Posted on 08/24/2011 12:34:43 PM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Despite my hopes, Sen. Marco Rubio will not run for president in 2012. But that doesn’t mean he won’t soon be within a heartbeat of the presidency. As the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza asked on Twitter: “Is it time to rename GOP primaries ‘the contest to become Marco Rubio’s running mate’?”
Indeed, despite his protestations, Rubio has to be on the short list of potential GOP running mates.
But the downside is that there is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That’s right — some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a “natural born citizen.”
Here’s how the logic works (according to World Net Daily’s Joe Kovacs): “While the Constitution does not define ‘natural-born citizen,’ there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.”
Kovacs (and he is not alone) goes on to reason that Rubio’s “eligibility is in doubt” because — though his parents were legal U.S. residents when he was born — they were not yet naturalized citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
So, the late 1700's Brittanica, requires two parents to conform to "native".
So, what?
Where is that same requirement in the Constitution? Recall that the Constitution is the only valid document relevant to the discussion.
Rubio is as eligible as Ronald Reagan.
And yet the bozos believe there is a mystical third type of citizenship...native born. Of course, ALL native born citizens are ALSO natural born citizens which brings us back to natural born and naturalized citizens. Only TWO categories. But that won't stop folks from conjuring up that mystical third type of citizenship which magically appeared in their imaginations from 2008 on.
from the Supreme Court..an excerpt..
“Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:.....
“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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again: “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)”
Don't you get it? 18th century encyclopedias have precedence over the Constitution.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138733/posts
You say...
“Your outrage mirrors my own. Obama is set up to be my president and I, as a verifiable citizen, lack standing on a Constitutional issue? That is, as you say, completely outrageous. Some folks just don’t belong in the legal system. Too bad they have no shame.”
12 posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:26:55 AM by so_real
No mention of the “Lincoln Bedroom” standard - no mention that release of the long form was unnecessary because he has a foreign national father and the standard is “born in country of two citizen parents”.
Why were you holding out on us? Why not recount information you learned in High School civics class?
Later in the thread an actual ‘it doesn't matter what the certificate says’ post emerges........
Unfortunately it is another dual citizenship argument - but it does FINALLY touch on the fact that his father's citizenship might be the magic key!!!! But it is again not utilizing the standard that is now supposedly axiomatic - it is arguing that England giving 0bama citizenship at birth is the issue.
“One unique (AFAIK) aspect of Donofrio’s effort is that it does not rest on whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. It is predicated on the question of the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which has never been tested, and which is affected by Obama’s father's citizenship status.”
29 posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:49:30 PM by Conservatives_Unite
Notice how the poster raises this as a “unique aspect”? Because at the time most birthers were fixated on Hawaii - and if 0bama could prove he was born in Hawaii that would be sufficient - but they were not convinced by the short form.
So when?
“Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:
“Nations or States are bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their mutual strength. Such a society has her affairs and her interests;
she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself.”
Again, in the first chapter of the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after repeating his definition of a State, proceeds to remark, that,
“from the very design that induces a number of men to form a society, which has its common interests and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each, in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.”
Again this writer remarks: “The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic or the State.”
By this same writer it is also said:
“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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again: “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)”
Justice Daniels..USSC
>> “Where is that same requirement in the Constitution?” <<
.
It is in the very words “natural born”
The only way that a person could be naturally a citizen, regardless of the geographic circumstances of their birth, is if both of their parents were citizens themselves.
OR if the person was born in the USA. Again, only TWO types of citizenship: Natural born and naturalized. All native born citizens are natural born.
Well yes there would. The 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision which stated that blacks, free or slave, were not and never could be citizens of the U.S. And there were other clauses in the amendment dealing with due process, equal protection, and which penalized the Southern leaders for their role in the rebellion.
If I recall correctly, Rawle even acknowledged another definition for natural born citizen existed at the time of his prominence. (Trust but verify, I'll have to try and dig that up.)
I'd appreciate it if you could.
By the definition of the time, even if you were born in country, if your parents (either of them) had any other aliegance you were not a citizen. That is proven in the discussion in preparation of the 14th ammendment.
There was no question then, so how can there be a question now?
So now their are THREE types of citizens? Silly me. All this time I thought only TWO. Natural born and naturalized. All native born citizens are also natural born citizens. There was never any question about this until the craziness set in. And do we now remove Chester A. Arthur from the pantheon of presidents for having a foreigner as a parent?
An piece like this ... This is not logic. This is not scholarship. This is not an intellectual reasoned discussion of issues and facts.
This is one thing only: Intimidation.
That is: Bullying.
Do you like being bullied? Being talked down to? Scorned? Mocked?
Who would? No one should.
But that’s the whole of the essay. There is no more to it.
When I asked this a few months ago, someone said that they were waiting for McCain to point out that Obama is ineligible, and only after they realized he wasn't going to do this did they speak out.
Others have told me they were talking about it, just not on this forum.
Some claim that they learned it in school, but completely forgot about it until Leo Donofrio refreshed their memories.
I don't find any of these explanations satisfactory.
Show me the PROOF that his parents weren’t citizens. I want you to show me where he or someone else stated that. Waiting............
No, it illustrates the semantics of the times.
Actually ... if you consider original intent ... an American born woman with a husband, or sperm donor, of foreign nationality could not have a “natural born” child at all ...
28 posted on Wed 26 Nov 2008 10:42:33 PM CST by so_real
Do you have the results of a poll conducted after Obama released his long-form birth certificate? If half of Republicans were birthers, wouldn't they manage to get more than a dozen people to show up for their rallies?
The WKA decision did create a defined third type of citizen, that they called “native citizen,” that was anyone born in the US while legally under its jurisdiction, as their version of 14th ammendment citizenship.
Prior to the 14th, they were not deemed citizens.
Prior to the 14th all persons not born of two citizens had to be “naturalized.”
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.