Posted on 05/23/2011 12:43:41 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Rising stars of GOP in doubt because parents from overseas
Are U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal natural-born citizens of the United States, and thus eligible for the presidency?
Plotkin says Jindal's mother became a U.S. citizen Sept. 21, 1976, and his father was naturalized 10 years later on Dec. 4, 1986.
It's a similar situation for Rubio, as his press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator's parents "were permanent legal residents of the U.S." at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, "Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975," Burgos told WND.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Cain is the only one I can think of.
Anyone OTHER THAN a non-citizen of the USA or a naturalized citizen.
According to the current reading of the law - only non-citizens or naturalized citizens are excluded.
U.S. citizens are either born citizens and thus are “natural born” or they are “naturalized” to confer that status that would have been theirs by nature.
Notice how someone didn’t answer your question and turned it around. The full discussion of SR511 included the TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS which the Ineligible Won signed his name to. Hillary also acknowledge that definition with her signature. There is no wiggle room out of it especially since he still claims papa was a Kenyan. He’s a lying usurper, plain and simple.
Not only has no court ever ruled that two citizen parents are required, but now no court ever will. Not when we’ve gone 3 years with a sitting President who openly admitted and even boasted during the campaign that his father was from Kenya.
Hogwash and you know it.
Funny, I don’t recall you or a couple other posters who have suddenly shown up to deny source after scourc for TWO US CITIZEN PARTENTS in the countless other threads on NBC. Wonder why that is? But since you haven’t been in on these discussions for the past three years, here’s just one thread you might consider reading. No, you probably won’t read it but will just post some lame denial again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts
Amazing ain't it?!
Some peoples need for a conspiracy overwhelms the obviousness of that simple truth. Obama, his lawyers and a collection of Hawaiian government officials are all on record admitting Obama's father was Kenyan. And rather than move on to the next phase, the birth certificate conspiracy is like a perpetual motion machine that can't stop.
We can't talk about "natural born citizen" until we get to the bottom of the smiley face.
Correct.
And the appeal to Vattel, as I've pointed out, is problematic as well.
Vattel's system is markedly different from ours: the children of non-citizen permanent residents are not citizens under Vattel, but are clearly US citizens under US law.
He himself points out that there are significant real-life exceptions to his ideal definitions of terms.
Documentation? Really? What documentation did he present? Do you know something no one else knows? As far as anyone knows, he never presented anything. Have you not read about all the problems with Pelosi and her DNC forms? Hawaii refused to certify the joker because they knew the truth so Pelosi had to re-word it for them. Can you say big flashing red light.
If you didn’t want anyone besides those who already have a track record of obsession with this issue to post to this thread, it should have been made a caucus thread.
The precision has meaning. The 1790 act used the exact same wording - "natural born Citizen". Since the ONLY reason for "natural born" is for Presidential qualification the tie-in in inescapable. It was a direct tie to AIIS1.
I agree that the act did not by itself 'define' "natural born Citizen". But it indicated what was CONSIDERED the key criteria - jus sanguinis. I believe that the act was an attempt to somewhat override AII. It did this by ignoring or downplaying jus soli. Even the infamous SR 511 mis-states that this act 'defined' natural born Citizen.
The act was not repealed as much as replaced and simply omitted. I have never found a specific, verified reason for the omission in the 1975 act. One theory, and it is only a theory, is that the error of overriding AII via a law or act was not proper was recognized by Congress and thus this override was dropped.
But during the 5 years in was in effect it provided not just 'citizenship' to those born overseas to parents who where already citizens. It provided codified law to 'consider' those born only under the rule of jus sanguinis 'as' natural born Citizens. As pointed out the child would still need to live within US at some point to claim their citizenship. But if they did do that and then met the 'Citizenship' requirement the act gave them claim to the 'natural born' criteria and thus they could be President and CiC.
In summary, there is an ongoing argument - strongly argued today - that 'natural born Citizen' has never been formally defined. In the strictest sense that is true. But this act, that was even cited in SR 511 (though slightly incorrectly) provides insight that jus sanguinis WAS (and IS) part of the definition. But only part. But this part seemed to be considered dominiant of the two parts typically argued - jus soli and jus sanguinis. Blood is thicker than dirt to the Congress of 1790.
Problematic on various grounds, not least of which is that Vattel is not a legally binding document.
Of course it was.
From the text of the 1795 Naturalization Act:
"Section 4. And be it further enacted that the act entituled [sic] "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed."
They offered this as proof that he was born in the US. So if they were asserting that this document was legitimate, they were also asserting that his father was the non-citizen Barack Obama Sr.
See, twisting it around. So, typical. If you have no sources but “it’s right because I said so.” The only two arguments you naysayers have is Ark and that it’s not been defined. We all know the arguments for and against Ark. Ark is one decision by one judge but there are many sources throughout history which are to the contrary. As for the Constitution not defining NBC, well, guess what?!? Surprise, it’s not a dictionary. And no, anyone over the age of 18 months didn’t need to run to the SCOTUS to find out what the meaning of “is” is.
this is a bunk issue as it was bunk yesterday when the other world nut daily article was posted.
obama is not setting a precident, assuming he was born in hawaii, he is following precident based on previous presidents and presidential candidates’ eligibility.
This is a sacraficial annode issue. It detracts from the real issues. How about we find a real good candidate not the current posse of anticipated and declared candidates.
how about we hold congress’ feet to the fire so they do what they were elected to do.
This issue is pure junk and is out there for suckers.
Have you noticed how many new names are suddenly posting on eligibility threads? Many have old sign up dates so they should have been involved in discussions at some point in the past three years, but I don’t recall seeing them. They come on and don’t have any clue on the research and never have source links other than Ark.
That said, new ideas and opinions are great and wonderful so more the merrier. I also don’t normally go by recent sign up dates much since I know some may be oldsters. But when an old sign up date shows up out of the blue, well, that just sends up red flags. There seems to be some agenda with this recent influx of the “NBC hasn’t been defined so birthers are wrong” posts. What’s your take on it?
Of course the Constitution isn't a dictionary.
Its terms have to be defined by intent.
And divining intent by saying: "just check Vattel or the 1790 Naturalization Act or the comments made by Judge A in case X or by majority B in case Y" doesn't solve the issue.
A hard and fast definition covering all the angles of the issue has yet to be offered by any "authority", or found in the writings of any Founder, or in the legislation of any Congress or the decisions of any court.
I will freely admit to not being a lawyer or a constitutional expert. But just because of what some founding fathers may have thought, the ultimate source and authority of all our laws is the constitution. If the constitution backs their argument, they have a just argument. If not, and it appears it doesn't, they should drop the matter and get down to the business of throwing Obama out by the ballot box.
The definition covering all the angles of the issue carved in stone by George Washington himself and placed in the cornerstone of the White House for safe keeping would not enough for some.
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.