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 ...
Who cares...he is weak for going with Romney!
<< Put Rubio’s name into the hat and do it with a fanfare.
Then when the media goes after him the Native born vs. Natural born issue will get the play it deserves. >>
I couldn’t agree more.
I would run Rubio for VP in 2012, and what will the Democrats and their sycophants in the media do, go after him and NOT go after Obama for the same thing?
If he runs any time after Obama is out of office, bet your life it will become an issue.
“Obama and the media, lie every day, all 365 days in a year, ...but they are telling the truth in this matter that Obama is a natural born citizen? LoL.”
Because they lie about some things—okay, a lot of things—they lie about everything? That does not follow. Early morning shows often tell me when the sun’s going to rise; does that mean that there is no such thing as the sun, never was, and it’s all a communist conspiracy to get me to turn off my lightbulbs, aimed at capitalist electricity companies?
I have to admit, you are getting better at sophistry.
I don’t care for him, regardless.
George Washington was concerned about just that, seeing as how he took the advice of John Jay upon the matter.
Recall the letter to George Washington from Jay:
New York, 25th July, 1787.
Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
“I have to admit, you are getting better at sophistry.”
If so, I learned from the master. Demosthenes couldn’t outdo your syllogism:
1. no slavery, no civil war,
2. no civil war, no civil war amendments,
3. therefore, soil babies are not natural born citizens.
“George Washington was concerned about just that, seeing as how he took the advice of John Jay upon the matter.”
Well, he didn’t stop it, so poor him.
“Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
This demonstrates nothing. Soil babies aren’t foreigners.
He was such a British sympathizer that George Washington appointed him the first United States Attorney for Pennsylvania.
Did the 14th Amendment make former slaves, noncitizens, into natural born citizens, Tublecane?
I define it as a derogatory term invented by certain American fascists in order to demonize those patriots who simply want the truth regarding his eligibility.
Even Socialist Bernie Sanders knew it required two citizen parents.
I don't know nor care where he was born, but I doubt there is a real birth certificate with his name on it.
Sophistry again on your number 1. No civil war no reconstruction amendments.
Civil war resulted in the "civil war amendments."
3. therefore, soil babies are not natural born citizens.
No, the 14th Amendment did not effect the meaning and intent behind the US Constitutional natural born citizen clause.
“Did the 14th Amendment make former slaves, noncitizens, into natural born citizens, Tublecane?”
Yes. What’s your point?
I would hope that you've come to understand by now, that the sweeping generalization you've just made is not even completely true under the liberal interpretation that you're touting.
So, you're wrong no matter who you ask. Some "soil babies" are foreigners.
This is why the Republican establishment ignores Obama. They don’t care anymore about the constitution then the Libs do.
“Sophistry again on your number 1. No civil war no reconstruction amendments.
Civil war resulted in the ‘civil war amendments.’”
But you were establishing the connection between slavery and the 14th amendment. To get there through the civil war, you must establish the connection between the civil war and slavery. Okay, though, let’s take it from where you’ve elft it: the civil war resulted in the civil war amendments, therefore soil babies aren’t natural born citizens. Huh?
“that the sweeping generalization you’ve just made is not even completely true under the liberal interpretation that you’re touting”
Yes, I admit, to be perfectly forthright I should say soil babies born subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law arent foreigners. But do I really need to?
So you believe that individuals who were not even born citizens, were somehow transformed into natural born citizens, yes?
Please explain this retroactive legal mechanism, Tublecane.
“No, the 14th Amendment did not effect the meaning and intent behind the US Constitutional natural born citizen clause”
No, it didn’t. But you’re still wrong, because the natural born citizen clause does not mean what you think it means. The 14th amendment established what it meant to be a citizen at birth (born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law), and natural born citizens are citizens at birth.
Therefore, even if George Washington thought only the children of two citizens could be natural born citizens because only the children of two citizens at that time could be born citizens, the 14th amendment proved him wrong by changing what constituted a citizen from birth.
“So you believe that individuals who were not even born citizens, were somehow transformed into natural born citizens, yes?
Please explain this retroactive legal mechanism, Tublecane”
Because they were made citizens by virtue of how they were born, and natural born citizens are citizens from birth. I could say it only affirmed the right that was always there, but I don’t need to. Let’s say they were grandfathered in, just like everyone who became a citizen even though when they were born the U.S. was British.
By the way, lucky for us no former slaves became president, nor ever would have had a chance at election. Which makes it a moot point, practically speaking. Every soil baby (subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law) born after adoption of the 14th amendment is without doubt eligible to be president.
“Subject to the jurisdiction,” such an abused, tortured phrase at the hands of citizenship liberals like yourself.
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?
Since your first post was sarcasm, thank you for the clarification, it obviously negates addressing the latter part, hence the request to hear your response to the former :-)
You are winging it and not very well at all.
He was a district attorney in Pennsylvania.
He was a libtard, Washington got duped, ever hear of Benedict Arnold?
The founding fathers didn't believe they were natural born citizens of these United States as they wrote in the grandfather clause to modify the natural born citizen clause so they could become president. The natural born citizen clause is directly referencing natural law and not positive law. The 14th Amendment is positive law, and so therefore the 14th amendment had no effect on the natural born citizen clause or did it change the meaning or intent to who are natural born citizens.
There is no need for man made laws for any nation's natural born citizens since they are from birth as no other nation can claim them as their citizen because of jus sanguinis foreign citizen laws. The NBC clause was written in the US Constitution as a safe guard to prevent would be presidents to have other foreign allegiances like Obama has. US president are to only have an allegiance to the United States.
The first Congress, and President Washington, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which specifically added those born abroad or at sea to citizen parents were also "natural born citizens" so if this first congress believed a simple statute could alter who and when a person is a "natural born citizen," the idea a constitutional amendment cannot is beyond lunacy.
Among the weakest foundations of Birther logic is they have no single legal theory. For some, Santorum is not a "natural born citizen" because his father was an immigrant. For others Romney is not because his father, who was never anything except a US citizen, is not a "natural born citizen" because his father was not born inside the US.
It's as "simple" as naturalized vs. birthright citizenship. Marco Rubio's citizenship was by birthright (born in FL) so he's a "natural born citizen" just like the governor Puerto Rico (born in PR to PR-born US citizens).
I wish birthers would find elsewhere to troll their crackpot theories. Some are probably from the DU or elsewhere aiming to make FR look as nutty as possible.
Or did the authors of the 14th Amendment intend to change the natural born citizen clause to who could become a US president.
You’re just winging it, too, newzjunkey. I’d directed you to The Insular Cases not very many days ago, regarding Puerto Rico being an unincorporated territory, with all the attendant consequences of that for putative VP candidates, but you’re still touting a falsehood.
For starters, see:
Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 66 L.Ed. 627, 42 S.Ct. 346 (1922): The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, requiring that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury did not apply in Puerto Rico. The right was not required in territories that had not been “incorporated” into the United States, as distinguished from territories merely belonging to the United States. “[W]e find no features in the Organic Act of Porto Rico of 1917 from which we can infer the purpose of Congress to incorporate Porto Rico into the United States with the consequences which would follow.”
Don’t make me rub your nose in it and embarrass you, newzjunkey.
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.
They held the crazy position that two citizen parents were necessary to qualify as natural born. Of course it was a smokescreen.
In fact one of the most whacked-out birther crackpots was cosponsor Senator Obama.
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.
"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
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 parents 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, Obamas 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.
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.