Skip to comments.Coming soon: Rubio ‘birthers’
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 doesnt mean he wont soon be within a heartbeat of the presidency. As the New Yorkers Ryan Lizza asked on Twitter: Is it time to rename GOP primaries the contest to become Marco Rubios 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). Thats right some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen.
Heres how the logic works (according to World Net Dailys 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 Rubios 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".
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.
“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 dont 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.
“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.)”
>> “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.”
The intent of the law was to show that they didn't need naturalization - they were natural born.
Once again - binary. Natural born or naturalized.
Seems you were still holding out on us.
You were involved in lots of those threads - but you never stated that standard until after the election.
The position was not well known among Freepers discussing 0bamas ineligibility until AFTER the election.
The naturalization law of 1790 was an act of congress, and thus incapable of redefining constitutional requirements.
You should have learned that (that congress cannot change the constitution) in the eigth grade.
1) If Rubio passes the NBC challenges GREAT! He’d be fantastic!
2) If Rubio flunks the NBC test, then Obama flunks too!
(and RATs will NEVER allow 2 to happen)
So its a win-win situation! Rubio, PLEASE DO RUN
Fortunately for Rubio, these folks are small, wrong and irrelevant.
Rubio will be sworn in as VP to the objections of no one, save for a handful of birthers stomping their feet in indignation.
“Vitter notwithstanding, the 21st century interpretation of natural born citizen, as evidenced by Barack Obama, is pretty straightforward. Were you born in America?”
No, remember John McCain was born in Panama. There’s now a reasonable consensus among legal scholars that the natural-born citizens are exactly those who obtained their citizenship upon birth.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court explained that the language of the Constitution comes from English Common Law, and they quoted British jurist A.V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”
You’d think that after three years, if people REALLY had learned in school that the President needs to have two citizen parents, they would have been able to produce a textbook or political science book that says ‘The President must be born to two citizen parents.’ Even a single one. It’s not like it’s a complicated concept, and if it was that simple and important, you think it’d be mentioned in EVERY book about Presidential qualifications.
The fact that they still can’t do that not only discredits their little pet legal theory, but it doesn’t say good things about their memories either.
Then again, it’s easier for birthers to explain it away the same way all conspiracy theorists do: the conspiracy destroyed all the evidence. Just like they replaced all the newspaper microfilm and brainwashed all the judges and law professors.
That does not apply. It was concerned with citizenship not NBC.
Much to my dismay. Bobby Jindal is in the same boat.
“There were questions about the place of birth (about McCain directly, and rumored about Obama) and IIRC Congress actually passed a resolution affirming that McCain was an NBC, although technically he had not been born on US soil. It was thought at the time that this was something done to protect Obama. I believe it was a Dem who sponsored it, so that seems pretty likely.”
S.Res 511 of 110’th Congress had joint sponsorship, and I challenge you to cite anything from the time, which was early April 2008, suggesting its purpose was to protect Obama. Protect him from what?
“The Democrats will burst into flames if they try to attack Rubio on this.”
Democrats have their cranks, same as Republicans. It won’t be “The Democrats”, just a fringe. Keep in mind that anyone who considers being a Rubio-birther has the cautionary tail of the Obama-birthers with their record of 100% failure and defeat.
We have had this discussion numerous times in the past. I have repeatedly challenged the guys who call us liars to find just one textbook from the 50s, 60s or 70s that would contradict those of us who can still remember what we were taught in civics during that time period. For some reason this challenge remains unanswered.
Both Rubio and Obama are NBCs, period, end of story.
So how do you feel about "climate change"? To me this sounds a lot like Al Gore talking about global warming. Alinsky tactics may be considered a valid form of debate over at DU but I am not sure that they fly around here.
And I have asked you and others repeatedly to find one book that contradicts us... just one! You are the one that has been calling us liars. You are the one who should put up or shut up. I went to high-school in the 70s; find me a civics or political science textbook from the 50s, 60s or 70s that contradicts what I remember! If you can't you are just a loud mouthed jerk!
It is totally illogical that the child of foreign citizens born abroad in a country where the parents do not hold citizenship, is considered a citizen of the land they were born in which is not the place the parents’ allegiance lay. It makes no sense. It is against all common sense and is not equally applied in that a child of American parents born abroad is still considered an American. We don’t terminate the American citizenship of children born abroad to American parents. Yet in imperialistic fashion the US bestows or claims citizenship of foreigners’ children born abroad in the USA. Totally illogical, especially when assimilation is discouraged and assimilation to the customs and ideologies of the land of the parents’ citizenship/allegiance is encouraged.
There had been questions about Obama’s eligibility, partly because some press reports (including in Kenya) referred to him as “Kenyan born.” I remember in the discussions at the time that it was perceived that approving McCain’s legitimacy was a sort of trade-off for not examining Obama’s, and in fact this did happen and the question was virtually never raised after that.
Yet is it natural aka normal for the child to be born abroad in a foreign land? No it is not. The majority of children are naturally or normally born in the land where parent(s) hold citizenship, therefor it it natural or normal for a child to be a citizen of the country that their parent(s) is a citizen of.
If where a person is born is more important then the citizenship of the parents, then children of Americans born abroad should not be considered American citizens, but be considered foreigner citizens as they were born abroad. And the rule is if you are born abroad you are a citizen of where you are born which is why children of non-Americans born in the US are considered US citizens and children of Americans born abroad should not be US citizens but citizens of the land where they were born. This would be logical, fair and equal. This is the flip side of logically and fairly allowing children to be considered citizens of the place their parents hold citizenship even when the child is unnaturally, abnormally, outside of the majority, born abroad. Yet discouraging dual citizenship so when the child reaches maturity the child either chooses or has chosen for them their citizenship.
I did not know Vattel, but I knew the correct definition of natural born citizen, born in country of two citizen parents. It appears that it is the false idol known as inclusiveness has muddled people’s minds into believing it is not fair that some are born to citizens of a country rather then born abroad to foreign citizens.
From some of the comments on this thread, evidently two wrongs make a right.
Rubio is nice guy with potential,but he is NOT a natural born citizen, therefore not eligible to be President, nor Vice President.
The arguments for Rubio are not based in fact nor law.
A “citizen” is not automatically “natural born”.
The 14th Amendment makes NO one a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court has never re-defined what a natural born citizen is.
Obama and his krew have turned the law on its head, and is defying anyone to stop them.
Far be it from Freepers to aid and abet them.
So this was common knowledge, but everyone decided to keep it bottled up during the crucial time after Obama won his party's nomination? And they only came out in the open with it when it was too late for it to do anything? I find that hard to believe considering many of these same people waste no time promoting theories far crazier than this.
‘The Rule of Law and the Natural Born Citizen Clause’
Excerpt: Obama’s father, a British citizen, was never a U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama was not born in the country to citizen parents. Because Obamas father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama, even if born in Hawaii which he has yet to conclusively prove, was also born with allegiance to and citizenship in Great Britain. Consequently, Obama was not born with no foreign allegiance and with sole loyalty and attachment to the United States. He was not born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in the United States at birth, a natural condition that the Founders and Framers wanted in future presidents and commanders in chief. He was not born under the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
By saying, in 1790, that the children born to a U.S. father overseas are “natural born citizens” they are clarifying that they do not need “naturalization” into a state they were born into.
You were and remain wrong to say that one needed TWO citizen parents to be considered a citizen before the 14th Amendment and that those without two citizen parents needed to be naturalized.
They did not.
One parent (the father) was enough to be a citizen at birth and not need naturalization.
It is historic revisionism and absolutely incorrect to say that before the 14th they would not be citizens and would need naturalization if they only had one citizen parent.
Speaking of splitting hairs - your post was AFTER the election.
If you knew and didn’t say until AFTER the election - why were you holding out on us?
One cannot prove a negative or indicate a state of knowledge beyond what people wrote - I don’t have a mind reader and/or a time machine.
But what is clear from threads about eligibility from BEFORE the election - is that the “born in country of two citizen parents” standard was not well known or widely discussed.
“And I have asked you and others repeatedly to find one book that contradicts us... just one!”
I’m pretty sure you’ve never repeatedly asked me, and I’m limited to what I can find online at the moment, and the null hypothesis rule should really put the burden on birthers themselves to show that their claimed books actually exist, but still...
I’ll even throw in a children’s book at no extra cost:
And Amazon doesn’t allow linking, but p. 163 of “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to U.S. Government” also says “The president must be a natural-born citizen, meaning he or she must be born in the United States or have parents who are American citizens.”
“I remember in the discussions at the time that it was perceived that approving McCains legitimacy was a sort of trade-off for not examining Obamas”
The first book you linked to was published in 1998, the second in 1999, and although I am glad that you are trying to find books appropriate to your abilities, the idiots guide was published in 2009. None of those books could have been used when I and many other of your fellow Freepers went to school.
Apperantly you can’t follow even the simplest of directions... find me a Civics textbook from the 50s, 60s, or 70s that contradicts my and many other’s recollections or SHUT UP!
You have called us liars and made fun of us so NO! THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU! And YES, you and I have had this discussion previously with the same results; you insult people, call them liars and then can’t produce the goods to back youself up... you post such a huge volume of useless, insulting drivel that you are incapable of even finding your own posts.
“But what is clear from threads about eligibility from BEFORE the election - is that the ‘born in country of two citizen parents’ standard was not well known or widely discussed.”
That’s putting it mildly. The 14’th Amendment and the 1898 case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark settled the matter, at least for those born in the U.S. In 1916 Breck Long argued that the citizenship of a candidate born before the 14’th Amendment “must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment”, and on that basis held that parentage mattered. [”Chicago Legal News” vol. 146]
After Long’s 1916 essay, the theory went silent. In our time, the legal literature considered the eligibility of the native-born to be clear and settled. For example:
“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.” [Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]
“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.
The Vatell theory reappeared in October or November of 2008 when amateur attorney Leo Donofrio brought the first of his losing cases, Donofrio v. Wells.
You’re back to your twisting strawman games.
Congress’ powers WRT naturalization have nothing to do with the constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Congress saying anything does not change those requirements.
The two citizen parent requirement is not in any way in question, no matter how you may squirm. None of your questionable sources, nor rationalizations has the slightest bearing on the subject.
We have always had quislings like you in this country, and always will, but facts do not change. The massive compendium of foundational support for the two parent requirement in the constitution includes every Supreme court decision that addressed citizenship in any form or venue, and a vast number of learned essays and letters from leaders of the time.
>> “It is historic revisionism and absolutely incorrect to say that before the 14th they would not be citizens and would need naturalization if they only had one citizen parent.” <<
That is a complete strawman. I never made such a statement, but regardless, the person with only a father as a citizen would not be “natural born” and would not be elligible to the presidency.
Natural Born was a term that had and continues to have a special meaning, and does not include all persons born in country. Allegiance is what determines the issue, and split allegiance negates natural born status. Natural born has nothing to do with where you are born; its to whom you are born that counts.
“Prior to the 14th all persons not born of two citizens had to be naturalized.” editor-surveyor
That is incorrect. The child of a citizen father born overseas had no need of naturalization according to the 1790 Naturalization Law.
Here ya go: a civics textbook from the 1970s.
Thorough discussion of Presidential eligibility; no mention whatsoever that the President must be born to two citizen parents. The only mention of parental citizenship is in the context of a child “born abroad of American parents.”
So I’ve now produced FOUR books, including two from the 1990s and one from the 1970s. Have you managed to locate even one that *supports* your recollections?