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

Skip to comments.

"Marco Rubio Doesn't Have Enough Experience To Step In As President"
Fox News Channel | Vanity

Posted on 03/23/2012 5:55:59 PM PDT by Retired Chemist

Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly were discussing Marco Rubio as a possible VP contender and O'Reilly said Rubio doesn't have enough experience to step in as President. Dobbs replied saying Obama didn't have any more experiencce when he became president and O'Reilly had to agree.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: eligibility; fraud; kenyanbornmuzzie; loofa; loofaspongebill; loudobbs; mittromney; naturalborncitizen; newtgingrich; oreilly; ricksantorum; rubio; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-121 next last
To: Godebert

Wrong. I will post the very words.” 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.” The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Since then a person born in the United States and under the US’s jurisdiction (this excludes the children of foreign diplomats) are natural born citizens, period. The only controversy until this latest insanity has been over someone born outside the US to US citizens.


51 posted on 03/23/2012 7:19:59 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist

Translation: only dims are allowed on the ticket without experience and they are allowed on the very top of the ticket.

And the GOP can’t have an Hispanic on the ticket - that would just be so UNFAIR.


52 posted on 03/23/2012 7:21:26 PM PDT by Let's Roll (Save the world's best healthcare - REPEAL, DEFUND Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusty
"Since when did the Constitution mention a candidates parents in reference to eligibility. A person born in the USA who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen period. It has been since 1789. I’m sick and tired of people like you who do not know what they are talking about making the rest of us look like nutters. You probably read something on some other nuts website and you take it as gospel. Nobody in over 200 years of American history has questioned the meaning of natural born citizen, born in the USA, until you nuts recently. As for educating myself, I will stick with legitimate books on American history over some conspiracy nuts website."

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.

53 posted on 03/23/2012 7:21:46 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
By law, Cubans get to jump the line. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Refugee_Adjustment_Act
54 posted on 03/23/2012 7:26:05 PM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Barry Soetoro couldn’t pass the security check to load bags or dump lavs at the airport.


55 posted on 03/23/2012 7:27:52 PM PDT by Minnesota fox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

The some authorities who go further happens to include the United States. Has been since the ratification of the Constitution.


56 posted on 03/23/2012 7:28:45 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: gusty
Really, well how come the courts sent the coolies and their American born children home.
57 posted on 03/23/2012 7:30:03 PM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

You mean the same courts that were all for Jim Crow laws at the time. The same courts of the Dred Scott decision. Plessy v Ferguson.


58 posted on 03/23/2012 7:35:39 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

I wouldn’t hang my hat on a decision that was a stain on American jurisprudence.


59 posted on 03/23/2012 7:38:45 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gusty
Since when did the Constitution mention a candidates parents in reference to eligibility. A person born in the USA who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen period.

Not true!

You can be born in this country and still not be a "Natural Born Citizen". The Constitution implies both parents must be Citizens of the Country at the time of the birth of the proposed Presidential contender. That's why the qualification factors for Presidents are different from Senators and Representatives. Here's what the Constitution says:

[Article II Section I] 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.

The qualifying factor being....what I have underlined. The reason it says....Natural born citizen "OR" a citizen is simply because there is a great difference.

When the Constitution was adopted many qualified men who were being considered for the Presidency had been born of parents who were not citizens of the Country.....because the country had not existed yet. The framers knew this would eventually be sun setted (as time went on) because future presidential candidates would have no reason not to be children of citizens of this nation at the time of their birth. And.....that was the qualifier for the presidency (and not the House, the Senate nor the Supreme Court). You were not required to be a child of U.S. citizens at the time of your birth to hold these other offices. But to be called a "Natural Born Citizen" your parents must have been citizens as well.....at the time of your birth. The other elected (and appointed) offices of the Federal Government had no such requirement to be "Natural Born".

Now.....during the eighteenth century.....what did this term imply? What was its understanding among the populace? Here is what was written in 1758 by a Frenchmen, Emmerich de Vattel in his great work called "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Laws". This work was read throughout the world and understood to be the common explanation for the term "Natural Born Citizen". Here is the defining paragraph:

[Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 "Citizens and Natives"]

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

For this very reason both Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are neither one....."Natural Born Citizens". Their parents were not citizens at the time of their births.

This is also the reason the current occupant of the White House is not a "Natural Born Citizen". His father was a British subject at the time of his birth......and this is also the reason why his birth certificate controversy is such a waste of time. It makes no difference if he was born in Hawaii; Bozeman, Montana; Shangrila or the lobby of "Independance Hall in Philadelphia on the fourth of July with the Marine Corps band playing the National Anthem outside on the lawn. His father was not a citizen of this country and as such........he should have been vetted and disqualified. Unfortunately, no Republican had the cojones!

Now...........one more time for those in Rio Linda. You can be born in this country and be born a "Citizen"......but you are not considered a "Natural Born Citizen" unless both parents are citizens as well....at the time of your birth.

60 posted on 03/23/2012 7:43:09 PM PDT by Diego1618 ( Put "Ron" on the rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist

What does that matter at all, when he is NOT a NBC???


61 posted on 03/23/2012 7:45:30 PM PDT by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Good. The Democrats welcome stupidity.


62 posted on 03/23/2012 7:46:11 PM PDT by Lucas McCain (Santorum sucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NordP

>>”Lt Col ALLEN WEST DOES!!!!!!
Simply the BEST...better than alllll the rest”<<
________________________

Think again.

West has joined with 0bama, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan and the ‘hoodie brigade’ in calling for the head of George Zimmerman. I used to respect him and admire him. Not any more. Another self-proclaimed “Black Conservative” bites the dust.


63 posted on 03/23/2012 7:48:13 PM PDT by panaxanax (0bama >>WORST PRESIDENT EVER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gusty
"The some authorities who go further happens to include the United States. Has been since the ratification of the Constitution."

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.

Notice the U.S. Supreme court used the word 'citizens', not 'natural born citizens'.

64 posted on 03/23/2012 7:49:32 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GotMojo

“BOR doesn’t have enough experience to shut up”

That’s the money comment on this thread. O’Gasbag loves the sound of his own voice, even if he hasn’t a clue about that which is being discussed. Lou Dobbs should not lower himself to have any “dialogue” with O’Gasbag.


65 posted on 03/23/2012 7:51:32 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

You base your whole argument on a book written by a French author in 1758. I do not dispute that the founders were familiar with it. They were familiar with many different authors, but that does not give these authors Constitutional authority. The founders created two classes of citizenship, natural born and naturalized. There is no other. If a person is a citizen and was never naturalized, then they are a natural citizen.


66 posted on 03/23/2012 7:55:07 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist

He’s more experienced than the current guy.


67 posted on 03/23/2012 7:57:02 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain
"Good. The Democrats welcome stupidity."

They really seem to like guys named McCain too. You deserve Obama.

68 posted on 03/23/2012 7:57:23 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist
Dobbs replied saying Obama didn't have any more experiencce when he became president and O'Reilly had to agree.

The argument that Rubio has as much experience as Obama is an argument AGAINST putting him on the ticket.

69 posted on 03/23/2012 7:57:35 PM PDT by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist
Well, you know they have a point. I mean, how could you compete with such Vice Presidential perfection.....


70 posted on 03/23/2012 8:01:15 PM PDT by sjmjax (Politicans are like bananas - they start out green, turn yellow, then rot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

They needed you back during the Gilded Age. Everybody back then just did not notice that Chester Arthur’s father was born in Northern Ireland. Not only that, but he entered North America by way of Canada, then the US. But wait, someone did notice. A lawyer by name of Arthur Hinman tried your argument. Guess what, he got no where. People back in 1880 thought he was a nut too.


71 posted on 03/23/2012 8:07:36 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist
""Marco Rubio Doesn't Have Enough Experience To Step In As President""

Well who can disagree with that I mean we all know Rubio can't hold a candle to Joe "Stand Up Chuck" Biden...

72 posted on 03/23/2012 8:13:30 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusty
HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
73 posted on 03/23/2012 8:18:42 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
It doesn't matter. This is a media talking point with no point except to fill otherwise dead air time. How much experience is "enough?" What kind? Who knows anyway, what 'experience' is enough to make a president out of a noncontender.
74 posted on 03/23/2012 8:25:14 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Lets see. Chester Arthur was born in Vermont, thus a natural born citizen. It did not matter where his father was born or when he was naturalized. Nobody cared, and old Chester served out his term without anyone except Hinman disputing his eligibility. Congress nor the Supreme Court at the time cared about the citizenship of his father, otherwise they would have said so.
75 posted on 03/23/2012 8:28:35 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: gusty

“Since when did the Constitution mention a candidates parents in reference to eligibility. A person born in the USA who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen period. “

You are as full of crap as a Xmas Goose!


76 posted on 03/23/2012 8:31:39 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Marco Rubio born in Miami, Florida, USA, he is eligible
Bobby Jindal born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA he is eligible.


77 posted on 03/23/2012 8:32:22 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

Sorry to confuse you with facts, not BS. You really know how to frame a counter argument. Your head might explode if I told you the Bilderburgers do not really run the world.


78 posted on 03/23/2012 8:35:38 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: gusty
Chester Arthur had something to hide.

He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.

Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

Is this the twilight zone?............Leo Donofrio

79 posted on 03/23/2012 8:36:31 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Let me tell you a little about old Chester. You see Chester was somewhat of a crook, he was a true hack. A kind of Billy Bulger on a larger stage. I would guess that is why he burned his papers. Even thou he was a crook, he still was a natural born American from the Green Mountain State.


80 posted on 03/23/2012 8:42:08 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Are you saying that Hinman was in cahoots with Arthur in disputing his birthplace so in order to head fake everybody on his father’s status. Even thou Hinman was the only one who really cared at the time. If this is true, Arthur was clever enough to have become the greatest President of all time.


81 posted on 03/23/2012 8:52:40 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: gusty
You base your whole argument on a book written by a French author in 1758. I do not dispute that the founders were familiar with it. They were familiar with many different authors, but that does not give these authors Constitutional authority. The founders created two classes of citizenship, natural born and naturalized. There is no other. If a person is a citizen and was never naturalized, then they are a natural citizen.

Then.........why in the world does the Constitution make the distinction? Here it is!

[Article II; Section I; 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.

There is no such requirement for Judges, Representatives or Senators. Why the distinction?

Because..... like it was commonly understood in the eighteenth century....a "Natural Born Citizen" was one whose parents were both citizens as well at the time of his birth. Otherwise.....don't include the phrase.... "Natural Born". Just say....."citizen".

The reason the framers insisted the phrase be included was because John Jay.....the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, had asked George Washington to make sure it was included. He felt the Chief Executive should be a person with no possible other allegiances. As with Barack Obama....it can be said he has a definite allegiance to his Father's country, Kenya whether or not he was born there. His father was not a U.S. citizen so it would be natural to also have an affinity for his father's homeland. This was what John Jay was attempting to avoid. He wanted to make sure the Commander in Chief had no such foreign entanglements. John Jay had also written many of the Federalist Papers and carried much influence among the framers of the Constitution.

It's actually not my argument. It's history.... but many folks have not been taught the Constitution during the last fifty years or so. When I was in grade school during the fifties we were taught what a "Natural Born Citizen" meant. The fact that government schools have not properly educated children in the Constitution does not make it my argument.

Again......if there is no difference in the two qualifying factors.....why spell them out? Use your head. The framers wanted a chief executive born of parents who were also citizens. That's why they specify, "At the time of the adoption of this Constitution"! Later on.....there would be no reason to worry about this qualifying factor as multitudes of qualified candidates would have been born to citizen parents. In 1789.....that wasn't the case.

82 posted on 03/23/2012 9:04:13 PM PDT by Diego1618 ( Put "Ron" on the rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gusty
Marco Rubio born in Miami, Florida, USA, he is eligible Bobby Jindal born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA he is eligible.

Sorry.....but you are terribly misinformed....or else just stubborn.

Since both of these men were born to non citizens they were indeed born as "Citizens" of the U.S., but not "Natural Born Citizens". You can stamp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue.....but you're still going to be wrong.

83 posted on 03/23/2012 9:10:40 PM PDT by Diego1618 ( Put "Ron" on the rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Simple logic tells you why they included the words “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Without that they would of had to wait until John Tyler to have an eligible President, whose grandsons are still alive by the way.


84 posted on 03/23/2012 9:10:59 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
I feel pretty good that my arguments would stand up in any courtroom in the US. Of course every judge who ruled properly would be labeled part of the conspiracy. I think the Chester Arthur precedent sets me in pretty good standing. There is so many more important and real issues to fight on, drop this one as a real loser.
85 posted on 03/23/2012 9:19:35 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

A person born outside the borders of the United States, say London, England was eligible to be President if they were a citizen upon the ratification of the Constitution. Three who come to mind are Charles Lee, Horatio Gates and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had ambitions. His opponents had many arguments against him, but not his place of birth. Or his parents citizenship. His parents’ characters yes, but not citizenship status.


86 posted on 03/23/2012 9:35:35 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: gusty

if I told you the Bilderburgers do not really run the world.

...yeah, they just meet annually for a poker game and tea...
maybe looking at the US Supreme Court ruling in 1874 Minor vs
Happerset where they defined in the highest court of the land that NBC was a person born to parent citizens. Court precedent and all that stuff... Zer0 isn’t eligible, neither is Rubio or Jindal, or Cain for that matter, but the Dems knew they could whip him so they put through the Senate resolution to try and cover the issue.
Maybe you could look back at the Senate race when Obozo the “constitutional” lecturer admited in a debate with Keyes that he wasn’t eligible, but that didn’t matter since he was only running for Senate.

ymmv


87 posted on 03/23/2012 9:45:53 PM PDT by ElectionInspector (Molon Labe...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: panaxanax
THIS is what he said.... I read that he's upset that the incident happened and speaks to the law and his concerns with how a person behaved. I do NOT read any color or racial bias whatsoever. Where do you see it??? THIS is what he said:

George Zimmerman, in his role as neighborhood watch of a gated suburban community in Florida, had “no authorization” to take action against 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) told TPM Friday. “This is a self-made head of a community neighborhood watch. That’s where my concern is.” Zimmerman claims he shot Martin — who was only carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea — in self defense. The shooting has renewed debate over Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows the use of deadly force if a person feels threatened. West said the Florida law “does not apply whatsoever” to the Martin case, because Zimmerman was not being pursued by Martin. Anti-gun lobbyists shouldn’t use the legislation to score political points, West added, without commenting on the law further. Martin’s death has sparked a national outcry. Amid the outrage over the shooting, Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee “temporarily” stepped aside from the Martin case, because he said his involvement was becoming a distraction. In a scathing statement Thursday, West called the case an “outrage” and urged Lee to step down. The police chief’s doing so is a “positive step,” West said. The Justice Department, along with local and state authorities, are investigating the shooting, which West said is “exactly what we should have happen.”

88 posted on 03/23/2012 9:50:59 PM PDT by NordP (Common Sense ConservaTEAves - Love of Country, Less Govt, Stop Spending, No Govt Run Health Care!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ElectionInspector

However in 1898, 24 years later, in US v Won Kim Ark the court ruled that a person born in the US of alien parents was a natural born citizen. Minor v Happerset was interesting in that it ruled that women did not have the right to vote, but they had the right to be President, if they won the election of course.


89 posted on 03/23/2012 10:00:49 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: gusty
Simple logic tells you why they included the words “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Without that they would of had to wait until John Tyler to have an eligible President...

Absolutely correct since there was NO Constitution until 1789, thus “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” However, the Birth Bozos have taken that to mean there is a separate category of citizenship other than Natural Born or Naturalized. BTW, until about a couple of years ago, this Birth Bozo theory was completely unknown.

90 posted on 03/24/2012 4:07:17 AM PDT by PJ-Comix ("How To Overcome Writer's Block In Less Than An Hour" ---Available at Amazon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: gusty; Brown Deer; Fantasywriter; little jeremiah; Seizethecarp; PA-RIVER; philman_36; ...

New Obot Troll spreading manure alert.


91 posted on 03/24/2012 4:54:27 AM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
He is also not eligible, as he is not a natural born citizen.

THANK YOU! I'm glad to see someone is paying attention.

His bio from Wikipedia:
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio (1927–2010) and Oria Garcia (born 1931). His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.

"Citizen" and "natural born citizen" are NOT the same thing.

92 posted on 03/24/2012 6:10:24 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
When was Rubio Naturalized?

He was born in the US to persons in the country legally, so he was born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen becasue his parents were not yet citizens themselves.

His bio from Wikipedia:
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio (1927–2010) and Oria Garcia (born 1931). His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.

"Citizen" and "natural born citizen" are NOT the same thing.

93 posted on 03/24/2012 6:14:05 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Thank you for explaining this issue so completely to gutsy in #60. I admire your patience and aplomb.

gutsy, Please go home; you’re obviously lost.


94 posted on 03/24/2012 6:22:05 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Considering all the golfing, vacationing, and general disconnection, I would say that Obama still doesn’t have much experience to do the job.


95 posted on 03/24/2012 6:34:31 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
The Constitution says:

Article II - The Executive Branch, Section 1

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.

How does the Constitution define citizenship?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

For those of you in Rio Linda, that means that persons born in the United States are “natural born” citizens vs. those not born in the United States that have to be “naturalized”. Note, that means there are ONLY two types of citizens; those born in the US and those not born in the US who obtain citizenship after birth. Ergo, those born in the United States are natural born citizens.

Nowhere are ANY US born citizens required to be prove themselves and deemed to more “natural” than “natural” by proving that at the time of their birth, one of both of their biological parents, were US citizens. Nada, nill, zip, zero.

Where some “birthers” and people from Rio Linda get themselves all confused is when a person is born outside of the US to one or more parent who are US citizens and whether or not that person is considered a citizen of the United States at birth, i.e. “natural born”.

Currently Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Codes states the following are citizens of the United States at birth:
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The underlined and * being important in that it deems that the children born outside of the US or in a US possession to US citizen diplomats, US citizen military personnel or to an expat American citizen or citizens working or living abroad are deemed to have been born in the US provided that, and only that they meet the stated conditions.

The first in bold is self evident. Persons born in the US are deemed citizens at birth, i.e. “natural born” citizens.

BTW, some say that Santorum isn’t eligible either because his father wasn’t a citizen at the time of his birth. Then there is this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2859724/posts?page=90#90 And this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2859724/posts?page=92#92

96 posted on 03/24/2012 6:39:08 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
New Obot Troll spreading manure alert.

Someone posting 17 times on a thread with 89 total posts is a dead giveaway.

97 posted on 03/24/2012 6:48:33 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
For those of you in Rio Linda, that means that persons born in the United States are “natural born” citizens vs. those not born in the United States that have to be “naturalized”. Note, that means there are ONLY two types of citizens; those born in the US and those not born in the US who obtain citizenship after birth. Ergo, those born in the United States are natural born citizens.

Not necessarily, according to the majority opinion in Minor v Happersett:
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.

98 posted on 03/24/2012 6:51:28 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

The fogbowers have no life. They actually brag about how many FR IDs they have, and how many times they’ve been banned. It is a badge of honor to them. Imagine how hollow, boring, shallow and meaningless your life would have to be, to take pride in trolling a website. Do you have the time to troll fogbow? I certainly don’t. I have a life, and it’s all I can do to post occasionally on FR.

I used to not be overly fond of the fogbow trolls. Now I just pity them. Maybe someday they’ll have real lives. Until then, a ‘big day’ for them is one in which they successfully troll FR. Sad. Sad, sad sad.


99 posted on 03/24/2012 7:16:24 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Not necessarily, according to the majority opinion in Minor v Happersett: 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.

First of all Minor v Happersett was made moot by passage of the 19th amendment.

Secondly the phrasing in the ruling: “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.” is a dicta, in legal terms for those of you in Rio Linda a side note with no legal weight.

Minor v Happersett made mention that there were some doubts by some as to the citizenship status of persons born in the United States to parents were not citizens at the time of their birth, the important and relative statement by the SCOTUS was that “for purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. In other words the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett did not and never made a ruling on whether or not a person born in the United States to non-citizen parents were natural born or not, they only made passing mention that “some” had doubts and stated it was irrelevant in this case anyway.

And a subsequent ruling by the SCOTUS - United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ruled otherwise.

100 posted on 03/24/2012 7:35:59 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-121 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