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 ...
“You don’t sound like a person with the necessary background knowledge to discuss this sort of stuff.”
And you are??? You didn’t even read the case you were quoting and mistook an argument by the person suing as what the case said. There is one of those case I mentioned where the court says in just one sentence that you are wrong about this natural born stuff.
I also have enough sense to realize that not one single judge or court anywhere backs you up which is why you are having to quote 4 prominent Congressmen from 1800. Sorry, but you should just change your name to DiogenesBagOfHammers when it comes to legal stuff.
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
You seem desperate to make something out of this, but you're grasping at straws. Just because an individual makes as argument in court (in a dismissed case, no less) doesn't mean that it's a widespread belief. Would you apply the same logic to any argument made by a lawyer?
Which has been pointed out to him before.
Along with the fact that you have to be particularly dim witted to cite as authority a quote that directly undermines the point you are failing to make.
If (when?) I finally post something that gets me banned by Jim Rob, I plan to come back as Diogenes Lamp's Missing Wick. It must be missing, because they guy's posts are so dim.
Anybody who had any interest in his candidacy -- pro or anti -- knew that his father was not an American.
Personally, I don't recall his ever claiming to have been born in Kenya. I do recall Michelle claiming him to be a Kenyan in one interview, however -- which was easy to dismiss as a "misspeak".
Michelle did it twice. Then there is this:
And this quote of Obama By Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times on September 3, 2006 8:40 AM :
"where ironically I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya."
And here is a video of Obama saying it's good to be back home. (He is in Kenya.August 26, 2007)
Here is a quote from Chris Matthews of "Hardball" December 18, 2007 claiming Barack was born in Indonesia: (Yeah, you would think Super Democrat Asshole Chris Matthews would KNOW where Barry was born.)
"But didnt Hillary dump on Obama a few days ago for playing up his Indonesian roots? So, what is she up to here? Is she pushing how great he is for having been born in Indonesia, or what, or simply reminding everybody about his background, his Islamic background?
Notice that Chris Mathews doesn't mind a bit that a Presidential candidate was born in Indonesia, as far as Chris Matthews knew at the time. Link:
And that is all I feel like looking up for you at the moment. There are others, but it's getting harder and harder to find them. Too many links are going dead, or being edited.
And there is more, but that is all I feel like looking up for you right now.
Not nowadays, but I believe they were held to higher standards in 1847. Notwithstanding that, i've read so many quotes that reinforces that lawyer's argument I am tired of looking at them. (At least for now.)
I have decided to compile a chronology of quotes regarding this issue.( plus the links where I found them.) There are a LOT of quotes supporting the Citizen parent argument, and I just don't see how so many people in History who ought to know what this stuff means could get it wrong. I know of only two quotes that I would regard as supporting the jus soli argument, (one of which I just have the word of a poster is an accurate quote) and even one of those invokes jus sanguinus.
I think the problem many people have in understanding this issue is the inability to see the big picture in context. A series of Historical quotes, in sequence, and referenced to who said them and of what importance they were, might make the big picture easier to understand for those that simply can't seem to get it.
This piecemeal stuff just doesn't seem to be getting the point across.
You posting as someone who is missing a wick sounds about right to me.
All of that should serve as proof why the birth certificate is vastly more important than some obscure (and almost certainly incorrect) interpretation of the phrase “natural-born citizen”.
I'll even give the Birthers this: their Vatel theory might have held some water, as an explanation of an unclear Constitutional issue, before we had 125 years of actual practice, including electing (Republican) men to the Presidency once, and Vice Presidency three times, who aren't natural born citizens under their theory. The idea that we can ignore all of that, and now advance a different interpretation, all for political expediency, is delusional.
Look at another example. Does the Constitution allow members of the House to resign? It doesn't say. It does specifically allow Senators to resign, but not Representatives. Was that an oversight? Maybe. But some State/Colonial constitutions/charters did not allow House members to resign. Back then and even to this day, British law does not allow Members of Parliament to resign. The thought was that if a man could be compelled to enter military service against his will, he could also be compelled to serve in the legislature.
Now we know that as a matter of practice, several House members resign each term. That unclear issue in the Constitution has been interpreted as allowing resignation.
Suppose Republicans had won the early by-elections, to fill vacancies, in 2009-2010. Then suppose that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, needing votes to pass Obamacare, had said: "Hey, you can't resign from the House, Constitution doesn't allow it, so the Democrats who thought they resigned to take Obama Administration jobs are still members, and they get to vote, not the Republicans who won the by-elections, because there was never a vacancy to fill."
That is exactly what the Birthers are trying to do. Pelosi's resolution of an unclear issue might have been valid in 1790, but not in 2010.
According to what LVR quoted, why was your post #14 kicked?
“According to what LVR quoted, why was your post #14 kicked?”
Total mystery to me...
Read my comment again DL. I posited that you were missing a wick. So many, many things go over your head. Have you ever considered placing your computer on a stand up desk?
How do you suppose the Secretary of State in 1854, William Marcy, got it so wrong?
It's not that he was unschooled in the law--he was admitted to the bar and served on the New York Supreme Court.
Beats me too????
“Yeah, of course, the WKA court is more in the ‘know’ than two men who were actually there:”
They’re more in the know than *you*. What’s more, Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives them, and not you, appellate jurisdiction. Disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision is you right, but has no effect on whether Marco Rubio or Barack Obama can be President.
Plus, you did not even understand what they said. We adopted the *language* of English Common law:
“There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting Smith v. Alabama]
rxsid, your whole post there goes off on how we did not adopt the Common law, which you wold have known was not the question had you bothered to read and understand the Court’s opinion.
“There are a LOT of quotes supporting the Citizen parent argument, and I just don’t see how so many people in History who ought to know what this stuff means could get it wrong.”
Those quotes fall into two categories: 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. If I’m wrong on that, please cite the ones in between.
Marco Rubio and Barack Obama do not need to re-try U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The matter was settled long before they were born.
I wrote, “anyone who considers being a Rubio-birther has the cautionary tail of the Obama-birthers”.
D’oh! With tail between legs, I now serve as a cautionary tale.
For some reason you refuse to do this. Not even one of the books you have listed would have been used in Civics or Political Science classes during the time that I or any other Freepers in this discussion went to school. These latest links are no more relevant than the others. The first books you just listed was published in 1908, the second was last published in 1913, and the third in 1922. None of the books would have been used in Civics classes in the 1950s through 1970s. So all are irrelevant to our discussion.
You or I or anyone else could publish or have had a book published saying anything we want... we would be exercising our right to free speech, but this is not what our discussion here is about. Obviously there have been books that contradict other books on nearly every subject. The only books relevant to our discussion here are books which were likely to have been used as textbooks during the 1950s through 1970s.
So for the umpteenth time lets review again... the discussion between the two of us is about you ridiculing and basically calling other Freepers liars after we repeated what we were taught in school. What is taught in school varies in different time periods. Currently they are teaching kids that people are causing global warming. When I was in school in the 1970s they didn't teach this... in fact we were taught that polution was causing global cooling. So once again you have been asked to back up your accusations and ridicule by providing a textbook from the 1950s through the 1970s that would contradict what we were taught. So far you have not come close, not by a mile. I am convinced that you cannot.
From Civics for Citizens published in 1965:
"A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions."
The textbook Our Constitution and What it Means, published in 1975, for example, says, "The President must be born in the United States or born of citizens of the United States."
It's easy to mistake that "or" with "and" over time.
"Therefore, every person born in the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 5)"
"Anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land must have been born in the United States, and he must be at least thirty-five years of age. To ensure the fact that his interests really lie within the country, the Constitution also demands that the candidate have lived for fourteen years prior to his election in the United States."
Greetings all birthers!
I must admit in recent months I have become, shall we say, increasingly receptive to the idea of “natural born citizen” defined as a person born of two citizens. It does seem to be a logical deduction. One thing still bugs me though, and I think a simple thought experiment will demonstrate my hesitancy best:
If this is true, then someone like Mark Rubio could not be eligible for the presidency. However also, it would also mean that say, a child born of two “citizen” crack addicts, born in the inner city, would be eligible.
Now I ask, does this make sense? Is this what the framers intended? How is it that a person of Rubio’s upbringing, an upbringing that is clearly rooted in American values is not eligible to be president, whereas some child born of two crack addicted “citizens”, where each parent would probably never be seen again in the child’s life, would be eligible?
The theory is that a person born of two citizens would be raised to be “more American” than someone not born of two citizens, right? IOW, such a person would be raised without any divided loyalties, right? Well, that sounds all fine and dandy in a sterile, argument of logic. But considering reality for a second, can it honestly be said that Rubio was raised “less American” than some person born of two parents who were never a part of his/her life? How can it be said that a child of two crack addicts is more patriotic, has no “divided loyalties”, when compared to a person like Mark Rubio?
The only “argument” I could see to “counter” this point would be to say, “Well, that baby could have been actually raised by two parents who were solid Americans”, but then that automatically defeats the “natural born citizen” rationale. After all, if what makes someone truly “American” is how they are raised, and not how they were born (i.e., not raised by crack addicts, but raised by good Americans) , then it’s irrelevant who actually gave birth to a person. Indeed, the only thing that would seemingly be relevant here is that a person is actually born in the US, thus enabling that person to be raised by Americans, not that “two citizens give birth”.
Input/rebuttals please. I’ve been mulling this over a while, and I don’t see any way around the above other than to concede that “natural born citizen” means simply someone born in the US or its territories, or born of two citizens if overseas, IOW, the common mentality definition.
It's easy to mistake that “or” with “and” over time.
Kleon, although I appreciate your efforts to give me a way out; my recollection is of a discussion about “divided loyalties”.
I have a recollection of a discussion from high school about “divided loyalties” that I did not recall until the memory was triggered by discussions here. I can't say how others minds work but there are a lot of things that I haven't thought about for a long time that come back to me when someone or something gives me a nudge. Usually it is my wife who is trying to get me to remember something that I told her that I would do, but often it will be my parents, my siblings, my friends, or coworkers. They will ask if I remember something that we had done and at first I will say no, but as they give me more detail sometimes a vivid memory will come back and I will wonder why it took so much prompting.
Not having actually been around over two hundred years ago, all we can do is examine writings from the times that would indicate what was being discussed by the framers of the constitution. Also useful are books and letters that would indicate what the common knowledge of certain terms were at that time. Whether or not our own contemporary experiences and prejudices allow us to agree with those discussions is hard to say. It is clear to me that there were differences of opinion back then just as there are now.
I was taught that the framers were concerned about “divided loyalties” and put safeguards into the constitution to prevent monarchs or others from being able to have undue influence over our president. I was taught that Natural Born Citizen had more meaning than just a person born within the geographical borders of this country. I do not believe that a baby whose parents are here illegally is automatically even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen constitutionally eligible to be president.
Did you say something wickless? Your voice is so high pitched I couldn't hardly hear you.
It's not that he was unschooled in the law--he was admitted to the bar and served on the New York Supreme Court.
Very Interesting. I will add your link as a third piece of evidence in support of your position. It is becoming evident to me that there is indeed a long standing misunderstanding among various people in history regarding citizenship in the United States.
Evidence cannot be dismissed just because it doesn't fit what people wish to believe, and I now know of three examples that contradict the "jus sanguinus" perspective on this issue. The first one I could ignore as an outlier, the second caused me to suspect that maybe this wasn't so clearly understood by the founding Generations, and now the third one you have provided has confirmed my suspicion that something is definitely wrong, and so I pondered a bit to try and figure out what is wrong.
I've been thinking about writing an article to address this very point. I think when article II was voted on by the Constitutional delegation, those that were intimately familiar with Vattel, (John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, read and spoke fluent French.) recognized in it the Vattel definition, (They received French Versions of Vattel prior to the war) while those less familiar with it, assumed it to be derived from English Common law, which all states used for citizenship prior to the War.
Everyone voted on what they thought it meant, assuming everyone else believed the same thing they did. Likewise, subsequently through history, people who believed that this Section of English Common law was replaced by American law based on Vattel, repeated this definition, while those that were unfamiliar with this aspect, continued to believe that English Common law was the rule.
That in a nutshell appears to me to explain why there is discrepancies between what various people claim it means throughout history, some claiming the Citizen Parents are the crux of it, while others claiming only the location is important. There is overlap on this as well, because English Common law ALSO accepted Children born out of England, so long as they had an English Father.
The Fact that we kept so much of English law when American law was created only helps to confuse the issue. Whenever an issue isn't certain, or there is no American Precedent, they ALWAYS used English law to fill in the blanks. I think they have been wrongly doing this from the very beginning,(regarding citizenship) and the confusion has persisted as a result.
As I mentioned, If your goal is to grab servants, casting as wide a net as possible is a great idea. (Both soil and blood) But if your goal is to protect the nation from foreign influence, giving anyone citizenship just because they crossed your borders is a terrible idea. (As we are seeing all too clearly now with "anchor babies.")
I think the founders familiar with Vattels definition believed they were revoking English law regarding citizenship, and they believed the rest were aware of their intent. That the English common law version has persisted somewhat throughout history, indicates not everyone was up to speed on this.
You and I have been at odds on this issue from the very first post, but I do not recall any occasion of intellectual dishonesty from you. If you have some legitimate criticism of the above theory, I would be interested in looking at it.
I am not going to do that for two reasons. 1. The evidence of them will not impact you whatsoever, and 2. I have such quotes, but I have yet to organize them for ready use, and I have to read through too much stuff to find them. In any case, It isn't necessary for my purpose. (I will get to it eventually though.)
I am glad you conceded this: "so old that theyre talking about births before the 14th Amendment". I regard it as an admission against interest, and it is more significant than you know. That they occurred PRIOR to the 14th Amendment is not as irrelevant as you may think.
Marco Rubio and Barack Obama do not need to re-try U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The matter was settled long before they were born.
Based on Statements by 14th Amendment proponents in the Congress, Wong Kim Ark was an error by the court. Even in error it did not grant Article II eligibility, it granted "citizenship." People keep getting stuck on the meaning of the individual words in "natural born citizen" when it does not mean what the English definitions of the Individual words implies. It is a term of art. Just as "Freedom of Speech" is a term of art. It does not refer to how easily people produce sounds, it refers to an interdiction of government from punishing people for saying things contrary or critical to those in power.
The First Amendment protection of "Freedom of Speech" is an intentional revocation of the English Law crime of "Lèse majesté". Under English law, it was ILLEGAL to say things critical of the King or the Governor, and even criticism of lesser officials could be punished.
In the Same manner the First Amendment revoked English law against criticizing the Government by the use of the three words "Freedom of Speech" whose meaning is way beyond their English Definitions, Article II revoked English Common law regarding Presidential eligibility with the use of three other words "Natural Born Citizen" the meaning of which ALSO goes way beyond their individual English Definitions. The problem with people on your side of the discussion is that you are trying to conflate the meaning of the individual words with the term of art they are intended to represent.
This tactic may work on the ignorant and the foolish, but it won't work on anyone astute enough to comprehend the distinction.
“I am not going to do that for two reasons.”
Imagine my surprise to get excuses instead of the requested citations.
“Based on Statements by 14th Amendment proponents in the Congress, Wong Kim Ark was an error by the court.”
And lots of people disagreed with the Court on Bush v. Gore. That disagreement had no effect on who was president.
“This tactic may work on the ignorant and the foolish, but it won’t work on anyone astute enough to comprehend the distinction.”
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.
Now consider my stated theory: The 14’th 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 14’th Amendment. Back then both positions were viable. 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.
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.