Coming soon: Rubio ‘birthers’

The Daily Caller ^ | August 24, 2011 | Matt Lewis

[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.

[Vickery2010]

Speaking of reading the case, it’s funny to hear Jerome Corsi give interviews about his book where he says that his research told him that Minor v. Happersett is the leading case on the question of natural born citizenship.

It’s funny because he never mentions Minor v. Happersett in the book. Not even once.

[bushpilot1]

Wonder if the letter remains posted on the State department website..its been more than several days since I saw it.

[SoJoCo]

Is sombody dumping you turkeys here by the truckload?

Now that you mention it...

Naturalization is a PROCESS, not a class of citizenship.

And what does the process result in? A naturalized citizen.

All of you will do anything to defeat the clear purpose of the Natural Born restriction in the constitution; what is your angle?

Not blindly believing something to be a fact just because you say it, I guess.

[Squeeky]

Why waste MY time giving Vattle Birthers law stuff when they just ignore the law anyway??? I have written a couple of Internet Articles about them, and IMO (which means In My Opinion) the Vattle Birthers are not interested in either TRUTH or LAW. The Vattle Birthers are no better than the Obots, and EVEN WORSE for pretending to be Birthers, and anybody can see that they don’t know what they are talking about.

So There!!!

[okie01]

It's the opinion of the Supreme Court in the MINOR V. HAPPERSETT case. It's also the opinion of the House of Representatives during the debates on the issues of citizenship and the 14th Amendment.

Fine. Then, if this was a matter of settled law, why wasn't Obama's candidacy smothered in the crib?

[CanaGuy]

All I can say is that the Rubio people better have their facts straight on this, because I don’t think the people will sit still for it this time if he leans out from the merry-go-round to get his fingers on the gold ring.

[so_real]

What was your agenda behind not saying what you supposedly learned in High School?

Seriously you could fill books with things I've learned in high school I've not mentioned on FR. Certainly you can say the same for yourself, no? If an old FReeper reads this post today, feels his memory jogged, and says "You know, that's the way I remember it taught too", will you chastise him for omissions in his posting history? There's a new birther coming on board every day ...

‘What were birthers, so_real specifically, saying about 0bama’s eligibility BEFORE the 2008 election - and how common was the idea that to be a natural born citizen you had to be born in country of two citizen parents - and did so_real ever say so BEFORE the election?’

Again, with the Debate 101 material ... your best "argument" is a fallacy of omission. It is called "argumentum ad ignorantium" -- you claim that because I *may* not have mentioned something akin to 'born of citizens within U.S. jurisdiction' on this forum prior to November 2008, that I could not have been educated with such an understanding prior to the date. It's a ludicrous assertion in any debate. You compound this by "stacking the deck", ignoring examples of historical figures holding the same understanding of natural born citizen, deliberately, in order to support your position.

What was I saying prior to the 2008 election? When did I first become aware that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen? When did I become aware Obama was adopted and spent his early years in Indonesia? When did I first look at the validity of the birth certifications and certificates for the purpose of verifying lineage? Discerning the 'cause' for the 'effect' is far more rational than inventing your own conspiracy theory regarding the rise of "birtherism".

You keep claiming omissions have been made and pointing to some birther conspiracy to explain them. I lived my life, the chips fell where they fell, the differences of opinion on the definition of natural born citizen are recorded and date back for nearly as long as our union has existed. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that the concept was handed down through the generations and persists today? Or, is that just an act? What is your agenda here?

[okie01]

You keep on repeating this lie, so you must have a dog in this fight; care to tell us what?

It's no lie. I didn't see or hear squat on the "natural-born citizen" argument in any media or on any forum until after the election. And, at that, the first report I saw originated from HillBuzz -- which had also been the most active source of the birth certificate argument.

If this was such an obvious disqualification, how come it didn't emerge into the light of day two years before the election?

Or was it all one big conspiracy -- between the courts, the Congress, the legal firms, legal scholars and all politicians of every stripe?

I've no dog in this race. But I hate to see good people waste their time and energy on a lost cause.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have been trying to find the source for something I read a few weeks (or so) ago regarding an act passed by Congress prior to the War of 1812 regarding officers and a percentage of the sailors being required to be “natural born citizens.”

I thought this was posted by Bushpilot1, but I couldn’t find it. Do you have any idea about it?

[allmendream]

So you WERE holding out on us.

Why didn't you think it relevant to the discussion?

I would really like to know.

It was your MEMORY that was jogged in 2008 AFTER the election - and THEN you remembered that you were taught it in High School?

My argument is not that you “could not” have known it - it is that you, and almost no other FReeper, bothered to impart this information that it is now claimed.....

Everyone knew.

Taught in High School.

Absolutely the standard not subject to debate.

Our Congress and Electors are traitors to the Constitution because they didn't enforce this well known and commonly accepted standard.

And any number of other nonsensical inaccurate claims.

I was here.

I saw the shift in opinion.

I knew when it was new.

I now know that birthers have to pretend it was always well known.

It was not.

That is my point.

It was an almost unheard of definition of Natural Born Citizen on ALL eligibility threads, or anything written or talked about contemporaneously - until AFTER the 2008 election.

Is it any wonder why pointing this out makes you birthers HOWL?

Because to construct the fantastical treason fantasies it simply HAS to be something that everyone knew and then ignored.

They HAVE an agenda. Everyone on our side, elected official or commentator, who doesn't sign on has been bought off - sold out - or nefariously threatened. Oh yeah!!!!

[DiogenesLamp]

Let me ask you to look at something the Supreme Court decided in 1845.

BARRY v. MERCEIN, 46 U.S. 103 (1847)
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during its father's temporary residence therein,-twenty-two months and twenty days,-notwithstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States.

And here is the link:

If your response is "That's before the 14th amendment" then please forebear. All I want to know is do you believe this is how the Supreme court saw things before the 14th Amendment?

[DiogenesLamp]

In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court did not say that persons born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents were not natural born citizens, nor did the court say that they were natural born citizens. It merely acknowledged that some authorities believed that they were and also noted that other authorities had doubts about it. And the court explicitly stated that it was not their purpose to resolve those doubts one way or the other.

Funny thing though, the courts seemingly had no doubts in 1847.

BARRY v. MERCEIN, 46 U.S. 103 (1847)
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during its father's temporary residence therein,-twenty-two months and twenty days,-notwithstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States.

I wonder where the doubts crept in?

[DiogenesLamp]

I bet the Vattle Birther already knew this, plus when this came out a few months ago, I asked my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. about it and she pointed out this case was BEFORE the Chinese guy case whenever it was, plus some other cases, sooo what this is - is that the Vattle Birthers are just lying to everybody and trying to confuse them which makes them about the same as the Obots. This is why I don’t waste much time arguing with Vattle Birthers because either they are just big liars or pretty stupid, sooo why waste any major time on them???

This case was before the 14th Amendment. Apparently the Supreme court was a bunch of "Vattel Birthers" in 1847.

BARRY v. MERCEIN, 46 U.S. 103 (1847)
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during its father's temporary residence therein,-twenty-two months and twenty days,-notwithstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States.

Oh! and LOOK! It was BEFORE the election! :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Fine. Then, if this was a matter of settled law, why wasn't Obama's candidacy smothered in the crib?

Because OUR candidate had a bigger problem with the issue than did OBAMA, and dared not bring it up.

Most Americans have grown up stupidly believing that being born in a country makes you a citizen. It is a firmly held, but wrong, belief. According to all the proof presented to the public, Obama WAS born in America, and to most people, that is all that is necessary.

John McCain was born in Panama. If he brought up the issue of Article II Qualifications, most people would ignorantly assume HE is not qualified, and that Obama IS! The Issue works against him politically.

I believe the RNC thought they could win without the issue, and that bringing it up would be thought of as a dirty trick, especially by black Americans, and so they chose to let it go. After being chastised by birthers, they even hardened their minds against the truth.

I dare say that many of the people we think are OBOTS, are actually RNC types that do not want this issue discussed because they think it hurts the party politically. These tend to be the more pragmatic types concentrated on both coasts. Principle isn't their first consideration, gaining power is.

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s funny because he never mentions Minor v. Happersett in the book. Not even once.

And you, of course, read the book. Opposition research no doubt.

[DiogenesLamp]

If this was such an obvious disqualification, how come it didn't emerge into the light of day two years before the election?

I'll tell you what *I* remember. Obama had been telling everyone for years that he was from Kenya. Even the ignorant people know that if he was born in Kenya, he is OUT! As that was the obvious issue of speculation prior to the release of his birth certificate, why would anybody worry about him having "natural born citizen" status when he hadn't even proven he had 14th amendment (wrongly understood) status?

Till he released his birth certificate, (July I think) it was pointless to worry about who his father was. I half way expected his birth certificate to reveal he had an American father, and was lying about having a Kenyan father, the way he was lying about being from Kenya.

[fireman15]

Congratulations on finding a Civics Textbook from the 70s! Does the addition of the letter S have any meaning to you? As you noted yourself the reference is to “parents” PLURAL. Which would to most people would imply that the requirement of a person born within the borders of the United States would also need “parents” PLURAL to be a citizen. I appreciate your efforts but you are still 0 for 4 in proving anything about what I and others here were taught in school.

[Kleon]

Funny thing though, the courts seemingly had no doubts in 1847.

You're quoting the Plaintiff's argument, not an opinion of the Court.

[fireman15]

The book was printed in the 20s to be used by people wanting to become naturalized citizens. To paraphrase in the context that the book was intended for... sorry person trying to become a citizen, you are not eligible to become president. They didn't need to go into any more detail than that, the persons the book was intended to be used by only needed to get the message that they could not become president. It is also not a textbook that would have been used when I or others here went to school. I would remind you that your assigned mission is to back up your dispersions and ridicule against those of us who can remember what we were taught while we were in school. Although I admire your efforts once again you have failed completely to even come close. I would remind the other readers that this is not the first time you have made this attempt and come up short. This discussion has already taken place in previous threads.

[Vickery2010]

“Does the addition of the letter S have any meaning to you? As you noted yourself the reference is to “parents” PLURAL. Which would to most people would imply that the requirement of a person born within the borders of the United States would also need “parents” PLURAL to be a citizen.”

Does the use of the word “abroad” have any meaning to you? It says:

“The question, however, has been frequently mooted, whether a child born ABROAD of American parents is a natural born citizen.”

So where do you get the idea that the book says anything about a parental requirement for persons born WITHIN the borders of the United States?

If there was really a parental requirement for people born IN the U.S., don’t you think the book would mention that? How many textbooks that DON’T mention such a requirement would it take to convince you that the textbooks never said such a thing?