Posted on 01/14/2016 11:29:42 AM PST by GIdget2004
Marco Rubio's lawyers are defending his eligibility to run for president in a quixotic legal challenge that alleges he isn't a natural-born citizen.
A Florida voter filed the suit, which claims that the senator isn't a true "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution because his parents were not both U.S. citizens at his birth in Miami.
The challenge occurs as 2016 rival Ted Cruz has been thrust into the spotlight by repeated "birther" challenges by party front-runner Donald Trump and other critics because the Texas senator was born in Canada.
So far, only Cruz has faced significant questions from those challenging his natural-born status. But the legal brief shows Rubio's lawyers trying to cut down the accusations at an early level.
The 34-page document, first disclosed by the Tampa Bay Times, casts aside the claim, noting that under the voter's logic "at least six other Presidents of the United States were not natural born citizens and were therefore ineligible for that office."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
“Study this so you can at least argue from an informed standpoint:”
Oh cut it out with the insults. You then send me a link to a ‘Vanity Essay’. If you have some comment on what I said, why don’t you make it yourself rather than send me a link?
I’m not interested in reading (what borders on a book) of someone’s opinion. That poster has their opinion and I have mine. I maintain that if one or both of your parents are American citizens, you should still be a natural born citizen even if you’re born abroad. Remember that the Constitution requires that you be 35 and have lived in the US for at least 14 years. That means that if a person was born abroad, they still need to have lived in the US for a long time.
And considering how laxed the courts are about illegal immigration, it’s almost impossible for me to imagine that SCOTUS or federal court would turn Ted Cruz down if and when he gets it clarified.
Vietnam Legacy: Finding G.I. Fathers, and Children Left Behind
Thousands were left behind.
Bruce Willis isn't running for potus.
“Americans, unless they have lived abroad, do not know that millions of American citizens living abroad have had children or that American law makes no provision for as certainly the status of many of these children.”
Well said, and I’ve lived abroad so I have some perspective on that too (not personally, as I’m native born). And People who maintain that you’re not a full American unless you were born in the US to both US citizen parents are being foolish. Indeed, numerous presidents had immigrant parents, yet that didn’t stop them from being President. There are as you say many, many children born abroad to military families, missionaries, diplomats, etc and they are supposedly not natural born citizens? I think not.
But if you would rather spout BS as you did in other posts, by all means, carry on...sheesh.
“Thousands were left behind.”
Well, I stand corrected. That, however, is a stickier and messier situation because it’s mostly out of wedlock and so forth so I think the courts would have to decide that.
“Bruce Willis isn’t running for potus.”
Now, that’s a lame dodge. Do you think he’s eligible to be president? Do you think he’s any less a citizen than yourself?
“It wasn’t an insult moron, it was a link to well sourced info that you (if you care to) and become informed of some very interesting history.”
You say it wasn’t an insult and then you insult me again by calling me a moron? Makes me wonder if you actually believe in your interpretation of this. As they say, if you resort to insults, you’re losing the argument. That person who made the Vanity Post is clearly stating their own opinion and conclusion. They’ve done some research admittedly, but it’s still presented as their own opinion and they are simply wrong (in my opinion). Chester Arthur is widely believed to have been foreign born and Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had foreign-born mothers.
“But if you would rather spout BS as you did in other posts, by all means, carry on...sheesh.”
Nothing I’ve said is BS. You really should tone the insults down and stick to logical debate. Interesting that you refer to someone else’s post but have nothing but insults to say yourself. Why not take the time to express your own opinion?
YOU, took the first post as an insult, my second post to you was indeed and insult.
You don't have a clue as to what you are posting here, you should study and write from an informed point of view.
I offered something for you to accomplish that, you refuse to even read it and come back with a derogatory "it's a vanity post" that I submitted for your perusal.
Why not take the time to express your own opinion?
I have over 24k posts here and 10 years, most of them on this issue, why don't you take the time to study and learn instead of barking out of your n00b azz?
Arthur appointed Justice Gray...to Supreme Court?
I see what you are trying to say but it is two different circumstances. In order for a child to be considered a citizen at birth, there must be an immediate connection to the United States. Example 1: One or both parents are citizens and the child is born in the US (or US territory), the child is a US citizen. Example 2: Child is born outside of US or US territory but at least one parent is a US citizen. The Child MAY be considered a citizen depending on the age and previous residency of the citizen parent in the US. (Ted Cruz, mom was a citizen, of age and had lived in the US the required number of years. He was then considered born a citizen of the US) Example 3: Child is born in the US and neither parent are US citizens. As the law currently reads, that child would also be considered a citizen at birth. There is NOT an example or scenario where a non-citizen of the US has a child outside of the US or US Territory where that child would be BORN a US citizen.
You really want to keep going down that slippery slope? Before Obama, the expectation was born in the US, two citizen parents. Obama got a “pass” because of reverse discrimination. You really want to turn one bad situation into a precedent of ignoring the law as it has been enforced in the past?
Precedent Obama has rendered that clause moot.
Under the current definition of simply being born a citizen, if even only on one’s mother’s side, makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible. (his mother was an American)
I went to school in the 1960’s and was taught that natural born citizen was a subset of citizen and required only for the office of President. Must be born here to citizen parents. Reading the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution confirms this. They wanted no divided allegiance. If you could be anything other than a U.S. citizen, you can’t be a natural born citizen. No foreign births, no foreign parents.
Many people wanted the definition changed for various reasons.
“YOU, took the first post as an insult, my second post to you was indeed and insult.”
Well, at least you admit it.
“You don’t have a clue as to what you are posting here, you should study and write from an informed point of view.”
Everything you’ve written is from your own (inflated, I might add) point of view. You have not written a single word of anything except insults and sweeping statements about how stupid you think I am.
“I offered something for you to accomplish that, you refuse to even read it and come back with a derogatory “it’s a vanity post” that I submitted for your perusal.”
It is a vanity post and his conclusion at the end (yes I took a cursory look at it) is simply not true. If it were true, the courts would have stopped Obama from becoming president. Also, various presidents in history have had at least one immigrant parent and that didn’t stop them, either.
“I have over 24k posts here and 10 years, most of them on this issue”
Yet you have not taken the time to write a single word on the subject to me. Please summarize your opinion on this rather than send me to a book that someone has written as a vanity piece. It’s not like it was written by Madison or Jefferson.
“instead of barking out of your n00b azz”
You just can’t resist sneering, can you? Please stop with the grade school insults and enter into a substantive debate on the subject. For instance, have you ever lived overseas for a good number of years (I have)? Living overseas gives a certain perspective that Americans who’ve never lived abroad don’t have. The poster you quoted concludes that a natural born person must have been born in the US and have had both citizen parents when their child was born. I strongly take issue with that because it sure seems to have been written by someone who has not seen how that is impractical and unfair to Americans who were born abroad for various reasons.
So please, take the time to tell me why my viewpoint on this is wrong.
Well written. What I am picking up is you can be an American citizen by statute, automatically deemed so by an Act of Congress. By this view, Cruz born in Canada is a U.S. citizen by statute, Nikki Haley, born here of immigrant Indian parents, is a citizen by statute, anchor babies born here of usually illegal aliens, are citizens by statute, and various others incidences. But natural born is born here, two American parents, and in my opinion is what the founding fathers and the Constitution means.
“Less a citizen? No. Eligible to be Pres, no. Meeting the requirements doesn’t make ya less, just not eligible. Being under 35 does not make you less a citizen, just not eligible to Pres.”
By very definition that makes that person less of a citizen because they’re prohibited from holding the highest office of the land. Someone who is definitely prohibited from becoming president is Arnold Schwarzenegger and he isn’t happy about it, because it makes him a bit lower of a citizen than you or me. And he is someone who would like to be president, yet he can’t because his citizenship is not that of a natural born citizen.
Even though they’ll never hold that position, these citizens born abroad to an American parent(s) will have to know that their citizenship is less than that of most Americans. And that is what I believe is unfair, because they clearly are not immigrants or illegals, etc. Clearly, SCOTUS will need to weigh in on this as they will (more substantively) on ‘anchor babies’ and so forth.
Obama’s issue was that his mom did not reach the age requirement for a child born out of the country to be considered a citizen. When they made up and accepted the certificate stating that he was born in Hawaii it was a done deal. If it had been proven he was born in Kenya, because his mother wasn’t of age, he would not have been considered a NBC. Also there was question that he had renounced his US citizenship at some time when in Indonesia as it was reported he attended college with a student visa. College records were sealed so no proof and I can’t remember the details but this is a different deal.
I agree with you. The problem is that the issue was dropped because the birthers put all their attention to where Obama was born. The result....a very bad precedent. We don’t need more of them.
He was vice-president....same rules apply.
True, but a citizen by statute...not natural born. Why oh why can’t some court take it upon itself to render a judgment? Because they are terrified if it rules on “Natural born” as the only route to running for President, it will take down Obummer’s house of cards and make many people who were complicit (Pelosi, Hawaii, etc.) chargeable.
how can any real man be so useless as to sire a child and abandon him/her???
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.