Is Rubio Eligible?

Fred Thmpson America ^ | 07.31.12 | Sen Fred Thompson

[Perdogg]

I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.

[Vendome]

Radioactivity stoopit......LOL

[Perdogg]

You are a citizen one of two ways, naturalized or “natural born”. If you are born of the realm, you are a natural born citizen unless you are born of other heads of state, ambassador, foreign occupiers, etc.

Rubio was born in the US, or of the realm, of parents who were legally in the US. He is a natural born citizen. This would make Jindal nbC as well.

Children who are born in England to US military personal are also nbC since they are born of “the Realm”.

[allmendream]

“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.”

According to the passage above that you quoted; either one is a native or natural born citizen OR one is an alien or foreigner. Only an alien or foreigner can be naturalized.

One who is born a citizen is neither a foreigner or an alien, and is not naturalized but born a citizen due to natural allegiance at birth - there is nothing to “naturalize” about them.

The U.S. Constitution only mentions or envisions THREE types of U.S. citizen. Those at the time of the ratification, those who are natural born citizens, and those that are naturalized as citizens.

U.S. law reflects this and mentions, over and over again - “born or naturalized as a citizen”.

Currently one is either born a citizen or one must be naturalized as a citizen.

One who has natural allegiance at birth and becomes a citizen through the natural act of being born is a “natural born citizen”; otherwise one must be “naturalized”.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, but so many here are intent on making up their own laws to reflect the way they wish it to be.

Again I quote John Adams.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

It is interesting that you cite John Adams while thinking his words support your position. I perceive you need to be very much better acquainted with John Adams. Let's take a little trip into the past, shall we?

First stop, let's take a look at John Adam's personal Law book of English Common law and see what it says in it. Here it is.

Hmm... It mentions that a person's Parents must be in Actual Obedience to the King, and it mentions this BEFORE it says anything about where such a subject should be born, establishing the first requirement as the more important of the two, in my opinion.

Wow. This definition of "Natural-born Subject" sounds very much like the Vattel definition of "natural born citizen"! The first thing both definitions mention is "parents." Loyal Parents. If "parents" aren't important, why would they be mentioned? This law book was also subsequently owned by John Adam's son, John Quincy Adams. (Who also became President.)

It would seem to me that John Adam's understanding of what constitutes a "natural citizen" would hinge upon the legal status of the person's parents, but you might suggest the idea that just because he owned and studied the book to become a lawyer, doesn't mean he agreed that a citizen had to have parents who were loyal to a particular government. Well how about we move a little further forward in History.

Do you know what John Adams was doing during the Revolutionary War? He was at the Hague in the Netherlands, trying to drum up political and financial support for the Newly created United States. Guess where he was staying while he resided in the Netherlands?

He was staying at the home of Charles Frederick Dumas. Do you know who Charles Frederick Dumas was? He was a Representative or Agent of the United States government in Europe. He was instrumental in assisting Adams and others with efforts to enlist foreign support for the cause.

Do you know what else he did? He edited and published this book, and sent three copies to Benjamin Franklin in 1775 who immediately made them available to members of congress working on creating the structure of our new Government and subsequently our new Constitution.

What is the significance of this book? It contains the definition for the term "natural born citizen" with which the founders were familiar. One which was very similar to the definition in the John Adam's own book of English law.

Or in English:

"“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.

So do you suppose that during the years John Adams and his son Quincy (Whom Charles Dumas tutored) resided with Dumas' family, that they had time to discuss Vattel, and the significance of it to the American Cause?

That's enough for now.

Some here are blinded by their passion and I understand that passion when it comes to Obama. Hopefully that nightmare will be behind us after Nov. 6 th.

Indeed.

[GregNH]

That is the most dis-ingenuous argument I have ever heard on this subject and I go back to ‘08 on this. No where in the 14th does it state who is NOT a Citizen. Last time I looked, law is positive.

[Red Steel]

Mario Apuzzo has responded to Thompson spouting the Establishment line. Posted below.

- - - - - - - -


Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson's 

Article Defending Marco Rubio's Constitutional Eligibility

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Fred Thompson has written an article in which he argues that Marco Rubio is eligible to be Vice-President. See it at this link. I have left this comment at his blog:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “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.” Did you see that, today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President today.

The clear distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” is natural and therefore universal, for a civil society must start with original members (called “citizens” in a republic) who are the creators of that society. Their children, grandchildren, etc. (“Posterity”) then are the “natural-born citizens.” This is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in effect says. The creators of the new republic were “Citizens of the United States” and their “Posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution) were “natural born Citizens.” The Founders and Framers also allowed for new citizens through naturalization. Hence, any naturalized citizen under any Act of Congress becomes a “citizen of the United States,” just like the original “Citizens of the United States.” A reading of the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that it also only adds to the “citizens of the United States,” simply by persons being born (without requiring “citizen” parents) or naturalized in its jurisdiction. And the children (“Posterity”) born in the United States to those new first generation “citizens of the United States” then become “natural born Citizens,” just like the children of the descendents of the original “Citizens of the United States.”

Minor defined a "natural-born citizen" under the "common-law" with which the Framers were familiar. The definition it gave is a child born in a country to parents who were "citizens" of that country at the time the child was born. Some argue that this definition is not dispositive, because the Court did not say that a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a “natural-born citizen.” This argument is frivolous, for we need to understand what the Court intended by what it said, and not by what it did not say. If I want to define a dog, I include as many of a dog’s attributes, including that a dog by nature is an animal with warm blood. I do not also have to say at the same time that by nature a dog is not an animal with cold blood. There is no indication that this definition is not totally inclusive and exclusive. On the contrary, this has always been the definition of the clause. This definition has never changed.

It is more than clear that Minor had two types of “citizens” in mind, a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen,” and it cannot be otherwise. In the doubt-free definition of a “natural-born citizen” presented by Minor and to which you also concede, the parents are “citizens” and the children are “natural born citizens.”

So, there was no question for the Minor Court whether children born in the United States to alien parents were or were not “natural-born citizens.” Those children simply did not meet the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a “natural-born citizen.” So, they were not “natural-born citizens.” The only question was whether those children now fell under the new Fourteenth Amendment which included as “citizens of the United States” children born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States. Minor did not need to answer that question, for Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen."

Minor did not itself create this definition but only confirmed it. In fact, Emer de Vattel had already stated this same definition in 1758 as follows:

"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."

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural-born citizen,” at the time of birth, the child had to be born in the country to “citizen” parents. See also The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (“The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”).

Minor added that "some authorities" go further. But the Court was referring to whether a child "born in the jurisdiction" to alien parents is a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether that child is an Article II "natural born Citizen." After all, the Founders and Framers had only one definition of a "natural born Citizen" in mind and the Court stated that doubt-free definition. That definition came from the law of nations and was confirmed by our First Congress which passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Congresses which passed the acts of 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens), and also in 1814 by Founder, Chief Justice Marshall. When the Constitution was adopted, that one definition became the supreme law of the land which can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Minor would also not have referred to the Founders and Framers as "some authorities" and even add that "there have been doubts" about their definition of a "natural born Citizen." In fact, the "natural born Citizen" clause was not even debated during the Constitutional convention, so surely there were no doubts about its definition.

On the contrary, the Court even said that there were no doubts about the definition of a "natural-born citizen" that it gave.

Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor and said that those children, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But Wong Kim Ark twice demonstrated that those children are only “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens.” Wong Kim Ark recognized that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Justice Gray told us twice of this distinction. The first time he said: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney's name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204. ” Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66. Later in his opinion, Justice Gray, in speaking about a child born in the United States to alien parents again said that an alien’s “child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'” Id. at 694. It is critical that when he mentioned it for the second time, his sentence followed the Court’s conclusion which he based on how the English common law held aliens in amity to have sufficient allegiance to the King to make his children born in the King’s dominion “natural born subjects,” that Wong was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So twice, Justice Gray told us of the distinction between a child born in the country to aliens and a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. He explained that both are “citizens,” but only the latter is a “natural-born citizen.”

So, Minor confirmed the original definition of a "natural born Citizen" used by the Founders and Framers. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who are “citizens” of that country at the time of the child’s birth. To date, that definition has not been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only defines a “citizen of the United States) or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (construing the Fourteenth Amendment, only defined a “citizen of the United States”). Any other U.S. “citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty. So, today, a “natural born Citizen” is still a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. That definition continues to be the supreme law of the land until changed by constitutional amendment.

Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all not born to U.S. “citizen” parents (“natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at the time of their birth. Being born to just one U.S. “citizen” parent (Obama’s birth circumstance) is not sufficient because the child inherits through jus sanguinis from the one non-U.S. citizen parent a foreign allegiance and citizenship just as strong as if born to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents. Hence, Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are all not “natural born Citizens.” Rubio and Jindal, being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he too is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But what this means is that since Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are neither Article II “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” they are not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military or Vice-President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 31, 2012

[longtermmemmory]

all that his historically amusing but legally inapplicable.

Immigration law keeps changing and has change multiple times since the founding. Immigration law used to be up to the states. We now even have regionial quotas.

There are LEGALLY (constitutional or otherwise) only two types of citizens, those who are naturalized by living here over a period of time and those who are physically born in the USA. No amount of trolling or DIY armchair laywering changes that.

read the CURRENT US Code at thomas.gov and and at USCIS.gov and see the law as it stands.

everything else is just the same nonsense as whether there is a yellow fringe around the us flag.

[GregNH]

Loyalty is imparted by Loyal parents, not lines on a map.

You and I have been in these threads for years. You just hit the nail on the head, or close enough without wacking the thumb.

If the parents come here and do not naturalize but have a child. Their loyalty can be assumed to be at least partially with the country from which they came.

If the parents come here, naturalize, and then have a child, their loyalty intent is clear.

[Red Steel]

That is the most dis-ingenuous argument [Kansas58] I have ever heard on this subject and I go back to ‘08 on this. No where in the 14th does it state who is NOT a Citizen. Last time I looked, law is positive.

Many people like putting their heads in the sand because the truth doesn't give them what they want - e.g. AfterBirthers.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you wish to win legal arguments you must rest your opinion on the opinions of others.

Dear God! Make it stop! Will this blithering idiot NEVER stop assaulting sanity?

[rolling_stone]

Maybe youy should contact the US State Department and tell them you have it figured out.

per US State Department 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) >

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

[DiogenesLamp]

Spelling Nazi alert!

Hey, I usually don’t get petty about typos and spelling, I make my share, but under the circumstances -—

I have yet to see anything written by you which is not petty... and stupid.

[Kansas58]

You use lots of strong words but your case is weak.

To say that someone born on US soil of two US Citizen parents is a Citizen does not, in any way, exclude someone who was born overseas of two parents who are citizens, for example.

Likewise, to say someone born on US Soil to two citizen parents is a citizen does not, in any way, say that someone born on US soil to two non-citizen parents is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, in any way shape or form.

I suggest geometry. Draw some circles. Learn grouping and subsets.

Your brain can not handle the subjects, when we try to teach you verbally or in writing.

[Kansas58]

You consider yourself so smart that you think everyone else is wrong if they don't agree with you.

You think you are smarter than:

Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Herman Cain
Rush Limbaugh
Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation
The Heritage Foundation
Sean Hannity
Glen Beck
Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ

You are smarter than everyone, and you, therefore, can call everyone else “stupid”?

NOBODY agrees with you.

You will NEVER win in any legal forum.

You will NEVER win, in any political forum.

But your goal is only to be “special” and to be “better” and to play the martyr for your wisdom!

[Red Steel]

I suggest geometry. Draw some circles. Learn grouping and subsets.

You like circles and things. Here's a venn diagram for you. LoL.

[GregNH]

Thanx RS, I was about to post the same thing....

[GregNH]

To say that someone born on US soil of two US Citizen parents is a Citizen does not, in any way, exclude someone who was born overseas of two parents who are citizens, for example.

The first person is an NBC, not just a "Citizen", the later is a Citizen.

Likewise, to say someone born on US Soil to two citizen parents is a citizen does not, in any way, say that someone born on US soil to two non-citizen parents is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, in any way shape or form.

Another disingenuous post. You can not define someone born on US soil to to two Citizen parents as a "Citizen", they are "natural born Citizens", making the later part of your rant immaterial.

[Red Steel]

You think [to DiogenesLamp] you are smarter than:...

He answered that question up the thread, but you go for it again. Here it is...again LoL.

DiogenesLamp -

"Your [Kansas58] other favorite argument is THIS FALLACY."

"Argumentum ad verecundiam

Argumentum ad verecundiam is the formal term for an argument using respect for great men, customs, institutions, and authority in an attempt to strengthen one's argument and provide an illusion of proof.  It is one of many errors or logical fallacies that can be made in argumentation."

LoL.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think Obama’s Daddy is Frank Marshal Davis, which makes the Birther argument against Obama a waste of time, money and resources.

You just can't make up this kind of idiocy. That *IS* one of the "birther" arguments! It wouldn't matter anyway, The law regards the Husband as the legal father, whether he be the biological father or not. I have GOT to quit reading your messages. I almost spew my drink every time I see one.

Please stop sharing your ignorance with us.

[Kansas58]

You stepped into a trap, all of you, and you don't realize it.

I am using LIVE great men, today.

You think DEAD great men, of yesterday, are more important.

Regardless of how you look at this issue, all the radical birthers have are the isolated opinions of “great men” who do not always agree with each other, and who do not always say what you think they have said.