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?
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.