Skip to comments.Rubio, Amnesty and Article II
Posted on 04/28/2012 7:40:56 AM PDT by IbJensen
I realize that many Tea Party folks have fallen for leftist tricks aimed at keeping the current Article II constitutional crisis off the campaign table, but just how far are they willing to fall in the name of political agendas?
Real constitutionalists are as concerned about Article II as they are any other constitutional text, maybe even more so since the current Muslim-n-Chief is a one-man constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Faux constitutionalists are those who cherry-pick which parts of the founding document to take issue with, or make up new meanings for old words, all based on their individual political agenda.
Many Tea Party folks seem to not care whether or not we uphold Article II constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice President. Others seem perfectly happy to accept fraudulent definitions of the term Natural Born Citizen so long as it suits their political agenda. In both cases, our founding principles and values take a back seat to political expedience.
However, there is a reason why members of congress tried to alter the Natural Born Citizen requirement at least eight times in the run-up to Obamas fraudulent election in 2008 why leftists insist that the founders meant anchor baby when they required that only Natural Born Citizens of the United States could hold the highest offices in our land and that Marco Rubio would make the perfect VP selection for Mitt Romney in 2012 .
In short, the reason is -- kill the constitution and AMNESTY by any means.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is without any reasonable doubt, a total fraud, and ineligible for the office he currently holds. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and neither is Marco Rubio.
So, to keep Obama in office, leftists must eliminate the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen and the best way to do that is to get Republicans to put their own ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket with Romney enter Marco Rubio, who otherwise has a very weak résumé.
Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen via the bloodline of the natural birth father. Obamas natural birth father was never a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times a legal citizen of Kenya and as such, he could only pass Kenyan citizenship to his offspring, Barack Hussein Obama II.
Likewise, Marco Rubios father was a legal citizen of Cuba at the time of Marcos birth, and he could only pass Cuban citizenship to Marco. Marco Rubio was therefore, born a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba, living abroad in exile in the United States. Rubios parents did not become U.S. citizens for several years after Marcos birth.
In contrast, Mitt Romney was born in Detroit a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as the son of a natural birth father (Gov. George Romney) who was at the time of Mitts birth, a legal citizen of the United States able to transfer Natural Born Citizenship via the Laws of Nature.
Even as confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 99-0 unanimous vote, John McCain is also a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born abroad in Panama to a legal U.S. Citizen father. This proves that all Senators know the true definition of Natural Born Citizen and that they knowingly and willingly refuse to apply that standard to Barack Hussein Obama or Marco Rubio.
We know why leftists who have tried to alter or abolish the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for years would want Marco Rubio, RNC leader for illegal amnesty, to appear on the GOP ticket in 2012 --- but why do many Tea Party and GOP voters want Rubio on the ticket?
First, placing Rubio on the GOP ticket would galvanize the fraud of 2008 when America seated its first non-Natural Born Citizen in the Oval Office. Second, Hispanic immigrant Rubio is leading the charge for illegal amnesty in the GOP -- a position allegedly opposed by Tea Party and patriotic type voters.
How is Rubio being shoved down the throat of pro-American voters? --- The why is obvious, once you understand our current dilemma Who is voting this November?
USA Demographics White Anglo-American 64.9% Hispanic 15.1% African-American 12.9% Asian 4.4% Other 3%
Now pay close attention .
The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year, according to an analysis released Thursday. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record. The New York Times reported in April 2009.
If 50% of white Anglo-American voters stay home or vote a 3rd option of any sort in protest, guess who has a voting majority in America today? These folks seldom pass up an opportunity to vote themselves gifts from your wallet
People forever seeking to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and change America into something it was never intended to be, are showing up to VOTE in increasing numbers -- just as frustrated White Anglo-American voters stay home in increasing numbers. Their conscience will allow the re-election of the first anti-American and illegal White House resident. What kind of conscience is that?
African-Americans are no longer the second largest voting bloc in America. They have been replaced by Hispanics over the last several years, over half of which are in the Unites States illegally. Now they are able to vote thanks to insane moto-voter and no ID required voting laws put in place to make fraudulent illegal alien votes legal throughout most of the U.S. Its unconstitutional, immoral, unethical and even treasonous but they found a way to make it defacto-legal.
In many states, lawmakers foolishly passed laws to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and then passed laws requiring only a photo ID, such as a drivers license, in order to vote in U.S. elections. The illegal alien vote is now equal to the legal citizen vote, even before formal amnesty is a reality. Dead people can vote, why not illegal aliens?
And since the Hispanic community is growing by leaps and bounds, pouring across our southern border like a stampede of young peaceniks headed to the next Woodstock, politicians feel obligated to pander for that vote even if they have to offend every legal citizen doing it.
The DNC wants Marco Rubio on the 2012 GOP ticket to forever eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement for high office. But the RNC wants him on the ticket too, in order to pander for the 15.1% Hispanic Amnesty vote that will otherwise go to Barack Hussein Obama in November.
If Americans allow Rubio to appear on the GOP ticket, Article II requirements for high office are forever gone and amnesty is a sure deal.
I get why RNC and DNC inside the beltway scumbags want this, but why are Tea Party folks foolish enough to go along with it?
Maybe its time to ask who these Tea Party folks really are?
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at the time when that was American territory. His father was stationed in the military there. So he was born on American soil of American parents, even though that American soil was outside the confines of the then 48 states. If that matters to anyone.
If the Rinos pick Rubio than you know that the jig is up. We are no longer a democratic republic and have gone the way of Rome. I hope and pray that they can stick to the constitution and still win. There has been one credible challenge to NBC by a Federal Judge just the other day. I won’t hold my breath over it though.
The natural born citizen two-parents-plus-birth-on-US-soil argument has failed in every court thats heard it. Its why the Supreme Court has turned down without comment all such cases that have been appealed to it. And its why the Vattel birthers do not have the slightest hope of ever prevailing on the two-citizen-parents-plus-US-soil claim in any US court of law.
The Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark found 6 to 2 that the children of resident aliens were themselves both natural born and citizens. In so doing and in specifically mentioning in their majority opinion the fact that natural born citizenship was a qualification for President they made clear that they found such US-born citizens Constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President.
Vattel lovers must get a grip on things. Our founders relied upon Blackstone and the English common law, not this Swiss person. You are a citizen of the soil regardless of your parents and that is a FACT. Besides how does one PROVE the citizenship of his parents? By your birth certificate? LOL! Your existance in most cases begins in a hospital. They gather the information from the mother and issue a birth certificate. No one verifies the citizenship of the mother or the father. They can say anything they want. The mother can claim any father she wants. You Vattel fanatics, can you conclusively prove that Abraham Lincoln’s parents were natural born citizens? If all you’ve got is Abe’s BC, that is no proof. The only think you can prove about Abraham Lincoln is that he was born in the U.S. which makes him a natural born citizen. I’m going out on a limb here because I don’t really know if he had a BC; wasn’t he born in a log cabin? My point is a birth certificate can say anything it wants to and the only thing it proves is where a child is born....that is the only indisputable fact.
In Obama’s case I believe his BC is a forgery. If he was born in HI then he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president. If he was born in Kenya like I suspect then he is not.
“John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at the time when that was American territory.”
In what hole has your head been stuck?
He was born in Colon, Republic of Panama, in Colon Hospital.
He is a dual citizen.
New Jersey Realist, your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong. I refer to Leo Donofrio who clear the confusion up a long time ago.
Moreover, the Constitution itself leads to the definition by the process of elimination. There is the qualification for President and Vice President; i.e., natural born citizen. Then there is the qualification for Senator and Representative; i.e., “seven years a Citizen.” That is not too hard to parse. What do you think. If the definition were the same, why have the modifier “natural born” in front of Citizen? Having a looser, broader definition of citizenship for the highest offices in the land would make no sense. Instead “natural born” points a more restrictive, more limited, definition of citizenship that identifies those Americans who have no divided loyalties by either being born on foreign soil, or having parents with citizenship in some country other than America. That also was the main point of the 14th Amendment: Allegiance; complete, pure, unsullied, unquestionable allegiance to just America.
The other hint is found by comparing two immigration acts: The ones of 1790 and 1795. The one from 1790 recognized that, for example, a child born on a ship overseas to American parents would be recognized as a natural born citizen. In 1795, they realized their mistake, and said that such a child was instead a Citizen, not natural born.
So, sorry New Jersey Realist, try again.
Panama was NEVER a U.S. Territory. Even IF it was (IT WASN'T) It's not the United States, it's a FOREIGN COUNTRY!
Even IF it was (IT WASN'T), John McCain was born in Colon Panama, specifically EXEMPTED from U.S. control in the Panama Canal Treaty 1903, have you read it?
He was born a “NATIVE” because of his parents heritage and service., But NOT “Natural Born” which only applies if you want to be president or vice president.
HE WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, what is so hard to understand here?
Don't give me that crap that a treaty changes the constitution.
“Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!”
The Panama Canal Treaty can't change Article II. PERIOD!
If we were to sign a treaty with England (I know it's an island, humor me) to build a canal, would the framers (not farmers) approve of a president whose father was born there?
OF COURSE NOT! If you said yes, you are an a**hole. (with all due respect)
Barack Obama, (even IF he was really born in Hawaii), is the poster child for Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. He has no real ties to the United States. His parents and grandparents were Communists. His stepfather was obsessed with anti-colonialism. Obama was raised a Muslim and STILL IS! John Jay is rolling over in his grave.
Our founders relied upon Blackstone and the English common law, not this Swiss person.
They depended on far more than Blackstone. And why would they rely on court cases from a judicial system they revolted against?
They incorporated the concept of English common law, not the decisions themselves.
It's sad that you're so narrow minded in your understanding that you have to twist history to exclude some of the greatest minds of political philosophy, like Locke, Calvin, Hobbes, Vattel and many many others, just to fit your preconceived notions.
“Our founders relied upon Blackstone and the English common law, not this Swiss person.”
George Washington’s library book returned, 221 years later
“The former president borrowed The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel on 5 October 1789, according to the records of the New York Society Library.”
Donofrio represents an OPINION. This is proof of nothing. Why would you smugly tell me to “try again.” Explain why no single court in the land supports your side? How is it possible to PROVE your parents are natural born citizens themselves without their BC’s or their parents BC’s? There are two classes of citizens in this country: those born here and those proclaimed citizens by law or court, the former being natural born.
I’m sure George Washington read a lot of books. Your point being?
You can't just kiss off Vattel so easily.
Just as an example to show you how ignorant your statement is I give you this...
Founding Father's Library - The Most Commonly Read Books of the Founding Generation
Another source of information about what books influenced the thinking of the American founding generation are the lists of recommended books they themselves drew up. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson drew up a list of key texts in letters they wrote and, in the case of Jefferson, he actually donated his personal library (twice) to Congress to create the beginnings of what is now the Library of Congress and also drew up a catalog for the University of Virginia library.
Well surprise, surprise...#29 Emmerich de Vattel
“The other hint is found by comparing two immigration acts: The ones of 1790 and 1795. The one from 1790 recognized that, for example, a child born on a ship overseas to American parents would be recognized as a natural born citizen. In 1795, they realized their mistake, and said that such a child was instead a Citizen, not natural born.”
DING!, DING!, DING!, We have a winner!
“they realized their mistake,” EXACTLY!
That’s actually a misconception - the PMC was never official US territory. Instead, it was Panamanian territory whose sovereignty was being exercised by the US on the behalf of Panama - a subtle but important distinction.
What a load of crap. Vattel’s book wasn’t translated into English until AFTER the Constitution was written. Who knows what books anyone read. If you read Mein Kampf would that prove anything? The colonies were entrenched in British law and custom. If they wrote anything other than what was customary at the time, they would have explained themselves. The Constitution was written for the common man to understand.
I don't need to "try" that link. I've read United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is what your link goes to, many many times.
Try putting up the actual text that supports your assertion...
The Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark found 6 to 2 that the children of resident aliens were themselves both natural born and citizens.
And while you're doing that I've got two portions of text for you to wrap your narrow mind around...
Williams talks about “the fraud of 2008 when America seated its first non-Natural Born Citizen in the Oval Office.” That actually happened when Chester Arthur became president, as his father was a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth. There was some controversy over this in 1880 when he was nominated for VP, but for some reason it didn’t take hold.