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 ...
A 1908 edition of “Essentials in Civil Government: A Textbook For Use In Schools” and a 1914 edition of “Advanced Civics” by SE Forman. Both address the requirements of the Presidency and neither mention parentage, only birthplace.
I suspect every day is a surprise for you. Failure to comply is not an excuse, it is an expression of apathy to your concerns mixed with contemptuous defiance.
And lots of people disagreed with the Court on Bush v. Gore. That disagreement had no effect on who was president.
And the only people that even REMEMBER that are Wackjob democrat nuts. I'm not surprised at your mention of it. The truth is, GORE LOST! He didn't get enough votes! Get over it!
So under your theory, professors of constitutional law at top universities, the editors of /Black Law Dictionary/, the referees of esteemed peer-reviewed legal journals, and the judges of the Indianan Court of Appeals are the ignorant and foolish, while you are the astute legal mind that comprehends the distinction.
Once a false meme gets spread, it can makes fools out of University professors, editors, lawyers, (lawyers are a special class of fool anyway) and other saps. After the Supreme Court screwed up Wong Kim Ark, the rest of them fell in with that fallacy of authority.
Now consider my stated theory: The 14th Amendment and the 1898 WKA decision settled the eligibility of the native-born. No one has to be ignorant or foolish for what they held before 1898, or about births prior to the 14th Amendment. Back then both positions were viable.
The hole in your theory is that the Supreme Court got Wong Kim Ark wrong, and even in their wrong decision, did not make of him a "natural born citizen." If you read my theory, then you obviously failed to comprehend that "natural born citizen" doesn't mean a citizen "naturally" born anymore than Freedom of Speech means it's easy to make words.
You sound like those nitwits that argued that "right to keep and bear arms" meant you had the "right" to be part of the Federal Army. It took the Supreme court over two hundred years to notice the obvious in McDonald v Chicago. Quick to see the obvious they are not.
The people my theory considers ignorant and foolish are those who assert the citizen-parent requirement after that time, and I cannot find any until birthers jumped on it in October or November of 2008.
And again, something only a Democrat would give a crap about. Nobody cares what you think regarding WHEN this topic started. Till Bammy released his first fake birth certificate, nobody knew if he was going to have an American Father or not. After that, the focus was on the fact that he dodged showing REAL PROOF of who he was and where he was born.
Anyway, your idiot ranting reminded me of where a piece of information was. Is 1916 enough AFTER Wong Kim Ark for You?
This information involves a man named Breckinridge Long. ((1881-1958)An attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who also served as ambassador to Italy as well as in the State Department under FDR) He challenged the eligibility of Charles Evan Hughes, who was the losing Presidential candidate in a race against Woodrow Wilson. Had he won, Breckinridge Long had promised to bring a lawsuit against him.
Breckenridge long argues that Charles Evan Hughes could not be a "natural born citizen" as per Presidential qualifications because his FATHER was British. And guess what? It was BEFORE the election!
DiogenesLamp wrote: “Anyway, your idiot ranting reminded me of where a piece of information was. Is 1916 enough AFTER Wong Kim Ark for You?”
I already answered that. I explained that quotes on your side are either, “so old that they’re talking about births before the 14t’h Amendment and its interpretation in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, or so recent that they only appeared after Barack Obama was the frontrunner in the 2008 presidential campaigns.” I asked you for any citations that show me to be wrong on that.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “This information involves a man named Breckinridge Long. ((1881-1958)An attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who also served as ambassador to Italy as well as in the State Department under FDR) He challenged the eligibility of Charles Evan Hughes, who was the losing Presidential candidate in a race against Woodrow Wilson.”
You might want to read before you cite. “Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.” [Breckinridge Long, “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”, Chicago Legal News vol 146, pp. 220-222]
Thank you for the citation supporting my position.
So you WERE holding out on us. Why didn't you think it relevant to the discussion? I would really like to know.Where have I ever indicated "it" (born of citizen parents within U.S. jurisdiction) is not relevant to the discussion? More "argumentum ad ignorantium" -- what has (allegedly) not been stated early enough for your satisfaction somehow supports your position? Not so.
It was your MEMORY that was jogged in 2008 AFTER the election - and THEN you remembered that you were taught it in High School?If I could recall when I was first introduced to the idea that Obama was the child of a foreigner, I might be able to answer that question. As you have trolled my post history I sought your assistance discerning that point, but you have dodged the question. Have I ever, in a decade of posting on FR, ever expressed a belief that 'born of citizens within U.S. jurisdiction' was not the definition of "natural born citizen"? No. I vaguely recall including foreign military bases as being within 'U.S. jurisdiction' and had a military FReeper give me cause to question that conception (though I still maintain it). I believe that was on a McCain eligibility thread -- remember the Democrats were the original "birthers" -- and before the election. But I do not recall if I mentioned 'born of citizens', as it was not relevant to the discussion of McCain. Still, that's as good a memory jogger as any.
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.....I understand that it might not have begun as early as you would have preferred. But many discussions have taken place and the forum is loaded with the research. How critical is the starting date? How much discussion was there about Obama at all in 2007? Any? How much discussion about Obama in 2008 did not reference a defeat by Clinton, or the release of a real birth certificate, or the possibility of birth outside U.S. jurisdiction? We didn't know the details of his birth place or lineage yet. It's just a matter of low hanging fruit, priorities and available information.
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.You are a little fast and furious there. I see you are painting with a broad brush and not attributing all these statements to me directly. Though I do credit my high school education with much of my present understanding of government, beyond that, you are way off base with respect to me. As for 'not subject to debate', I posted specifically to you on this thread "... we recognize there is a genuine dispute as to the material facts and are willing to see it adjudicated and decided lawfully..." I welcome the debate. Do you? (I expect you will dodge that question again - but please prove me wrong.)
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.That is your perception, and so be it. Numerous historical figures have been pointed out (on both sides of the dispute) to acknowledge historic precedent for the positions held on both sides of the debate. To claim birthers made it all up after election day Nov. 4th, 2008 is ludicrous -- an enormous conspiracy theory itself. The shift in forum posts is more the result, in my opinion, of awareness on the issue increasing, additional material evidence being presented, and growing boldness as frustration mounted.
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.So what was the focus on eligibility threads prior to the election? The arguably fake birth certification? The probability of birth outside U.S. jurisdiction? The low hanging fruit took center stage -- so be it. As I recall, there were conspiracy theories regarding Frank Marshall Davis perhaps being a citizen father listed on the "real" birth certificate. Why would I, or you, care that the course of events addressed these items first?
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!!!!This is a little too "Howard Dean" for me to attempt a response. How about answering a couple questions yourself instead so that I might understand your agenda here? Do you acknowledge that prior to the election Nov 4th, 2008, a segment of U.S. society was given the understanding that 'born of citizens within U.S. jurisdiction' was the definition of "natural born citizen"? Do you acknowledge that historical figures have stated this as their understanding in the course of U.S. history? Do you acknowledge a genuine dispute of material facts exists to debate? Is your ambition to have that debate, or to suppress it?
“If I could recall when I was first introduced to the idea that Obama was the child of a foreigner, I might be able to answer that question.”
Your autobiographical memory aside, there’s no question when the fact entered the greater national consciousness. Obama’s first speech to a truly nation-wide audience was his keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The next day Barack Obama was a household name, acclaimed on both sides of the aisle as the future of the Democratic party (though how soon was a surprise).
After the obligatory thank-you’s, the speech commenced: “Tonight is a particular honor for me because, lets face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya.”
so_real wrote: “I understand that it might not have begun as early as you would have preferred. But many discussions have taken place and the forum is loaded with the research. How critical is the starting date?”
Highly. Sincere contrarians, even when convincingly refuted, are respectable. People who tell the rules different when do not like who is winning, not so much.
I’ve cited articles from the peer-reviewed literature of American law stating that the edibility of the native-born is clear and settled [Charles Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma”, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968). Jill Pryor, “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility”, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).] Heck, if you want to know what a term in U.S. law means, just look it up in /Black’s Law Dictionary/. The U.S. Supreme Court frequently cites /Black’s/, as West Publishing likes to advertise.
History records no disagreement with Gordon or Pryor or /Black’s/ on that point. Moreover, there was no particular candidate in question when those sources came out. Gordon notes the then-recent candidacy of George Romney, but Romney was already out of the race for other reasons. The authors, editors, and reviewer worked on principle, not to benefit nor harm any particular candidate, and not a single ‘birther’ can honestly make the same claim.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you took your position before it was about Obama. If so, please cite.
You start with ignoring the Constitution and the historical records which indicate how the term ‘natural born citizen’ was generally construed in the eighteenth century, then you want to play argument from the exception ... and you’ll no doubt wonder why folks can’t convince you.
Not possible. Nothing to prove unless his parents were naturalized before his birth - which they were not. Rubio is not a natural born citizen.