Posted on 07/18/2012 9:07:28 AM PDT by Perdogg
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is the overwhelming choice for the Republican vice presidential pick in a nationwide survey of Tea Party Express supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
“Says you and a very small percentage of kooks. This matter has been settled.”
Count me as one of your “kooks.”
Settled????? By who, and when? Please provide links to your assertions.
“...and born in the USA...”
That is NOT the Article II standard......
Natural Born Subject (NBS) was never the same as Natural Born because the usage of term NBS also includes naturalized Subjects.
Gray who wrote the 1898 WKA opinion quoted (dicta) the famous jurist Blackstone, but he did inform the uninformed that the British NBS law was of British statute or regulation and that it was not natural law. Blackstone who in his published "Commentaries" completely agreed with deVattel that Natural Born and Natural subject are NOT the same.
The difference between a natural born subject and a natural born citizen is one of being either a free citizen or the subject of a sovereign.
The issue is what it takes to be natural born - and there was OBVIOUSLY no requirement under English law that one be born in England of English parents to be a natural born subject.
But one who was naturalized, as a subject OR as a citizen, WAS NOT natural born. The origins of the word naturalization was that it would confer the state of natural allegiance that otherwise had to be granted through the natural act of being born.
One is either natural born or naturalized.
Do you think women have a natural law right to participate on and equal footing with men in representative government?
Where did that natural right come from? Was it always there and only recently recognized - or is it an unnatural impulse to allow women to participate in representative government?
“Name the statute or part of the Constitution that says you need citizen parents to be NBC. JUST ONE!”
Finally You’re right!!!! Yeah! the parents of a NBC citizen need not themselves be NBC., but they must be citizens. Many people (see below) confuse the terms (on purpose?) but most can see that they have.
“This is a settled argument. The law is if you are born in U.S. you are NBC.”
That has never been or is now the case. Simple birth in the US may, may, result in being a born citizen. It depends upon your parents legal status in the US when you are born.
To jump from born citizen to Natural Born Citizen is a leap even Evel Kanevil wouldn’t make. (Hope you have a parachute.)
Yes it is settled law, just not in the way you think it is.
“You most certainly are NOT with the program. There is not one congressman, senator, judge or conservative talk show host that agrees with you. Only the nuts and kooks! Why don’t you call up Mario Apuzzo or Donofrio and ask them if they’ve won any cases yet?”
Just because these people you mentioned are cowards doesn’t make the truth any less the truth.
Don’t talk to me about judges. None of them have ruled on the merits of the case, except the couple that completely ignored Minor and misapplied Ark and the obviously flawed Ankeny as justification to avoid the hard truth, because they are afraid of what may happen if THEY are responsible for 0bama getting his ass kicked out of office. Heck, even “Justice” Thomas said that the Supreme Court was evading the issue.
A person born in a country of citizen parentS of that country can be NOTHING BUT a natural born citizen. Any other “arrangement” is a legal construct and negates the “natural” in natural born.
That’s why I said, “We ARE with the program and wish all the rest of you were, too.”
Neither appear to be Natural Born Citizens do they. But apparently no one knows what it means or cares.
Do we have any evidence that Mittens’ grandfather renounced his US citizenship when he moved to Mexico?
Not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest here, but I’ve heard the “talk”, just haven’t seen this piece of evidence.
Hoping someone can help out here.
“Name the statute or part of the Constitution that says you need citizen parents to be NBC. JUST ONE!”
Finally You’re right!!!! Yeah! the parents of a NBC citizen need not themselves be NBC., but they must be citizens. Many people (see below) confuse the terms (on purpose?) but most can see that they have.
“This is a settled argument. The law is if you are born in U.S. you are NBC.”
That has never been or is now the case. Simple birth in the US may, may, result in being a “born” citizen. It depends upon your parents legal status in the US when you are born. Natural Born citizenship, by defination of the term as understood by the Founders (they didn’t make up the term ya know) only results from being born in a country to parents who are its citizens. And that sir IS settled law in the US....
To jump from born citizen to Natural Born Citizen is a leap even Evel Kanevil wouldn’t make. (Hope you have a parachute.)
Yes it is settled law, just not in the way you think it is.
You still have not addressed what the phrase natural born means historically or legally.
What people “think” or “feel” it means is not at issue.
The words, and the concept, have a legal and a historical meaning that has not been changed.
The path of least resistance is to go with the flow.
If you are a conservative, you want the truth, not what is convenient.
It matters not if few agree with me—the issue is the truth.
Since 1830, there have been four cases where the phrase “natural born” has been defined.
and it has been held to mean a citizen born of two citizen parents.
I hope you have a nice day as well
The 14th Amendment naturalizes citizens at birth by statute, and that man-made law does not encompass natural born citizens, and it did not overturn A2S1C5. You do know the intent and the purpose of the NBC clause? It's natural law and not positive law; the 14th Amendment is not natural law.
Do you think women have a natural law right to participate on and equal footing with men in representative government?
They have a right by Amendment or law but that law is not natural law. BTW, The right to vote, is not absolute. Age, criminals, aliens are examples of people who cannot legally vote in the United States.
The fourteen yrs was a means of grandfathering the Founding generation into eligibility (Alexander Hamilton particularly).
“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.” Article II, Section 1, paragraph 4.
It does not say the last fourteen yrs consecutive either which would have made Jefferson ineligible in 1800.
One is, under U.S. law - either born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen.
U.S. law should always reflect our best understanding of natural law. That is why women are currently seen to have the natural right to vote - women voting is in no way unnatural - they have the natural right to be free and to participate in representative government.
Vattel’s definition was about indigenous or natives of a nation - and even if you change it to “natural born” he did nothing to differentiate between “natural born citizens” and “natural born subjects”.
So by the laws the founders were familiar with - to be “natural born” one had to be born into that condition - as opposed to being “naturalized”.
Vattel was consistent in this as well, one either was born into a condition of allegiance and was therefore “natural born” or one had to be “naturalized”.
Rubio was born a citizen of these United States according to U.S. law, which should always reflect our best understanding of natural law.
Natural law is not the sum total of that which is encompassed by what one Swiss philosopher wrote in one book in the 1700’s.
Humor sites prove your point?
“Mitt is anti-amnesty for illegals (so he says) but a liberal while Rubio is pro-amnesty for illegals (so he says) but a conservative. I think both can be persuaded to act conservative on the issue and I fear if we get too nit picky Mitt will go Pawlenty, Rice or Christie and then we get four more years of the brown Bolshevik.”
You make a very logical argument.
I agree that Rubio is preferable to Pawlenty, Rice, and Christie. Rubio does express opposition to continued deficit spending and I assume he is more conservative on tax and spending issues than the other three.
But what would prevent Romney from nominating DeMint, Mike Lee, or Rand Paul? Are they too conservative for him or is the problem that they are not from swing states?
I am sick of having weak immigration Republicans in high office. Why not just farm out our border control to the Chamber of Commerce?
The Supreme Court has stated the same in several opinions/decisions.
____________________________
Such as?
“...the Founders gave one branch of the government the power to be corrupt with impunity and that was their failing....” Huh? What branch is that?
“...it’s citizens....”
it’s = it is
its = belonging to it
Are you saying that, by natural law, women do not have the right to participate on an equal footing with men in a representative government?
“The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born 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.