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

Skip to comments.

Is Rubio Eligible?
Fred Thmpson America ^ | 07.31.12 | Sen Fred Thompson

Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at fredthompsonsamerica.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 2012veep; establishmentpick; globalist; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; no; nope; noway; rino; rubio; unman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-321 next last
To: butterdezillion
I specifically looked it up in my pocket Constitution that I got from the Lions Club, before posting anything. I’ve got it right here by my computer. It’s got the Declaration of Independence printed before the Constitution, and it says “unalienable”. If there’s a typo, it’s from the Lions Club’s printing.

Butter, the man is a fool. Paying attention to him only makes us dumber. Disregard anything he has to say as not worthy of response. The only exception should be efforts to shoo him away.

This literary usage by Jefferson is correct, and has been remarked on for centuries, and leave it to this fool to attempt to correct what is actually on the document.

I wouldn't waste one nanosecond thinking anything he says might be correct. If it's coming from him, it is likely to be dead wrong. You just can't get that stupid without willful determination.

251 posted on 08/01/2012 2:58:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Man you are stupid.


252 posted on 08/01/2012 3:02:12 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
I believe that, at this point, every single member of the Supreme Court would interpret the term "natural born citizen" so as to make Obama qualified. I think it would be too humiliating for them to say that they just sat there for nearly four years watching an illegal presidency without doing or saying anything about it. They will not do that.

You have this exactly right. They take the attitude of General Custer in "Little Big Man."

Your misreable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision.

There is no power on earth which will make them face the truth, so we need to give up on that theory until we fix the ignorance among the public as to what "natural citizen" correctly means. We would get an Amendment through congress and the States before we could get them to admit they were wrong.

253 posted on 08/01/2012 3:04:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Every qualified expert on the subject disagrees with you, yet you call ME “stupid”?

Arrogance, pure arrogance.


254 posted on 08/01/2012 3:09:14 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Once Congress did act, Congress became the “elsewhere” -—And James Madison, Father of the Constitution, clearly stated that Congress had the authority to act on Citizenship matters.

According to Article 1, Section 8, para 4, Congress is authorized to establish uniforn rules of "naturalization." And they have done so. Foreigners and aliens who are not natural-born become citizens through the processes Congress has defined.

The Court in Minor established the meaning of "natural-born", setting precedent which Congress is not free to change. Here are the options (as explained by Donofrio) open for changing that understanding.

Neither has happened.
255 posted on 08/01/2012 3:09:32 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

The NBC issue was never an issue until Chester Arthur and now Obama. It is not something that has been talked about, taught, argued. or adjudicated because there has been no need. You are letting political correctness and recent discussions cloud the definitions that were solid for the last 200 hundred plus years!

There are several attorney’s that post here. My first post on this thread was quoting one. Mark Levin is part of the media and of course I take issue with his stance on this issue, albeit undefined with legal precedence.

On another note, I have not made any of my post personal.


256 posted on 08/01/2012 3:10:21 PM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter
The only way to settle it would be a case to go to the Supreme Court and we all know even they can be wrong and would also surely be split in their opinions as are we.

No, that is not a way to settle this. The current court is defective. Till the court is repaired it will only produce a garbage ruling. The problem is not currently correctable because the incorrect understanding of the term of art "natural citizen" is too widespread. All that can be accomplished at present is to acquaint more and more members of the public with the Historical evidence which clarifies the correct meaning.

How do you feel about "Anchor Babies"?

257 posted on 08/01/2012 3:14:03 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
First, CONGRESS has the absolute, Coequal authority as the Courts, to interpret the Constitution.

Check some of Newt Gingrich's writings, or those of other conservative writers, if you do not understand this point.

It is an EXTREMELY Liberal position to claim that only the Courts can make these determinations.

Next, in the case I spoke of, Madison clearly states that the CONGRESS has the power to determine who qualifies as a Citizen at Birth.

There are two types of Citizenship: Natural Born, or Naturalized. There are no other forms.

258 posted on 08/01/2012 3:15:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Every qualified expert on the subject disagrees with you, yet you call ME “stupid”?

I doubt it. They either play dumb or ignore the issue or they think they can come up with some "plausible" rationalization.

And I answered you here at 244

259 posted on 08/01/2012 3:16:18 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; TexasVoter
To: TexasVoter Listen carefully, read carefully:

Yes, but not to him. He is a bountiful source of wrong information.

260 posted on 08/01/2012 3:16:52 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)


261 posted on 08/01/2012 3:18:18 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
““you say we must have a law to prevent what you do not want.”

Please quote me!

262 posted on 08/01/2012 3:20:35 PM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Go back and read what YOU posted.

You list the possible horrors of who we might elect, if not for YOUR weird legal theory.

However, horror stories and fear do not establish law.

Ted Bundy could be President.

That does not mean we would vote for him!

263 posted on 08/01/2012 3:31:13 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; All

““Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘

Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)


264 posted on 08/01/2012 3:32:39 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
Children of legally resident aliens are natural born citizens.

There are two schools of thought on this of which I am aware. There are those that Hold Wong Kim Ark is correct, and that it was the intent of the Congress and the 3/4ths of state legislatures that anyone born to a legal resident can claim U.S. Citizenship. (Note, not the same thing as "natural citizenship.)

There are those who claim Wong Kim Ark was decided incorrectly, and that it's decision is in actual contradiction with the meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment. This group holds that The Congress did not intend to create an amendment that gives citizenship to the children of foreign transients. (Anchor Babies.)

In either case, regardless of whatever interpretation of Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment is used, none of these interpretations claim that citizens by action of the 14th Amendment are "natural citizens."

The Waite Court in Minor v Happersett expressly contradicts the notion that the 14th amendment declares "natural citizen" status.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

If the 14th amendment created "natural citizens" the Waite court would not say the constitution was silent on the issue, it would say "Oh Yes it does!"

I do not think most people understand the significance of this. The Court in 1875 would have had a far better understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant than would later subsequent courts, and yet fresh off the creation of the 14th amendment it could not find one there. It had to resort to a different standard.

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.

The Fact that the Waite court did not and could not find "natural citizen" in the 14th amendment, indicates that the Gray Court did not find such a thing in there either, but people have ever since misapplied the ruling of "citizen" to mean the same thing as "natural born citizen."

265 posted on 08/01/2012 3:38:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Next, in the case I spoke of, Madison clearly states that the CONGRESS has the power to determine who qualifies as a Citizen at Birth. There are two types of Citizenship: Natural Born, or Naturalized. There are no other forms.

Madison is dead. He is sorely missed. But no matter, only the Constitution states what powers CONGRESS has.

As to you other red herring, it doesn't matter how many forms of citizenship there are. As a qualification for president, only "natural-born" citizens are eligible to hold this office. One must also be 35 years of age.

A [valid] birth certificate will establish one's eligibility for this office.

266 posted on 08/01/2012 3:39:10 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Since it will be ruled legal, it will be moot. If he runs, there will be no recourse in the courts, because the law is what it is, and he’ll not be obstructed. There will be a few complaints, but no legal challenge will be able to get off the ground based on what someone thinks the constitution originally meant.

That does not mean we should tacitly acquiesce to a re-write of History. I want the History books to have an asterisk by the name Obama. ( * Not a legitimate President.) The fight is bigger than just one legal issue. Everything the man has done needs to be looked upon as having the taint of illegitimacy.

267 posted on 08/01/2012 3:46:23 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I’m not going to bother with you or your points. Responding to you is not worth my time.


268 posted on 08/01/2012 3:48:13 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
You're on a roll Diogenes. You make some excellent cogent points above.

Thank you! I was actually rather proud of a few of my turns of phrase. As Mark Twain said, "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."

I keep thinking that if the concept is expressed simply enough, people will go "Ah!" And a light bulb will come on.

269 posted on 08/01/2012 3:54:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

As a point of interest, Jefferson used “inalienable” in the Declaration of Independence

Jefferson’s copy
http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mjm/27/0700/0743.jpg

Jefferson’s rough draft
http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/001/0500/0545.jpg

Both of which can be accessed through
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DeclarInd.html
under the heading “The James Madison Papers” and “The Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress”

The engrossed version uses “unalienable”


270 posted on 08/01/2012 3:55:55 PM PDT by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
No doubt. Thanks for dropping in on this thread, DL.

You're welcome. Thanks for the heads up. Haven't had this much fun in awhile. :)

Any logical discussion of what the Founders meant by Natural Born Citizen should start with the simple question: "What is the purpose of the NBC language in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution?"

If the answer is "To ensure, to the greatest degree possible, the presumed undivided loyalty of one entrusted with the awesome power of the Executive" then the conclusion becomes as simple as it is inevitable: A NBC is a citizen born of parents who are also citizens.

I would say that our opponents want to start with what the latest courts say, and work their way backwards, but they don't. They just want to stop at what the latest court says without wondering if it is actually correct.

Enlightenment is not their goal.

271 posted on 08/01/2012 3:59:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
There is not a court in the US that agrees with you.

Well absolutely! Given the current lack of sanity in our court system, I find it reassuring that they don't agree!

272 posted on 08/01/2012 4:01:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
You are a citizen one of two ways, naturalized or “natural born”.

Where do you get this from? Tell me, what were Indians prior to the Indian Citizenship act of 1924? Were they "naturalized" or "natural born"? Explain how you arrived at your conclusion for whatever status you grant them.

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.

Or if you were born as the Child of a British Loyalist after the Revolutionary War, or if you were born the Child of a slave prior to the 14th Amendment, or if you were born to an Indian prior to 1924, or if you were the foreign born Child of an American Woman who was married to a foreigner.

Funny.... It took subsequent laws to make these natural citizens into citizens. Why for it took laws to make something "natural"? If we pass a law, can we turn a dog into a sheep? I don't mind eating sheep, but I wouldn't want to eat a dog.

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

If I am born in a barn, does that make me a cow? What if I am born in Orbit? Am I American if I emerge over the U.S. or am I Russian if I emerge over Russia? I suppose a woman would really need to time her pushes just right.

I happen to agree with you that the Children of Military personnel are "natural born citizens" regardless of where they are born. Where stand our fighting men, there America is also. Vattel also agrees with this principle. It is just common sense.


273 posted on 08/01/2012 4:16:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: 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.

You are missing the point. A "natural" citizen is not created by law. The condition of being a "natural" citizen is inherent in their nature, like hair or eye color.

You can't make a law to declare something "natural." (Well, you can, but it makes as much sense as a law to declare that a dog is a sheep.)

I will point out that the U.S. Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to "naturalize" citizens. "Naturalize" means to "make like natural". Just as an Adoption makes an unrelated child a member of a family, so does "naturalization" make citizens out of non-citizens.

But let us not fool ourselves into believing that "naturalized" citizens are the same thing as "natural" citizens.

274 posted on 08/01/2012 4:27:37 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You stepped into a trap, all of you, and you don't realize it.

Yes, we looked at a thread of which you were a part. Just stop! You're killing me! I'm falling out of my chair laughing...

275 posted on 08/01/2012 4:31:42 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting

Madison WROTE the Constitution.

Madison is an authority, then, on “original intent” don’t you think?

Madison says, clearly, that Congress can change the rules for birthright citizenship.


276 posted on 08/01/2012 4:31:49 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Have you ever won, in a Court Room?

I have, nearly a dozen times, on all types of cases, and I am not even an attorney.

You are not very good at legal matters.

In fact, you kind of suck at this.


277 posted on 08/01/2012 4:34:14 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
As a point of interest, Jefferson used “inalienable” in the Declaration of Independence

Original draft or rewrite? Jefferson's initial work was considered too inflammatory by the other founders, and they stripped some of the objectionable language out of it. Jefferson always resented this and proceeded to show his original version to any visitors who happened to stay at his house, urging them to chose which of the manuscripts they thought better.

278 posted on 08/01/2012 4:39:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting; All

“It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that colony.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


279 posted on 08/01/2012 4:41:12 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
"Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

 

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

 

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

 

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

 

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

 

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

 

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

 

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.

 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

 

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.

 

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT"]

280 posted on 08/01/2012 4:55:45 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

-PJ

281 posted on 08/01/2012 5:05:25 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Blackstone was FAR more important, to the founders, than was Vattel.

That you ignore Blackstone says a great deal about how weak your case is.

More to the point, NONE of your citations really hits the mark in the case at hand, RE: Rubio.

Dicta is not controlling. You do not know how to distinguish controlling facts from non controlling facts and statements by the Court.

282 posted on 08/01/2012 5:06:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All

“The fact is that these opinions are in the distinct minority. And in the rare instance when a judge has said that a NBC must have parents who are citizens, it has not been part of the decision in the case. Such comments have been gratuitous or “dictum,” as the lawyers say. That is, not necessary to the actual holding in the case.

Previous Court Scenarios

Where the issue has been squarely before a court, the result has been otherwise. In Lynch v Clark, decided in 1844, the issue was the right to inherit. The New York court held that the child, born in the U.S. of British subjects, could inherit because she was a NBC. In 1898 the Supreme Court in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark held the same way. Those cases are still good law today. These courts relied upon , in part, the English common law in deriving the intent of the Founders and pointed out that in England being born on English soil was sufficient for citizenship. The statements of James Madison, for one, make it clear that the Founders had no intention of deviating from the common law in this regard. This is further supported by official opinions of our nation’s Attorney Generals going back several years.

Finally, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which states, in part: “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.” Reading this together with Article 2 would indicate that the additional “natural born” requirement of Article 2 for a citizen to be eligible to be president meant that being “naturalized” would not suffice. He must be born here.

In 2011 the Congressional Research Service accurately stated, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” …by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”

While the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential candidate’s eligibility as a NBC, it is inconceivable that the Court would depose a president who was born on American soil. Some people love to excite and stir us up but we have an election coming up, folks. May I suggest that we resist the temptation to chase every rabbit that comes down the trail and focus, instead, on that?
Fred Thompson
From the Thread Article


283 posted on 08/01/2012 5:12:02 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Blackstone was FAR more important, to the founders, than was Vattel. That you ignore Blackstone says a great deal about how weak your case is.

Wrong nimrod. LoL. Vattel, who wrote the Law of Nations was the guiding light for the Founders - not Blackstone.

And Blackstone and Vattel do agree on natural born. Read carefully.

"William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

1765

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .

“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. ...

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. "


Tsk tsk... you shouldn't be reading those OBot blogs. They have a tendency to lie to themselves and everyone else.

284 posted on 08/01/2012 5:34:20 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
More to the point, NONE of your citations really hits the mark in the case at hand, RE: Rubio.

Dicta is not controlling. You do not know how to distinguish controlling facts from non controlling facts and statements by the Court.

LoL again...

In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court directly construed that US Constitution Natural Born Citizen clause and NOT the 14th Amendment. That's a holding and not dicta.

However, in Wong Kim Ark v. US, Gray cited Blackstone as dicta and construed the 14th Amendment to find Ark only as a citizen.

285 posted on 08/01/2012 5:41:15 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
You might notice, if you understood legal argument, that the thread concerns Rubio.

On the question of Rubio and HIS Natural Born Citizenship status, Blackstone agrees with me.

““Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the allegiance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .”

286 posted on 08/01/2012 5:45:32 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Well, maybe these "candidates" need to be vetted just a little bit instead of being "immaculated". Maybe just a few questions would solve the problem in the future.

We don't have to worry about this guy. He is toast. Not enough fraud can be generated to help him out.

287 posted on 08/01/2012 5:45:52 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Again from above - “When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance,...

Blackstone means aliens born in the England are aliens who not of allegiance to the king and are not natural born subjects until England passed some law, regulation, or statute to make them natural born subjects.

In England natural born subjects included naturalization of aliens as they too were also called natural born subjects.

There is no distinction of natural born subjects in English law between natural born v. naturalized persons.

288 posted on 08/01/2012 5:55:59 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
English common law is inapplicable to the Federal government. Reliance on it by Federal judges is a very great and dangerous mistake.

Has the common law of England been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution?

There is in the Constitution no Article, Section, Clause, or anything whatsoever which incorporates the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.

The common law of England has not been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution.

Has there been any Amendment to the Constitution or any legislated Act to incorporate the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States?

There has not been any Amendment or Act incorporating the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.

Is there in the Constitution any grant to the federal judiciary authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing?

There is in the Constitution no grant to the federal judiciary authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing.

Could the common law of England become part of the law of the United States by its being part of the law of each of the states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?

Although this would be giving efficacy to the inferior instead of the superior and a direct violation of U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, could it be possible?

The law of each state prior to the adoption of the Constitution consisted of the common law of England, the state constitution, and the acts of the state legislature.

The common law of England then was only one of three pillars on which the law of each state was built. It was also the weakest of the three; because it ceased to have any efficacy as law as soon as it was clearly contradicted by either of the others.

If the common law became a part of the law of the United States, because it was part of the law of the individual state, the other two parts of the law of those states must also become a part of the law of the United States, and for the same reason.

But it may be said that these other two parts of the law of each state were dissimilar in the different states, and therefore could not become a part of the law of the United States; whereas the common law of England, in every state being the same, it might become the common law of the United States.

Is the common law of England in every state the same?

The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.

Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.

But the great difference which has been made in the common law in the different states, has proceeded from the changes which have been made in it, by the acts of all the legislatures of the different states, from the time of their first settlement.

Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.

The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States? How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c

Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable. Further, whatever species of the common law of England extant in the law or Constitution of the several states at the time of the Adoption – or at any time – are by U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 prohibited from incorporation into the Federal government.

Therefor, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.

The jurisdiction of Federal courts is defined by the Constitution. Federal judicial reliance on the common law of England is a dangerous usurpation and a direct subversion of the fundamental principle of separation of powers. Any incorporation of English common law is not a Judicial power, it is a power of the Legislature.

This judicial myth of the common law of England being a part of federal law is dangerous. Federal court judges misconstrue the doctrine of stare decisis mistakenly believing that the common law of England actually is incorporated into federal law since a prior court said so.

A court can not establish a new grant of power to itself!

The unsanctioned assumption of power not granted does not establish precedent in the sense of stare decisis. Stare decisis: “to stand by things decided” not “to stand by powers self-granted”.

English common law is not a part of our national law, any Federal judge’s claim notwithstanding.

This terribly mistaken idea gained currency circa 1845 and O. W. Holmes championed it. The border insecurities, the bankrupting of our municipalities and hospitals, corruption and dilution of citizens' votes, etc, are in no small measure symptoms of the “anchor baby” crisis birthed by Justice Gray’s reliance on this alien system of law.

- – - -

Further explanation as to why English common law can not be the basis of the Federal govt. can be found at the Library of Congress:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fawbib:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bbf0081%29%29

The explanation is found in the Appendix to “Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798″ The Appendix is titled, “Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press”

The relevant pages of the original document, as well as a transcript from those images, is available at scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89761472/

289 posted on 08/01/2012 6:12:21 PM PDT by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Since you like to quote James Madison, have another.

"36 Madison's Debates in Federal Convention

In a word; the two extremes before us are a perfect separation & a perfect incorporation, of The two the 13 States. In the first case they would be extremes, independent nations subject to no law, but the law of nations. In the last, they would be mere counties of one entire republic, subject to one common law. 1 "


Law of Nations and subject to one common law. Here's a hint for you, Madison is NOT speaking about English Common Law.

290 posted on 08/01/2012 6:20:10 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Thanks for the back-story.


291 posted on 08/01/2012 6:22:03 PM PDT by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
While I agree with what you've written here, I'd suggest spending a little time reading about George Mason, particularly his comments regarding the proposed Constitution completely overturning common law, which it did, leading to his walking out on the Convention, as well as the campaign he immediately mounted upon ratification to include a Bill of Rights.

The very first amendment to that new Constitution did incorporate the Bill Of Rights. Those rights were largely the rights of an Englishman. Therefore, to the very limited extent that English common law ever existed in any overarching form in the new nation under the Constitution, it is embodied in our First Amendment rights. All else in the Constitution overturned the common law, as well it should, as the new nation sought to separate itself from being bound by the very common law that so many persist in claiming as guiding principal for original intent.

292 posted on 08/01/2012 6:33:28 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; DiogenesLamp

“In every case, they would vote that I am kicking your ass on the legal arguments.”

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Funniest thing I’ve read all day. Kansas hasn’t even countered a single argument. His only argument is “People of high import agree with me.”. Ha ha ha.

What a joke this guy is. You hop on every thread to protect Rubio. I hope you have another job because you suck at this!

I’ve never even seen DiogenesLamp’s postings before, but you are getting taken to the woodshed by him and almost everyone here. Ha ha ha.

Your replies are so weak and funny, that you couldn’t possibly be real. I’m guessing you either a DU’er or a member of the Legion of Zero looking to have some fun getting folks riled up. At least I hope you are....ha ha.

Ha ha ha. Keep ‘EM coming. If it hurts your brain too much, you can just copy and paste some of your previous postings since you have yet to advance beyond your Stewart Smalley “people like me” argument. Ha ha ha.


293 posted on 08/01/2012 6:56:03 PM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; DiogenesLamp

“Have you ever won, in a Court Room?

I have, nearly a dozen times, on all types of cases, and I am not even an attorney.”

Come on now! Junior high mock trial doesn’t count....especially since you were going against young kids. Ha ha ha!


294 posted on 08/01/2012 7:06:12 PM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Ray76; Kansas58; RegulatorCountry

According to the U S Supreme Court:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]”

The point was not that English common law controlled US law, but that it formed the language used by the Founders. To know what the Founders intended, you have to know the legal language they used.

NBC” and “natural born subject” were used interchangeably by the Mass legislature that ratified the Constitution. Thus a rational person could conclude that NBC & NBS had interchangeable meanings in the eyes of those who approved the Constitution, and that the common law meaning of NBS drove the understanding the Founders had for NBC.

That is why birthers lose in every case. They defy not just the courts, but reason itself.


295 posted on 08/01/2012 7:14:16 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Did a natural born subject have the right to expatriate, or was he held to be in perpetual allegiance, Mr. Rogers? And also, ask yourself the same question regarding a natural born citizen.


296 posted on 08/01/2012 7:23:23 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Of course, I try to use logic and reason and an understanding of language with them, as they copy and paste off-topic cases and off-the-mark quotes.

Much of what birthers post works against them, but they dont get it.

They can not find, anywhere, anyone with authority who actually agrees with them.

It does not matter, they invent “case law” out of thin air, which does not support them, and often contradicts them, and run with it.

The whole world is made up of “stupid” people like me, and the 1,000 or so radical birthers are the ONLY people with any “wisdom” in their eyes.

297 posted on 08/01/2012 7:38:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

A NBS who came to America had the right to become a US citizen. Remember the War of 1812?


298 posted on 08/01/2012 7:39:35 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Kansas58
Both Rubio and Jindal are eligible

Smith v Alabama

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem – and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, ”strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his 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.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

“independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger

[...] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.”

Lynch v Clarke

The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
299 posted on 08/01/2012 7:49:39 PM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
I'm cross-posting this post here. Might as well combine arguments in one place.

First, Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is NOT “controlling” as you state, on 1st Amendment or Church/State issues. Next?

Why do you say this, given that the phrase "church and state" does not exist in the Constitution, and the only place that "wall of separation between Church and State" comes from is Jefferson's letter? Clearly, Jefferson's letter is the source of this concept, which has been what has survived for over 200 years.

Even this Wikipedia artcle on the Establishment Clause cites Jefferson's letter. Do you have another source for the common interpretation of the First Amendment Establishment clause?

You are making a HUGE leap, with your weak arguments.

Given that this is in reply to my quoting the Preamble to the Constitution, I will say that my argument is the strongest of all, because it relies SOLELY on the Constitution, and does not need outside support to interpret it. Since the Article VI Supremacy clause says that "any Thing in the Constitution" is supreme Law of the Land, and the Preamble is a Thing in the Constitution, it should be given deference to interpretations that rely on outside support.

I have posted before that I think that SCOTUS was wrong in Minor when they said that they had to look elsewhere for the definition of natural born citizen, because the definition was right there in front of them in the Preamble. Sometimes, when one over-thinks things, one becomes blind to the obvious.

The Constitution was ordained and established to preserve liberty for the people and their posterity. Only the posterity are eligible to be the head of the country in order to secure its preservation.

-PJ

300 posted on 08/01/2012 9:50:28 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-321 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