Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president
St. Petersburg Times ^ | October 20, 2011 | Alex Leary

Posted on 10/20/2011 1:47:23 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Unable to prevent Barack Obama from becoming president, rigid followers of the Constitution have turned their attention to another young, charismatic politician many think could one day occupy the White House.

The birthers are calling for U.S.Sen. Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida.

"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo.

Forget about allegedly Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The rub is that "natural born citizen" was never defined.

[snip]

"It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.," said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in immigration and citizenship.

Price said natural born was likely drawn from the concept that anyone born in what was once a colony was considered a subject and parental status was not a factor.

But there is sufficient muddiness to fuel the birthers, many still angry with the Republican establishment for not taking their case against Obama more seriously. Rubio was among them, saying he did not think it was an issue.

"The other shoe has dropped," conservative figure Alan Keyes said on a radio program last month. "Now you've got Republicans talking about Marco Rubio for president when it's obviously clear that he does not qualify. Regardless of party label, they don't care about Constitution. It's all just empty, lying lip service."

[snip]

(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: alankeyes; birther; chesterarthur; citizenship; florida; ineligibleromney; marcorubio; mexicanromney; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; romneynoteligble; rubio; rubio2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last
To: wrhssaxensemble

We have debated this issue ad nauseum here. It gets tiresome after a while. HOWEVER, NBC DOES require TWO citizen parents as well as an in-country birth. That’s the way the founders understood it (To them, Vatel’s definition was so well-known and obvious that they saw no need to define the term in the Constitution.)

If having US citizen parents were unimportant, please explain why Chester Arthur went to extreme lengths to conceal the fact that his Irish-born father failed to become naturalized until Chester was a young man. Arthur went so far as to burn his personal papers to stop investigators.

Be careful whom you call “full of it.” All but Arthur fit the “Laws of Nations” definition. The other parents had become naturalized in a timely fashion or the candidate was grandfathered in by the Constitution itself as were the Framers.

If you think I am wrong, produce some factual evidence to prove it and lay off the cheap ad hominem crap.

The gutless SCOTUS refuses to rule on eligibility-—they avoid “political” cases-—so we have to look at the times, the authoritative books the Founders used, as well as texts of congressional debates argued during the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

They took the question VERY seriously and would doubtless be appalled at the way our Constitution is regularly and cynically trampled under foot for nothing more than crass political reasons.

I can’t believe how many FReepers would bury constitutional principles just to enable success for this or that politician. People here can do what they want but I’ll stick to the Framers’ interpretation. Strict constructionism is for me because once we start to take liberties with the Constitution and use the liberal “living document” rationale, we head down the road to national doom.

Want some good, solid info on this? Go to Leo D’Onofrio’s Natural Born Citizen blog. Leo is a brilliant and very convincing teacher. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


101 posted on 10/20/2011 2:13:36 PM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Yes. Naturalization as a process takes a while.

Then, to serve in Congress, one must have been a citizen for seven years.

See the U.S.Constitution: Article I; Section 2; clause 2.

Unlike other nations, we do not bar naturalized citizens from participating in elective office.


102 posted on 10/20/2011 3:08:55 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble

“Native is a higher standard. If you qualify as native you also qualify as natural born.”

Yes, that’s what you keep saying, but you are wrong.

What you are expecting us to believe is that our Founding Fathers had a LESSER standard for President and Vice President than the general population of citizenry.

Are you really thinking what you are saying here?? Honestly. You could not be more wrong on this subject.


103 posted on 10/20/2011 3:47:56 PM PDT by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I think what confused me was when you wrote: "-naturalized - foreign national applies for citizenship."

I at first read that to mean that applying was enough to consider the child a natural-born citizen.

What I believe is that the parents must complete the naturalization process before their child is born for the child to be a natural-born citizen.

I do agree that any citizen is eligible for state and local offices, as well as for Congress, given the residency and age requirements. Citizenship of parents is not a factor for Congress.

-PJ

104 posted on 10/20/2011 6:24:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“... parents must complete the naturalization process before their child is born for the child to be a natural-born citizen.”

Correct.


105 posted on 10/20/2011 7:29:23 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

How do you get that??


106 posted on 10/21/2011 6:59:25 AM PDT by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12
However, in my case my mother was born in Canada; ergo, I am not a natural born citizen under Article II; Sec. I; U.S. Const. I am not eligible for the presidency along with The Messiah.

If your mother naturalized as an American citizen Prior to your birth, that makes you a "natural born citizen", assuming your father was an American.

The primary requirement is born to two citizen parents.

107 posted on 10/21/2011 8:33:28 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
FWIW, I agree with you 100% about the rest of your post. The people who define “natural born” as requiring American citizen parents are full of it- all it requires is that the candidate be born in the country. To hold otherwise would mean that Thomas Jefferson (English mother), Andrew Jackson (both his parents were Irish immigrants), James Buchanan (Irish father),Chester Arthur (Irish father), Woodrow Wilson (English mother) and Herbert Hoover (Canadian mother) would have been ineligible for the presidency, something I’ve NEVER heard seriously debated anywhere.

Where do you types come from? Why is it you will do research to find out who the parents of various Presidents were, but never bother to learn WHY it didn't matter?

The early Presidents were exempted specifically by article II,

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

and the later Presidents (except for Chester Arthur) had parents that naturalized PRIOR to their birth.

Now you have just been demonstrated to be incredibly ignorant on this subject, so You should just stop offering YOUR opinion until you LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! You ought to be horribly embarrassed about beclowning yourself, but my experience with you types is that you have no shame.

108 posted on 10/21/2011 8:45:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ydoucare
Chief Justice Roberts obviously disagrees with you since he swore Obama into office. Don't expect SCOTUS, Congress or any state to take any action against Obama or Rubio to prevent him from running or holding office.

You are certainly good at the non-sequitur. Your argument is that because A = B, then B must = C.

The notion that Chief Justice Roberts might have based his actions on false assumptions never occurs to such as you. Apart from that, he flubbed the oath of office, so perhaps he did have some misgivings.

109 posted on 10/21/2011 8:48:57 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
Based on what? Natural Born Citizen and Native Born Citizen are two different things. The former DOES NOT require citizen parentage while the latter does. Both Jindal and Rubio are Natural Born (born in the US) but not Native Born (born to US citizens in the US). It is only the former that matters per Art. 1 Sec. 2 as it unequivocally uses the term “Natural Born Citizen” NOT “Native Born Citizen.”

And here we find you again, popping off with the most ignorant blather. To be accurate, "native born" means to be born in a certain place. (your argument) "Natural born" means to be born a citizen inherently. You have the meanings EXACTLY backwards, and THAT notwithstanding the fact that in the early founding era of our country, the terms were used interchangeably. Perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States could explain it to you, though I doubt it.

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizenS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

110 posted on 10/21/2011 8:59:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Anyone hatching a plan to destroy the United States with their progeny 50 years down the line could just as easily become a citizen first, therefore making the child a natural born citizen under even the strictest definition.

And that "strictest definition" would be THIS ONE provided by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett:

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Do you not agree?

111 posted on 10/21/2011 9:07:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Click to Talk to the Hand

You have the right to chatter your little head off.
Anything you say will be laughed at hysterically.
Requests for an attorney will be ignored.
No one's paying for a dang thing for you.
I don't care whether you understand or not.


Prevent this kind of abuse
Abolish FReepathons!   Go Monthly

112 posted on 10/21/2011 9:11:36 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
Good sir, I never said WHY the founders did what they did, just what they did. So your anger over “your other lies are why the founders wrote an exception clause into the Constitution” must be confusing me with someone else. The basis for the provision was concern that someone could become President that was an enemy of the nation or had allegience to a foreign nation. That still doesn’t change the fact that the constitution requires Natural Born Citizenship (not Native Born) and following the logic you seem to support that a number of presidents would be ineligible for the post they served. Sorry to cite history and not merely relying on insulting accusations as seems to be your tactic.

You are the most laughable thing I have seen yet coming from the ranks of the opposition. A history lesson (or a good intellectual drubbing) would be wasted on you. You would have to start a cram course of research just to get up to squeeky's level of incompetence.

Should you decide to throw off your ignorance, a good place to start would be here.

113 posted on 10/21/2011 9:16:21 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Either way, if one is a U.S. citizen at birth, one is, by definition, a natural-born citizen, not a naturalized citizen.

You are wrong, and Jill Pryor is also wrong. Here is a rebuttal from 1916. Here is a rebuttal from 1884. Either is a more accurate essay than what Pryor wrote.

114 posted on 10/21/2011 9:24:54 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan
Does it not dawn on you that lawyers who face-plant in court every single time might not be your best source of legal analysis?

It occurs to me that lawyers who support a dishonest status quo are more of a problem. I'm sure that during the Jim Crow era, lawyers prosecuting the black codes won in court all the time.

115 posted on 10/21/2011 9:34:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
Jus Soli is of the soil; you are born there. Jus Sanguinis is of the blood; you have a blood line. Exactly as I said.

A further review of your comments demonstrates to me that you were just playing stupid. Well plaid sir!

So where did the principle of Jus Soli originate?

116 posted on 10/21/2011 9:36:37 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Neither one exists. “natural born” was a description, not a title.

I would argue that it is a "term of art" specifically know to the founders by their reading and familiarity with the writings of Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel, who's collective works and Vattel's specifically, are referred to as the Laws of Nations.

117 posted on 10/21/2011 9:40:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
It was also merely dictum in Wong Kim Ark.

Wong Kim Ark does not use the term of art "natural born citizen". Even though Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, it decided only that Wong Kim Ark was just a "citizen."

They did not declare him eligible for the Presidency, merely to the equal status of a naturalized citizen.

118 posted on 10/21/2011 9:44:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Or the Supreme court could just admit the 1898 Supreme court made a mistake. Yeah, that’s gonna happen. :)


119 posted on 10/21/2011 9:51:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It was simply a term used to describe someone that wa sa citizen by birth, nothing complex or complicated about it.


120 posted on 10/21/2011 10:05:43 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; InterceptPoint

If the U.S. Congress had never passed any laws regarding U.S. citizenship at birth, you could well be correct, since it is certainly arguable that, at common law (which applies when there are no statutes on point), citizens at birth (i.e., natural-born citizens) were limited to persons who both were born within the geographic territory of the nation and had parents who were citizens of the nation. The unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), makes this point, although it doesn’t answer with certainty (because it was unnecessary for the adjudication of the case before the Court) whether both conditions were necessary for natural-born citizenship under common law: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&page=162 “Natural-born” is used by the Court in contradistinction to “naturalized,” and the first means someone who us a citizen at birth, while the latter means someone who becomes a citizen later in life.

Of course, Congress *has* legislated regarding citizenship at birth, and did so as early as 1790, as the Happersett Court noted: “Congress, as early as 1790, provided that ... the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.” And Happersett went on to note that in 1855 this conferrance of birthright citizenship to the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens “was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.” When Congress passes a law, such statute supercedes the common law on that particular matter, and, as the Supreme Court noted in Happersett, one does not need to wonder whether the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens would be natural-born citizens at common law, because a congressional statute specifies when such children would be considered U.S. citizens at birth. Today, of course, the U.S.-citizen parent(s) of foreign-born children must meet certain residency requirements for their foreign-born children to be deemd natural-born citizens.

Regarding children born in America to non-citizen parents, Congress legislated specifically to confer U.S. citizenship at birth to such children so long as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States; this statutory language tracks that of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and is currently codified in 8 U.S.C.S. 1401(a), and has remained unchanged since at least 1952 (and I believe the predecessor of the 1952 statute had identical language with respect to this clause). Now, reasonable minds may disagree on whether the children of illegal aliens should be covered by this clase, since “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” implies that the person is legally within the jurisdiction, and I believe that the courts have been incorrect in interpreting both this statute and the 14th Amendment as conferring birthright citizenship on the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, tourists and other persons who were neither U.S. citizens not permanent residents of the U.S. But it is incontrovertible that permanent residents of the U.S. are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and thus that their children are U.S. citizens at birth.

So, to sum up, given that the term “natural-born citizen” is synonymous with “citizen at birth” or “birthright citizen,” and the fact that congressional statutes supercede the common law, all persons who are U.S. citizens at birth pursuant to U.S. law are natural-born citizens of the United States. Thus, George Romney (Mitt’s father, who was born in Mexico to two U.S. citizens and who uncontroversially ran for president in 1968) and Chester Arthur (who was elected vice president in 1880 and became president upon the death of James Garfield in 1881 despite his father not having been a U.S. citizen when his son was born) were natural-born citizens of the United States and eligible for the presidency. And the same is true for John McCain and Marco Rubio (and, assuming that he was born in Hawaii, Barack Obama).


121 posted on 10/21/2011 10:24:47 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Nice Screenname Mr. Goldwater. But I disagree.

Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 states clearly what a Natural Born Citizen is. A person born in the United States to parentS who were its citizens. Plural. This means quite simply, you have to be born here and have two parents who are citizens. Minor has not been over ruled, and there is no law which has been written which changes this definition.

Your argument is nicely said and well reasoned, but still incorrect.

Obama, McCain, Jindal, Rubio all fail this definition.

122 posted on 10/21/2011 10:34:29 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

So?

My grandmother was born in Canada, my grandfather in England. Both were not natural born citizens. They became naturalized in 1941. What is the point of that particular observation?


123 posted on 10/21/2011 10:44:04 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WildWeasel

BOTH parents must also be citizens along with birth here in order to be eligible for POTUS. That comes directly from the LAW, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.


124 posted on 10/21/2011 10:47:24 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez

False.

He is not a Natural Born Citizen according to th eonly law in effect which defines it. Monor v. Happersett 88 US 162.

His parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, he is a dual citizen jsut like Obama. God bless him he is a great conservative and leader, but he is NOT qualified to run for POTUS. He never will be unless a new law is written enabeling it. NO MORE ILLEGAL PRESIDENTS! PERIOD.


125 posted on 10/21/2011 10:50:35 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Well done.


126 posted on 10/21/2011 10:53:53 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Danae

According to these people you can’t be president.


127 posted on 10/21/2011 1:45:17 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

LOL Both my parents are Natural Born Citizens. As am I, and yeah, I was born in Hawaii.


128 posted on 10/21/2011 1:52:05 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Actually, if you knew history and read the leading landmark case, Wong Kim Ark v. US, you would know that the founders used English common law when using the term, natural born citizen, in the Constitution. Blackstone and English common law was the primary basis American jurisprudence.

Your response is an excellent illustration of why birthers have fallen flat on their face in Congress, every state legislature and court (federal or state)in their feeble quest to change the law. Maybe if birthers respected the rule of law in our society, they may be a little bit more successful.

129 posted on 10/21/2011 2:24:04 PM PDT by ydoucare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Chief Justice Roberts reversed two words at the inaugural, so the next day he went the White House to do a second swearing in. This was done so there will never be a doubt or question as to Obama being legally President.

Every appeal, over a dozen, to SCOTUS has been unanimously denied. Obama has never even bothered to file a single response to a petition filed by a birther. SCOTUS rules are that if one justice thinks a petition has any merit and the respondent has not filed a response to the petition, the court will formally request a response before determining whether to grant writ. That has never occured. I wonder why?

130 posted on 10/21/2011 2:39:11 PM PDT by ydoucare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac

Since when is it “rigid” to follow the law.

I might suggest that the IRS is “rigid” in their enforcement.

What really pisses me off beyond the pale, is that we have become a people who look at laws as if they are convenient. When they are not convenient, we just ignore them.

The real problem here is that the Supreme court needs to rule on this, clearly. They beat around the bush too much.

Is it too hard for us to expect the people we place in power to actually do their job?


131 posted on 10/21/2011 2:47:26 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (I just don't like anything about the President. And I don't think he's a nice guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
It was simply a term used to describe someone that wa sa citizen by birth, nothing complex or complicated about it.

That is a common body of thought, but I don't believe it to be an accurate one. I believe the term "natural born citizen" is a "term of art" known to people familiar with international law in 1787, which mostly amounts to the writings of Grotius, Puffendorf and Vattel.

John Jay, who was raised speaking French, could be said to be the Father of the Article II requirement, and his usage of the term implies that it is intended to exclude all foreign influence. Since the founding era, we have created the situation where foreigners can claim "born" citizenship for their children, while possessing no loyalty to the country whatsoever. In addition, we have created these "half and halfs" which would never occur under the circumstances with which the founders were familiar.

Both these "anchor babies" and these "half and halfs" are considered "born citizens" under the current legal misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, but they most certainly do not represent the same sort of allegiance as that which would be expected of a "natural citizen."

132 posted on 10/21/2011 2:48:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Danae
No, the Opinion of the Court in Happersett states, as dicta, that under common law a natural-born citizen (which the Court defines as a citizen at birth, in contradistinction to a naturalized citizen) encompasses at a minumum those persons born within the nation's territory both of whose parents are citizens of the nation. The opinion notes that some authorities claimed that the common-law definition of natural-born citizen is actually broader than the narrow definition set forth above, but the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether other persons would be deemed to be natural-born citizens under common law because the petitioner was born in the U.S. with two U.S.-citizen parents ("[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts"). And the Opinion of the Court in Happesett further states that the foreign-born children of two U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens of the U.S. since Congress passed a law in 1790 declaring that to be the case. This should surprise no one, given that the common law is preempted whenever Congress enacts a specific statute. I know that Happesett has been used by some as "evidence" that only the U.S.-born children of two U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens of the U.S., but, in fact, the opinion proves the opposite to be the case.
133 posted on 10/21/2011 2:49:00 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

at a minumum = at a minimum


134 posted on 10/21/2011 2:52:06 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Sorry my friend, but the Dicta is NOT the decision. It is an opinion.

You cannot quote dicta as a decision, they are NOT the same. I quote from the HOLDING. That is the legally binding part of the case, and is in fact the law. The HOLDING in Minor states that it takes being born in the United States to parentS who are its CitizneS.

That is the LAW. The Dicta is an authoritative opinion and nothing else. It does not bind, it is not law.

135 posted on 10/21/2011 2:54:51 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Today, of course, the U.S.-citizen parent(s) of foreign-born children must meet certain residency requirements for their foreign-born children to be deemed natural-born citizens.

Yes, under that very statute you cite, (the naturalization act of 1790) the Children of Non Resident Foreign fathers are forbidden by congress from receiving any sort of US Citizenship.

You have made my point for me. It was the intent of the First Congress, many of whom were delegates to the Constitutional convention and who ought to know what was meant by "natural born citizen", to agree that a non resident foreign father prevents even basic US citizenship for his offspring. That is the same status Obama possesses. Were it not for the "Cable act of 1924", and the "Women's Rights act of 1934, he wouldn't even possess basic citizenship. That he is a citizen at all was due to the fact of statutes passed by congress.

This half and half citizenship cannot be regarded as "natural", for it didn't exist until after 1924.

136 posted on 10/21/2011 2:58:22 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Rubio was born in the U.S.


137 posted on 10/21/2011 2:59:26 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

That makes him a Citizen. Not a natural Born citizen. Thats the law according to Minor v Happersett which is STILL the law of the land.


138 posted on 10/21/2011 3:08:05 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

I think it’s amusing that this is the sort of thing that keeps birthers up at night.

I would use a different word than amusing since the elected citizens who swear on the Constitution do not uphold it . Seems to me these “ Birthers “ could find plenty to do with the elected “ Citizen “ law breakers who stand there and lie to them and on the Bible also but seem to ignore the obvious .


139 posted on 10/21/2011 3:11:55 PM PDT by Ben Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: woofie

No. He’s not President and never will be. Just as the second and following marriages of a bigamist are never legit, even after he dies all all his wives die.

There is no correction.


140 posted on 10/21/2011 3:20:01 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

A mouthy bozo. Where do they come from?


141 posted on 10/21/2011 3:24:04 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ydoucare
Actually, if you knew history and read the leading landmark case, Wong Kim Ark v. US, you would know that the founders used English common law when using the term, natural born citizen, in the Constitution. Blackstone and English common law was the primary basis American jurisprudence.

I know far more history than just that incorrectly decided landmark case. The founders eschewed English law on Citizenship. It may escape you, but English Law regarding Citizenship was the basis of BOTH WARS we fought with them. The founders based their writings in the constitution on the collective works of Grotius, Puffendorf and Vattel, whose publications were collectively (and singularly in the case of Vattel) referred to as the "Laws of Nations."

Here is an example in the South Carolina Ratifying Debate of these men being cited by name.

DEBATES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND IN CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.----WEDNESDAY, January 16, 1788.

Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY
“They were as much the law of the land under that Confederation, as they are under this Constitution; and we shall be unworthy to be ranked among civilized nations if we do not consider treaties in this view. VATTEL, one of the best writers on the LAW OF NATIONS, says, “There would be no more security, no longer any commerce between mankind, did they not believe themselves obliged to preserve their faith, and to keep their word. Nations, and their conductors, ought, then, to keep their promises and their treaties inviolable. This great truth is acknowledged by all nations. Nothing adds so great a glory to a prince, and the nation he governs, as the reputation of an inviolable fidelity to his engagements. By this, and their bravery, the Swiss have rendered themselves respectable throughout Europe. This national greatness of soul is the source of immortal glory; upon it is founded the confidence of nations, and it thus becomes a certain instrument of power and splendor.”

.

And here is another Example from the Pennsylvania ratifying debate:

THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

PHILADELPHIA, TUESDAY, November 20, 1787, P. M.

— Mr. WILSON.

A good deal has already been said concerning a bill of rights. I have stated, according to the best of my recollection, all that passed in Convention relating to that business. Since that time, I have spoken with a gentleman, who has not only his memory, but full notes that he had taken in that body, and he assures me that, upon this subject, no direct motion was ever made at all; and certainly, before we heard this so violently supported out of doors, some pains ought to have been taken to have tried its fate within; but the truth is, a bill of rights would, as I have mentioned already, have been not only unnecessary, but improper. In some governments, it may come within the gentleman’s idea, when he says it can do no harm; but even in these governments, you find bills of rights do not uniformly obtain; and do those states complain who have them not? Is it a maxim in forming governments, that not only all the powers which are given, but also that all those which are reserved, should be enumerated? I apprehend that the powers given and reserved form the whole rights of the people, as men and as citizens. I consider that there are very few who understand the whole of these rights. All the political writers, from Grotius and Puffendorf down to VATTEL, have treated on this subject; but in no one of those books, nor in the aggregate of them all, can you find a complete enumeration of rights appertaining to the people as men and as citizens.”

Blackstone is mentioned, but only to point out how British Law is inferior to what is being proposed.

"There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. Where does this power reside? To this question writers on different governments will give different answers. Sir William Blackstone will tell you, that in Britain the power is lodged in the British Parliament; that the Parliament may alter the form of the government; and that its power is absolute, without control. The idea of a constitution, limiting and superintending the operations of legislative authority, seems not to have been accurately understood in Britain. There are, at least, no traces of practice conformable to such a principle. The British constitution is just what the British Parliament pleases. When the Parliament transferred legislative authority to Henry VIII., the act transferring could not, in the strict acceptation of the term, be called unconstitutional.

.______________________________________________________________________

Your response is an excellent illustration of why birthers have fallen flat on their face in Congress, every state legislature and court (federal or state)in their feeble quest to change the law. Maybe if birthers respected the rule of law in our society, they may be a little bit more successful.

And YOUR response is an excellent illustration of the degree of ignorance which predominates our society at large. No matter how many obvious facts are thrown in your face, (Slaves and Indians were not citizens under your Blackstone theory, We fought TWO wars to throw off the English requirements of Subjects under your theory,The English THEMSELVES did not use Jus Soli for their Monarch, they used Jus Sanguinus and YOUR theory does NOTHING to prevent the very Foreign influence against which John Jay wrote the letter about, to Washington!), still you persist in claiming this is the far more sensible understanding of Article II based on what some goofball court said about a Chinese man prohibited from being a "natural born citizen" by a treaty the US had with China, a 120 years after the constitution was written! Further nonsense of your theory is the belief that the court's use of the term "citizen" somehow equates to the meaning of the Article II term "natural born citizen" even though it clearly distinguishes the difference by using BOTH TERMS in article II itself!

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a CITIZEN (As in NOT "natural born") of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."

You are a singularly hilarious juxtaposition of Arrogance and Ignorance who constantly demonstrates this with every beclowning statement you make. I suggest that you follow your own advice and learn some more History. Stop listening to lawyers, get your head out of law books, and start reading actual historical documents.

142 posted on 10/21/2011 4:08:22 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ydoucare
Chief Justice Roberts reversed two words at the inaugural, so the next day he went the White House to do a second swearing in. This was done so there will never be a doubt or question as to Obama being legally President.

Oh, yeah, that convinces ME that he's legitimate. We have video of Roberts\Obama flubbing the words, but do you have video of them saying it correctly? Not withstanding that we've gone through all the motions, (Obama should have been denied access to the ballot if we had had competent state officials, but they are as ignorant as most people on this subject. That, and Nancy Pelosi LIED about his citizenship status. ) pomp and circumstance is not what makes a President legitimate.

Every appeal, over a dozen, to SCOTUS has been unanimously denied. Obama has never even bothered to file a single response to a petition filed by a birther. SCOTUS rules are that if one justice thinks a petition has any merit and the respondent has not filed a response to the petition, the court will formally request a response before determining whether to grant writ. That has never occured. I wonder why?

No you don't. You know why. Not a single case has been heard on it's merits. Prior to even examining the facts of the case, all the judges have declared the plaintiff has no standing. A filthy legal technicality trick that ought to have the nation out hanging lawyers. The truth, it seems to me, is that the courts are terrified of a civil war sized RIOT if they let this go to trial.

The Arizona legislature passed a bill to require proof. Jan Brewer vetoed it with the ridiculous argument that she doesn't feel a single person (the Arizona Secretary of State) should be permitted to decide who gets on the ballot. She is obviously far happier with letting a single person, in the guise of the Hawaiian Department of Health director Fukino, decide, rather than her own secretary of state.

In this case, it is obvious the fix is in. Jan Brewer is afraid of Federal retaliation to her state in the guise of a loss of federal grants and highway funds if she dare offend the great Zero. Oklahoma nearly passed one as well, and there again, the Governor stifled it (she daren't veto it. The crowd in Oklahoma would make her pay for it.) quietly through a whispering campaign in the Senate.

You can prattle on about your stupid courts, but the power in this nation resides in the will of the people, and when the people are properly informed, your courts will obey what the people want.

143 posted on 10/21/2011 4:27:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: bvw
A mouthy bozo. Where do they come from?

From the Ort cloud. Like meteors and comets, they fall towards our orbit and engage in near misses.

144 posted on 10/21/2011 4:33:51 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
So, to sum up, given that the term “natural-born citizen” is synonymous with “citizen at birth” or “birthright citizen,” and the fact that congressional statutes supercede the common law, all persons who are U.S. citizens at birth pursuant to U.S. law are natural-born citizens of the United States.

No act of congress can change the meaning of a constitutional term. They cannot call "Arms" "flowers" and remain compliant with the Second Amendment. When they freed the slaves, they didn't declare that they had been free all along, they passed a specific amendment to accomplish the task. Same thing when they made them citizens.

I am not having any of that "living constitution" crap, and neither should anyone else. It means what it originally meant until changed by Amendment.

145 posted on 10/21/2011 4:44:48 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
The real problem here is that the Supreme court needs to rule on this, clearly. They beat around the bush too much.

Is it too hard for us to expect the people we place in power to actually do their job?

Don't hold your breath. It took them over two hundred years to decide that the "right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right. Chicago v McDonald.

146 posted on 10/21/2011 4:47:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
And the Opinion of the Court in Happesett further states that the foreign-born children of two U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens of the U.S. since Congress passed a law in 1790 declaring that to be the case. This should surprise no one, given that the common law is preempted whenever Congress enacts a specific statute.

You do know that congress removed the words "natural born citizen" in the naturalization act of 1795?

But what does congress know? How about the Supreme court examining citizenship in 1814?

U.S. Supreme Court
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Justice Washington:

1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause.

And Justice Marshall:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, 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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

147 posted on 10/21/2011 5:03:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
More slice and dice spam from the troll. The original 13 colonies were all British, not Swiss, German or French. It is obvious you are a historical illiterate when comes to American jurisprudence. It is your post that is a non-sequitor. You dismiss everything that does not comport with your bogus theory.

I notice in all your spam, you never can quote a court decision subsequent Wong Kim Ark that supports
Vattel birther bogus theory. Congress has even codified the definition of nbc in the United States Code. The US Constitution, every branch of the Federal Government and all 50 states use the jus soli doctine to define nbc. None use the Swiss definition espoused by Vattel or any other European writer you mentioned. That is fact birthers such as yourself ignore and instead retreat back to birther fantasy world.

Vattel birthers consistently ignore the rule law in these discussions. I always thought adherence to the rule of law was a conservative trait. It still is, it is just not a birther trait.

148 posted on 10/21/2011 5:20:09 PM PDT by ydoucare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
For the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and the Republican Speaker of the House, he is the legal POTUS. But for the “constitutional scholar” DL he was ineligible due to a a completely discredited legal theory. LOL Now all 50 state election officials are ignorant! No the election officials were and are still very knowledgeable of the qualifications to be POTUS. They are only ignorant of the crazy theories in birther fanasyland.

The oath of office for the POTUS, you call “pomp and circumstance” is required language required by the US constitution. You are the one showing their constitutional ignorance.
If SCOTUS thought there was any merit the the birthers bogus claims they
would have either reversed the lower courts decision and ordered a evidentiary hearing or trial or they could have ruled on the issue if they thought it was important. The entire SCOTUS and the entire US Congress are obviously of the opinion that Obama is eligible as to be POTUS.

Your last paragraph once again outs for the liberal that you are. Your argument the the courts should listen to public opinion rather than the Constitution and statutory law when making rulings is right out of the liberal playbook. The trolling of this conservative forum to try and keep one of the rising conservative stars off the Republican ticket is also right out the DU playbook. I can assure you that all intelligent conservatives will continue to ignore the ignorant birthers.

149 posted on 10/21/2011 5:54:17 PM PDT by ydoucare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Danae
You cannot quote dicta as a decision, they are NOT the same. I quote from the HOLDING.

Aren't they both from the same paragraph? Where else does the decision discuss the citizen parents thing?

150 posted on 10/21/2011 7:38:29 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson