What about the countless people who irrationally hate their homeland and grow up as Anglophiles, Francophiles, etc., for no particular reason?
Or by “loyalties” do you mean strictly legal loyalties? Well, no, it doesn’t, unless you think “natural born” self-evidently means your parents can’t pass on the ability in you to claim foreign citizenship. But if so, why are we even arguing about this? It should be as self-evident to me as it is to you, and how are you going to convince me of what I should be able to immediately see unaided (except possibly by Vattel)?
“The rich and powerful buy up media to make sure they control the message.”
What about everything else that the Constitution leaves up to the representative republican process? Hasn’t that been corrupted beyond belief by Evil Corporations and Fat Cats with their bought and paid for Robot Candidates, too? What’s the point of electing loyal presidents when they’re just gonna do whatever their money-grubbing overlords tell them, anyway?
Oh, so long as they’re American plutocrats, I guess it’s okay.
“What about people educated and/or living for a extended periods overseas (who have are sure to come back”
Sorry about that awful sentence. I meant people who are educated and/or live for extended periods overseas who come back for long enough to reestablish residency.
No, it was "over" being a smokescreen for Obama, who cosponsored the bill.
the Senateif memory servesdeclared him eligible. If he had been known to have been born in the U.S., they wouldnt have had to affirm his qualifications through parentage.
Well they didn't have to do anything, but they did, through a resolution which has no real value. They could have resolved that the Sun rises in the West, but that wouldn't make it so.
I don't believe the Senate has the power to declare anyone eligible or ineligible for the presidency. It wasn't real controversial at any time since his parents were serving in the US military at the time of his birth. Otherwise they probably would have been in the US.
"You do realize that terrm, anchor baby, does not inspire sudden horror in regular people like it does birthers."
If the thought of an Anchor Baby President doesn't inspire horror in you (you know, "regular" people like yourself, versus "irregular" or "abnormal" people like me), I posit that you are on the wrong forum. And by forum, I mean FR.
“If the thought of an Anchor Baby President doesn’t inspire horror in you...I posit that you are on the wrong forum. And by forum, I mean FR”
Posit noted. Let me posit that anyone who thinks the decision whether or not to elect an anchor baby should be taken out of the hands of the populace probably doesn’t believe in our form of government, and certainly doesn’t like the Constitution as written.
“No, it was ‘over’ being a smokescreen for Obama, who cosponsored the bill.”
Okay, whatever. Superficially, at least, it was came about because he was born outside U.S. territory.
“Well they didn’t have to do anything, but they did, through a resolution which has no real value.”
Yes, and most everything they do is of of similar value. Even the bills that vastly expand government power do so largely by passing the real power on to the executive branch.
“It wasn’t real controversial at any time since his parents were serving in the US military at the time of his birth. Otherwise they probably would have been in the US”
Of course that only explains the politics of it, not the law. It shouldn’t make any difference why he was born outside the U.S.; his status rises or falls on the basis of whether or not two citizen parents is enough, regardless of place of birth.
What YOU don't seem to notice is that BOTH of those cases cited a definition that said BOTH native born and natural born required birth to citizen parents. The later case redefined native-born to include the children of resident aliens. It did NOT redefine natural born.
Because they werent about presidential eligibility, and werent compelled to exhaust all the different ways you could be naturally born a citizen.
The first case specifically cited the term natural-born citizen from the eligibility clause in Art. II of the Constitution and then defined it. In effect, they allowed that Virginia Minor, while not having a right to vote, would be qualified to run for president. Such was not the case for Wong Kim Ark ... and thus not for Barack H. Obama II. What YOU don
Except that asserts too much. We cannot infer from the fact that they intended the president not to be a foreigner that the phrase contains all the anti-foreign safeguards you can think up. Same goes for all the extra language birthers want to tack onto the 14th amendment. You dont like anchor babies, so you pretend the subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause excludes them. But it doesnt, as should be obvious by how many illegal immigrants are daily subjected to the jurisdiction of local police, INS, ICE, etc."
A pretty dang good "non-argument." The NBC clause is a safeguard but no one is saying it is infallible. Obama would be a poster child for what the Founders were trying to prevent as a president. It is you who is being implausible which "asserts too much" and counter to the known historical facts.
The preponderance of evidence is crushing to after-birthers. Not only did the Framers insert the grandfather clause so they were exempt from the natural born citizen clause, but Alexander Hamilton who in his Constitutional draft that he submitted to the convention on June 18, 1787, which was ultimately rejected:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
Born a citizen? Now, where have I read this recently? Hmmmm...
Yes yes... you said it in post 105.
You to Flotsam_Jetsome. "Thats not true just because you want it to be. The truth is much simpler: Born. A. Citizen."
It's obviously apparent that Alexander Hamilton's draft for being "born a citizen" was not adopted in the US Constitution to the qualifications of future presidents.
The story does not end here since "born a citizen" was not instituted.
In comes John Jay's letter from New York City dated 25 July 1787 to George Washington with his proposition.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
It was only a few days after Jay's correspondence with the President of the Constitutional convention that the "natural born citizen" clause found its way into James Madison's prestigious and copious convention notes dated Sept 4th, 1787:
Madison notes: "Mr. BREARLY from the Committee of eleven made a further partial Report as follows...
(5) 'Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President;...."
It's crushing evidence to you naysayers and much much more that I've left out here.
You rock. :)
Context is everything.
Look at the whole passage above. Rawle was right. Context.
That Rawle quote was taken so far out of context it isn’t even funny.
You have a misunderstanding. It doesn't mean "Made Natural" it means "made LIKE natural." How is it possible for something to be "made natural" when it was not in fact, natural?
"Naturalization" is exactly like adoption. It is a case where someone is not originally part of a family or society, but are officially accepted as though they were.
That is not simpler, it is simplistic. Aldo Mario Bellei (Rogers v Bellei) was "born a citizen" but lost his citizenship for failure to meet residency requirements.
As I have pointed out numerous times, a "natural born citizen" does not have to meet any residency requirements.
One can be "born a citizen" by operation of a statute, but that does not make one a "natural born citizen". A "natural born citizen" is not a citizen based on the operation of a statute, but is a citizen on the basis of their nature.
A person born to two citizen parents on their nation's soil can be a citizen of no other land. They are a "natural" citizen. One born with another nation's claim upon them, is NOT a "natural" citizen. Birth in a foreign country or birth to a foreign parent allows another nation to express a recognized claim on such individuals.
A person born to two citizen parents on their own nation's soil cannot be claimed by any other nation for any reason whatsoever. They cannot be compelled to serve another nation's army in accordance with ANY recognized law.
"Birthers" are regular people, just better informed. If horror is not inspired in the more ignorant people, then it is just another example of where fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I dare say there are those who would not worry if they were deprived of their right to freedom of speech or the freedom to keep and bear arms.
We should regard these people as what they are. People who are ignorant of the dire consequences which their lack of concern will eventually cause.
Not at all. The Answer is to inform them better. Truth is power. Once apprised of what is correct, only a fool chooses to follow folly.
The Framers took some decisions out of our hands, but not all of them. Just because they didnt want us electing presidents with foreign allegiances does not mean it is unconstitutional for citizens bron with the ability to be citizens of other countries to be president.
Till changed by Amendment, that is exactly what it means. We do not get to pick and chose which constitutional requirements we wish to obey, we obey them all until they are repealed.
They like it very well, they just don't believe it should be ignored when people disagree with it, and followed when they don't. That "living Constitution" crap is the realm of our enemies. In Conservative circles, We believe it means what it says until it is changed by amendment.
The meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as understood by our founders in regards to federal citizenship within this nation, is that of being born with exclusive loyalty to this and only this nation.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the distinction our founders drew between federal and state citizenship. Here is a portion of a newspaper article purportedly written by James Madison in 1811.
By the standards in place in 1787 when Article II was created, only the Children of citizens can be regarded as "natural born citizens." The Children of British loyalists of that time period were explicitly excluded from Citizenship after the War of Independence, even though they were born here.
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.