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.
“It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t 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 ...
Today on Hannity radio while talking with Dick Morris, Dick said Romney should nominate Rubio for VP. I was like ‘what’?...he can’t be President should something happen to Romney....guess Dick and Hannity don’t understand the constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility.
In about Feb., 2008, when I first heard of Barack Obama as a candidate for President; I started reading on the web what I could. I had never heard of him.
As soon as I ran upon the info about his parents, I told my teenage son, “He can’t be President, His father wasn’t a citizen.” We learned that in elementary school.
Btw, they don’t teach that in Elem school anymore. We are living in times just like they were in the Prophet Isaiah’s days when every man did what was right in his own eyes. I shudder to think what we may have to endure for God to teach another generation about his ways.
Study history, every generation has to be taught. They will learn it willingly from God’s people or they will learn it by experience. The choice is up to the people.
If you are trusting God, he will take care of you. Do not fear what is coming upon us. If you are going your own way, prepare for the painful lesson that is coming.
Umm, no.
"District attorney" is a state title. Federal prosecutors-- then and still-- are called "United States Attorney for the District of___".
This is a copy of a letter I wrote (received no reply) to the Supreme Court. I wrote several letters to Senator Byrd and Rockefellor, Congressman Rahall, my Secretary of State, Hawaii officials, etc. early in this situation.
I removed my personal info here for privacy
The Honorable Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the
United States of America
John Roberts
1 First Street, N.E
Washington, D.C. 20543
January 12, 2009
Dear Justice Roberts,
I am a 57 year old semi-retired public school teacher. I spent more than thirty years in a career as a public accountant/tax preparer. I have voted in every election since I became eligible. Until about 20 years ago, I was very active politically and associated myself with the Democrat party. I ran for local office in 1988 and 1990. It was during my experience as a candidate that I got my real education in US Government.
In my accounting work, I began to see the baby boomers spending the wealth of their parents and grandparents. I knew that in about 20 years there would be no money in the banks and our financial system would crumble because I knew these savings were the foundation of our banking system. I watched this generation pass laws allowing themselves to confiscate their parent’s wealth and place the parents in nursing homes at taxpayer expense. I watched them deregulate banks and tempt old folks and young folks to invest their money in stocks only to lose the money. I personally confronted a broker here in our local bank several times over the last 7 years because he was giving bad advice to retired people. He felt no responsibility for misguiding these old people who lost their retirement money. Anyone with common sense saw the credit collapse coming for a long time.
I grew up being taught that we are a government of, by, and for the people. My eyes and ears have been telling me for quite some time now that this is not true. If there is any hope for our government, it will be in the young people who, if we don’t stand up now when we should, will probably have to rise up in revolution not long from now. I pray daily for the Lord to please save our children. I agree with Thomas Paine, do you?
“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776
Our Creator started us out with only 1 law. He knew that when we start choosing what we want instead of what is right and good, we will do evil. After this 1 rule was broken, his law was expanded to 10 laws because people had begun to be jealous and want what others had. They chose to lie, steal, and kill to have it. They no longer honored their parents or their Creator or his law. Things have only gone downhill since then. The first system God set up for the Hebrews had righteous judges and was similar to our government system. We are now a world filled with people who follow all kinds of laws. In our country, the many laws have become so numerous that I know of no one who can count or understand them all. But, if there is any hope for our system of government, it must be in our law and you, our judges.
Just as I use the Bible as my authority for daily living, I use the Constitution as my authority in my civic life. I pay my taxes and try not to break any laws. I raised my children and encourage my fellow citizens to do the same. We are a beacon and a light to the rest of the world. If we are to continue to shine, we must follow our Constitution.
The issue at hand is the fact that President-elect Obama is not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be our President. His father was a British citizen, a student here on visa, and his mother was a teenager. 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 most powerful office in the world.
When I was in high school, I recall hearing that someone in Russia said that America would be taken without firing a shot. Right now, I feel as though I might be seeing that with my very own eyes.
John Jay, the alpha, and you, the omega, of our Supreme Court of these United States should have the say here. John Jay was clear when he wrote to George Washington in 1787, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administraAtion of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Just as he stood up in the beginning, you must stand up now, or I fear you are the end of our Constitution.
In a January 20, 2008 New York Times interview, Obama’s sister, Soetoro-Ng said, “I have a bumper sticker on my car that says: ‘1-20-09. End of an Error’”… Was this sticker prophetic?
I wrote under FOI requests to my Secretary of State twice, and to my state Supreme Court. I have received no replies. I am enclosing copies of letters I received from my Congressman, Nick Rahall, and my Senator, Robert Byrd. Both of them lay this squarely in your lap. I wrote to them because I knew President Bush was objected to during the count of his electoral votes. I expected them to have debate on this Obama issue. It did not happen. I fear that if Obama does not have to comply with the law, an attitude will form and soon take hold that no one has to comply with any law. I, for one, do not want to live in a land of the lawless. In my pursuit of happiness, peace is what I find myself most often striving for. It is a great thing and desired by all.
I truly believe the US Supreme Court is the only earthly hope of sustaining our government, our land, and our witness to the world.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
my signature removed for privacy, US natural born citizen
This. Pretty simple, really. No. Divided. Loyalties.
ping
Thanks for the ping!
No, and neither are Bobby Jindal, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.
Dick Moris has always played by and called the shots to suit Dick Morises’s political game plan. He is not a constitutional believer from his days as a Clinton town crier.
The two types of citizenship are citizens by nature and citizens by law. This is the dilemma that Congress and the courts have. They can change the law but they cannot change nature. The combination of being born in the country of two citizen parents is the only combination that is without argument. All other combinations are defined by law, for instance the children of foreign diplomats born on U.S. soil are by law, not citizens.
Because it's 100 percent TRUE. Your denial is not supported. The Supreme Court is the nation's highest judicial authority. Virginia Minor argued she was a citizen via the 14th amendment, but the court UNANIMOUSLY rejected this argument because it said she was already a citizen by virtue of the definition the court used to define NBC with no doubts: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. This definition was cited, affirmed and upheld more than 20 years later in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. It specifically emphasized Minor was born to citizen parents. Why would the court do this if they presribed to the ONE interpetation offered by Rawle??
Actually, this is incorrect. Vattel does NOT require the birth to take place in county [sic], but that citizenship naturally follows the status of the father. The place of birth is incidental and it is only presumed that the father is a citizen where his child was born because that is where his settlement is (unless he has no permanent settlement). And when Vattel equates "native" and "natural-born," both require birth to a citizen father.
In 1795 the Naturalization Act from 1790 was changed and children born abroad to US citizen parents were considered as citizens (at birth). It is obvious that early legislators made distinction between the two terms (citizen at birth and natural-born citizen).
US government (INS) published the following document: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
This document makes a distinction between a native-born and a natural-born citizen (in three places):
1) "The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation..."
2) "The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired...."
3) "The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss. "
The NBC definition is simple: person born in the USA of US citizen parents. Therefore, there is no dual allegiance at birth. This is the guiding principle.
For a child to be NBC, it does not matter where parents were born - as long as they were US citizens at the time when child was born in the USA.
Your logic has a major fault. If natural born citizen could be born only to natural born citizen parents, how did the process start?
It is sufficient that parents are US citizens at the time when child is born - they do not have to be NBCs.
Without lawyers this would be simple.
Parents are citizens, and child is born on U.S.Soil? Yes Then NBC, else not NBC.
Parent status unknown, birthplace unknown, then Lawyers make money.
“You are winging it and not very well at all.”
No, you are. [raspberry!]
By the way, if the opposite of “winging it” is cutting and pasting from a birther blog nobody cares about, I’m fine with winging it.
“The natural born citizen clause is directly referencing natural law and not positive law”
I sincerely don’t get this birther obsession with natural law. Natural law does not hold sway over U.S. law, except perhaps through the 9th amendment. Wanna know how I know that? Because without positive law, there is no U.S. Did this seriously not occur to you? Can you seriously not understand it now that I point it out? Did or did not the U.S. come into existence with the Constitution? Is or is not the Constitution positive law? Yes and yes.
The true meaning of the “natural” part of natural born citizen goes right along with the born part. It means in order for a citizen to be eligible to be president, he must have been born a citizen. I hardly need to explain that people are born through a natural, not a legal, process. I suppose it also prohibits some sort of special legal dispensation providing that some specified child will be a citizen when eventually they are born, but I don’t suppose anything of the sort ever actually existed.
By the way, who the hell laid it down (beside our lord and savior, Vattel) that Nature said only the children of two citizens can be citizens?
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.