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

Skip to comments.

Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president
St. Petersburg Times ^ | October 20, 2011 | Alex Leary

Posted on 10/20/2011 1:47:23 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife

Born on American soil? Yes? Eligible to be President.

Born on American soil? No? Not eligible to be President.

Nothing else matters.


21 posted on 10/20/2011 3:17:33 AM PDT by WildWeasel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; rxsid

This is a small portion of information from Freeper rxsid page:

John Bingham, “father of the 14th Amendment”, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people’s house regarding “citizenship” and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect’s multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

There’s more here....http://www.freerepublic.com/~rxsid/


22 posted on 10/20/2011 3:24:40 AM PDT by abigailsmybaby ("To understan' the livin', you gotta commune wit' da dead." Minerva)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.


23 posted on 10/20/2011 3:27:42 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
There are a group within the U.S. that views our nation’s exceptionalism as a barrier to Global government. So little by little they are trying to breakdown those peices which prevent the nation from being dragged down to the level of the rest of the world.

Destroying the U.S.Constitution is a major piece of their plan. By enticing Republicans into drafting Rubio, who isn’t NBC, into running for the VP slot, those Globalists hope to break the Constitution down into confetti.

That's it, in a nutshell.

The communist movement has long had among its main goals in the USA to usurp, pervert, twist, bend, undermine, by whatever means available, the US Constitution, and thus incrementally render it useless as a blueprint for our ongoing civic structure.

Without such a blueprint, the USA can readily be converted into any third-world cesspool the invaders and traitors wish to have.

24 posted on 10/20/2011 3:28:37 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WildWeasel
Born on American soil? Yes? Eligible to be President.

Born on American soil? No? Not eligible to be President.

Nothing else matters.

Were this the case, then any enemy of the USA could visit the US, produce a child with any number of willing US women, raise that child to become president, then destroy the USA from within, using the powers of the highest office in the land.

This is precisely what is currently happening to the USA.

And this is precisely what the founders and framers warned against, and what they attempted to avoid with the Natural Born Citizen requirement for president.

25 posted on 10/20/2011 3:38:37 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I don't think Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal are either. Come to think of it... neither am I eligible to be President because of the natural born citizenship clause (my mother was born in Canada).

A horrific loss for the entire nation.

26 posted on 10/20/2011 3:40:00 AM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
There is no debate about where Marco was born (Miami in 1071)....

Holy cow! He was born in the year of the Battle of Manzikert? Well, I guess that puts to rest the question of whether the Spanish ever discovered the Fountain of Youth ..... evidently, they did!

Way to go, Marco! Now, where's the fountain?

27 posted on 10/20/2011 3:42:46 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
RR’s parents were U.S.citizens. His grandparents do not matter.

Correctumondo! However, in my case my mother was born in Canada; ergo, I am not a natural born citizen under Article II; Sec. I; U.S. Const. I am not eligible for the presidency along with The Messiah. And the Messiah's continuing destructive tenure as president shows the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in sticking that clause in there.

28 posted on 10/20/2011 3:44:27 AM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

I should know better than to type while wearing a patch on my left eye.

It was 1971-—clearly.

Count on the spelling Nazis to show up to bash every slip.


29 posted on 10/20/2011 3:46:30 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12
Ditto, my mother was still a UK subject when I was born (she didn't take out First Papers until I was six).

Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. If it's true of Obama, it's true of others. No NBC = no constitutional Article II eligibility.

Now CJ John Roberts needs to do his *****ing job and get Obozo out of there!

30 posted on 10/20/2011 3:46:49 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
I should know better than to type while wearing a patch on my left eye.

Arrrrr, mitey!! lol

Count on the spelling Nazis to show up to bash every slip.

Do I get to wear a natty uniform and march funny? ;)

31 posted on 10/20/2011 3:50:37 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The problem as I see it is this:
Marco is a Conservative Republican and a good one.
That disqualifies him with the RATS.
32 posted on 10/20/2011 4:02:18 AM PDT by DeaconRed (Cold War Veteran. . . . US Army Security Agency 1964-1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; P-Marlowe
There is reality and there is opinion. Reality is that current law DOES equate "native born" and "natural born." That means that there is no legal impediment to Rubio running for the presidency. He was born in this country to parents who had been in this country for years and had no intention of leaving. He can't even be claimed to be an "anchor baby" of convenience. Another point of those who question Obama's qualifications is that "native born" must be interpreted in the way that the Founders would have interpreted it. As a philosophical exercise, I am willing to do that. At the same time, I would insist that we must also use the citizenship law that was first in effect in the USA. If we use the founder-era definition of "natural born", then we must use the "founder era" citizenship law, and that is the "Naturalization Act of 1790." The details of that law are simple: 2 years residence with one in the state of residence, good character, and a pledge to any legal court to support the Constitution. Once residency requirement is met, the process, as I see it, could take no more than one minute.

Using that standard, Rubio's mother had already been naturalized prior to Rubio's birth. His father had been before the court a couple of times in his application for residency, and the Cuban refugee act automatically put him on a track for citizenship.

Had it simply been a matter of residency and pledge, then Rubio's dad had MORE THAN fulfilled that obligation.

33 posted on 10/20/2011 5:22:51 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

The patch is due to ocular lymphoma. If you find that amusing, maybe you should think about getting your values checked.


34 posted on 10/20/2011 5:25:20 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
RR’s parents were U.S.citizens. His grandparents do not matter.

This is true. But the parents were not citizens at the time of Marco Rubio's birth. That is where the issue lies. They were here legally, they subsequently became American citizens but it is not clear that this fits with the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

As I understand it, the idea of Natural Born Citizen as a qualification for the Presidency arose out of the founding fathers fear that someone with divided loyalties (U.S. vs. England for example) could be elected President. If your parents were British citizens resident in the U.S. there would be the possibility of such a thing happening. This would have been tragic had it happened in the early years of our country, years when the possibility of the English monarchy reestablishing its rule over our 'renegade' colony were quite real.

This is not a knock on Marco Rubio. He is certainly a rising star in the GOP and he would very likely make a good President. But the issue of his eligibility is real and cannot simply be tossed aside because we all like the guy.

35 posted on 10/20/2011 5:33:47 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
Were this the case, then any enemy of the USA could visit the US, produce a child with any number of willing US women, raise that child to become president, then destroy the USA from within, using the powers of the highest office in the land.

So it's just that easy, huh? Crank out a kid and 50 years later he will certainly be president and be able to destroy the U.S. Amazing that Hitler or Stalin didn't try it. </sarcasm>

36 posted on 10/20/2011 5:35:00 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: abigailsmybaby
...all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

So you're saying that even after they fled Cuba for life in the U.S., Rubio's parents believed they owed their allegiance to Castro when Rubio was born? Has anyone told them?

37 posted on 10/20/2011 5:37:39 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Chief Justice Roberts obviously disagrees with you since he swore Obama into office. Don't expect SCOTUS, Congress or any state to take any action against Obama or Rubio to prevent him from running or holding office.
38 posted on 10/20/2011 5:48:55 AM PDT by ydoucare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The big laugh over this whole St. Pete Times issue is that this is their lead story, front page, with a banner headline. Did we read anything in the St. Pete Pravda about Obama’s little eligibility problem in their rag? Noooooo. What a bunch of friggin hypocrites. These idiots have no conscience.


39 posted on 10/20/2011 5:52:29 AM PDT by shortstop (It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Marco was born (Miami in 1071)...

He and Helen Thomas were classmates.

40 posted on 10/20/2011 5:56:17 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (Obama Voters: Jose Baez wants YOU for his next jury pool.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 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