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.
Who knows what books anyone read.
Well thanks to our Founding Fathers all of us can know what they, in particular read and used so that we in our modern day can bash ignorant dolts like you about the head with such knowledge.
Who’s got the narrow mind. Try to get a court to believe what you say? In the meantime digest this:
Black’s Law Dictionary,
A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.
Your problem is you confuse the parental issue regarding WHERE their child is born. If you were born overseas, then your parents must be U.S. citizens, if you were born in the US then no such requirement is necessary.
OK I’m tired of your games. Produce any quote, from any significant figure in history, that actually says that the Founding Fathers or Framers of the Constitution relied on Vattel for their definition of natural born citizen.
@founding fathers fluent french
Jefferson was fluent in several languages, including French.
That's just one man.
Shall I list more?
Produce any quote, from any significant figure in history, that actually says that the Founding Fathers or Framers of the Constitution relied on Vattel for their definition of natural born citizen.
How about you do your own homework. Start here...
Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!
And particularly here...http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787letteroriginal.jpg
Of course, that won't be good enough for you either, will it.
NBC has generated more static than any other topic than the old Clinton threads and what used to be windows-Mac wars.
Stand by for the charge.
And from whence did Black draw his definition? Thin air?
In other words, did he use somebody else's writings/works for his definition? If so, who or what?
Your two references just claim that the President should be a natural born citizen. You have proven nothing else, certainly not your point. I agree with the references. A natural born citizen is born on U.S. soil. If you read anything else into that declarative sentence then you do injustice to our framers. I have the full weight of the American judicial system backing me up. Who do you have? You should really read the link I sent to you earlier. It is rather lengthy but let me quote one section the ruling:
“Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
Now let me make my claim again. The framers wrote the Constitution in language that the people would understand. They did not understand Vattel you can be sure, they did understand British common law. It was common knowledge at the time that a natural born citizen was a citizen born of the soil. You cannot prove otherwise. You have an agenda my FRiend.
NBC = Whatever is convenient all you need to do is just post hundreds of pages by some old white guys and cry loudly, he is NBC idiot.
The fun par is that the opponents of their position can post the sam hundreds of pages and declare He is not NBC.
The one who posts the most pages the most times is the winner, unless the party elite have already made their decision, because they will just have been deemed as NBC or not NBC. No court will ever hear the argument, unless the outcome is already known.
I fear we have already lost our Republic.
Are you for real? Blacks Law Dictionary is one of the most widely used and highly regarded law books still in use today. The law book was founded by Henry Campbell Black and is the authority in definitions used in legal briefs and court opinions and has even been used as a secondary legal authority in an abundance of U.S. Supreme Court cases.
You have lost all credibility. I am closing out the thread on you.
Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. See Jus soli; Naturalization clause.
Natural-born subject. In English law, one born within the dominions, or rather within the allegiance, of the king of England. Governed by the British Nationality Act, 1981, and the Immigration Act, 1971.
Natural. Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". Department of Public Works and Bldgs. for and in Behalf of People v. Keller, 22 Ill.App.3d 54, 316 N.E.2d 794, 796. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal;" and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.
Jus solis The law of the place of one's birth as contrasted with jus sanguinis, the law of the place of one's descent or parentage. The principle that a person's citizenship is determined by place of birth rather than by the citizenship of one's parents. It is of feudal origin.
I agree with you. The real problem is Obama. He has to be voted out. All this NBC stuff is a distraction. I’d say 97% of this country believe you are natural born if you are born here and the courts agree. The parent thing is a Vattel invention and there is no basis to believe his ideas were even considered otherwise it would have been defined in the Constitution. If you did indeed require your parents to be citizens to be considered NB you would have to produce THEIR birth certificates along with your own and I’ve never heard of that, EVER.
As I stated perviously, the Constitution does not define natural-born.That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
He drew the definition of native solely from Wong Kim Ark? Where did Wong Kim Ark draw it's definition?
You have lost all credibility.
To whom? You alone?
I am closing out the thread on you.
Translation...I'm running away.
I’m sure the framers were concerned about naturalized citizens as well.
Maybe the Supreme Court Justices have not read any of these authors, then what will they do?
Either everyone born on US soil is NBC or they are not NBC. Start there and see where logic leads you. Not that Common sense will ever enter this thread.
IbJensen is absolutely right. Not withstanding a few crooked judges and party leaders.
Okay, I’ve been chastised.........
But then, what are we saying? We’re saying that John McCain, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorum are all ineligible to be president, under this natural born citizen clause???????
Can someone, without calling me an A-—hole or other insults, tell us if the courts have ever ruled on the exact meaning of “natural born citizen”? Many people seem to think it means that you were born in this country. Others say that your own parents have to also have been American citizens at the time of your birth? Who is right?
This is fun.
Translation: I’m running away.
If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots Robert Kiyosaki
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain
Hint...Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,"...
Lect. 25: Of Aliens and Natives
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.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
So from whence did Minor v. Happersett draw it's definition of natives?
We know they were, because they mentioned Naturalization in Article I Section 8 Clause 4.
Naturalized citizens become We The People after they are naturalized, and then once naturalized, but not before, their posterity are citizen children.
If resident aliens have children here before they become naturalized, then those children's (who are dual citizens who claim birthright in the United States but also inherit the citizenship of their parents) children will become natural born citizens, but they themselves will not.
That's why I think that the SCOTUS was wrong in Minor v. Happersett when they said they had to look elsewhere for the definition of "natural born citizen." That definition is right there in the Preamble as I've just shown.
The Preamble sets the context of the rest of the Constitution, namely to preserve the country for its citizens and their citizen children.
It is the asserter that must prove his assertion. How can you prove something that didn’t happen? This is fun?
Positive law, not natural law.
IbJensen is absolutely right.
In what manner?
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript Idee sur le gouvernment et la royauté, is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.
Why do you call yourself an idiot and a fool?
You are entitled to and I respect your opinion. We can all talk about this until we are blue in the face but the fact is it is what it is. The framers were probably concerned by the Jay letter of a usurper taking control of the presidency. Perhaps that is why the committee of eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen.” They certainly didn’t elaborate on it and it remains a mystery.
What isn’t a mystery to me is, and I would bet every dime I own on this, an anchor baby will one day run for President, and there will not be a court in the land that will stop him. I don’t like it but there it is unless the Supreme Court takes a stand and actually defines NBC.
Well we never had Open Borders Ted Kennedy and Motor Voter, and No ID to vote. The NBC issue to me is a simple one based on common sense, but that will never fly in this thread. Suffice to say it is only a means to an end in attempt to prove that every document produced ha been a fraud, and further the leadership in both parties knew them to be fraudulent. Which either makes them incredibly stupid or complicit, I chose the latter.
If a person is born on US Soil is he NBC? Logic from your answer to that simple question would lead to definitions of the other 4 possibilities. You don't need the Supreme Court to tell you that. What we do need is a single State Attorney General and an honest judge (that in itself may be impossible)to ask for proof of citizenship before placing Zero on the ballot, that could lead to discovery and the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the people of the United States may begin to unravel. In the end I doubt it will really matter because the New Improved version is on deck.