Skip to comments.Marco Rubio aka Water Boy
Posted on 02/14/2013 5:50:35 PM PST by Vendome
click here to read article
I like it!
Much beter than an 0bama hose ;)
He is going to be a Yugo.
I ordered two.
this is series
Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen.
He was born in Miami, Florida. He's a Natural Born Citizen per the Constitution.
Nobody's buying that birther crap.
Shall we just simply ignore the facts that Marco voted to confirm John Kerry as Sec. of State....for the NDAA AND SUPPORTS AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!
Marco Rubio is very smart. He’s got the same all over Face Book too.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida.
That makes him a natural born citizen of the United States.
Check out the Constitution on the matter.
What duz that have to do with anything?
He’s not running for President.
We could just resort to ignoring you.
The 14th Amendment does not make anyone a “natural born citizen”. The words “natural born” appears nowhere in the Amendment.
Nor did the 14th Amendment change in any way the natural born requirement for the office of President
A man with parents who are both citizens of another country, though he were born on the steps of the Capitol, is not a natural born citizen.
He is an citizen, thus eligible to be a Senator or a Congressman, as long as the age and residency requirements are met.
But not eligible to be a President.
Please produce an opinion by the writers of the 14th Amendment that says otherwise.
“The 14th Amendment does not make anyone a natural born citizen. The words natural born appears nowhere in the Amendment.
Nor did the 14th Amendment change in any way the natural born requirement for the office of President”
What are you talking about. That makes no sense.
There are two waysto become a citizen of the United States.
In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a natural born citizen.
The other way is to enter an become a citizen, or a naturalized citizen.
Rubio, being born in Miami, Florida, is a natural born citizen.
No, it is your entire post which makes no sense.
The only way Marco Rubio qualifies to even be an American citizen is by virtue of the 14th Amendment.That is because he was born in the United States, even though his parents were not citizens.And it could be argued that his parents were subject to the Cuban authorities as Cuban nationals.
You said to check the Constitution.
I did. The 14th Amendment says nothing about a natural born citizen.
Please don't bother responding, as I won't be reading it - I've lowered myself enough already just with this one response.
"Natural born" had a meaning in 1787. Place of birth, plus citizenship of parents, were factors in this determination.It is why the phrase even appears in the eligibility requirements for President.
You quote no source for your definiiton. Kindly do so.
The left has no interest in slighting Rubio’s pro-amnesty message one bit.
It’s not about the 14th...read post 16, it’s about how you become a citizen.
If you have evidence that there is an extra Constitutional requirement to have parents who are also citizens, I’d like to see your evidence.
Laugh all you want.
Answer the question posed.
If you can.
Qualifications for the Office of President
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Your answer is not sufficient to the question posed.
My evidence is historical. Look up the Constitutional Convention discussions on why the natural born requirement was put in the eligibility requirements for President.
There were at least two copies of Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” referenced in the Convention, courtesy of both Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, and possibly a third from Mr. Franklin.The folks in that Convention knew the meaning of the term. It was not a secret.
Natural born does not mean naturally born.
Do your own research.
Before you ask me for more evidence, please provide your own for the questions posed to you.
No thanks. Rubio’s a mole. Don’t say you weren’t warned when he sells conservatives out.
So, the Constitution is not evidence enough for you.
What a joke.
This class of citizens is deceased and no longer eligible.
Thus the only class left is "natural born".
The definition at the time was "born in the country of parents(plural) who were also citizens". This definition was quoted in Supreme Court cases, including Minor.
Guess those Justices didn't know what they were talking about either.
I have given you my evidence from the Constitution. Kindly give me yours.
Hmmm...to hear guys like you, if the guy could walk on water you proclaim to the world “See? He can’t swim!”
I think a lot of us are looking a romanticized ideal politician and there just isn’t one.
We have to work toward our principles and we won’t get 100% of anyone for idealism.
Your definition is incorrect.
If it were the case, Obama would not be President.
I respectfully disagree, in part.
It's the parental citizenship that matters. The place of birth is immaterial.
The phrase 'natural-born comes from Natural Law...a.k.a. the Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel. In a nutshell, natural born citizenship is hereditary...you get it from your parents. If they are either a natural-born or naturalized citizen at the time of the birth of the child, the child is natural born - and it doesn't matter where the birth occurs.
I do how ever, agree the 14th does not convey natural-born citizenship.
By it's current interpretation, it splits the Original meaning of natural born into a separate type of citizenship: native born, or a naturalization-at-birth on children of aliens and foreigners.
And it is blatantly unconstitutional.
There is also historical precedent that Natural Born Citizen means being born, and not naturalized, in the US.
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in Georgia to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his sons birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont.
So, we have strong historical precedent.
Now that there’s funny.
Tail wags the dog, eh?
The definition is correct, and Obama should not be the President.
But hey, who is going to argue with a rock star, first black (actually half-black) President?
This is why definitions and the Constitution are so important. It is not my fault or yours that our entire government made a deliberate choice to deceive the American public.
Historical precedent was established with Fremont by the Republicans...long ago, as stated in my previous post.
Well, Fremont never became President.
The only precedent we have is Chester Arthur, who lied about his father’s citizenship status at the time of Arthur’s birth.
His father was a Canadian citizen. The lie was the father had become a citizen of the Us prior to Arthur’s birth.
Quite a big deal was made of it at the time, and records were not like they are today, so he got away with it. Later on, the lie became known.
Not very logical.
The Republican Party endorsed and supported him as the nominee.
our fellow conservative radio hosts should bring back the time when Clinton was drinking soda during his grilling on August 17, 1998.
MT, Thank you for your post. I was using the Minor decision about the “in country” part.
Hope this is helpful:
In the case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), Minor, a woman, wanted to register to vote in the federal Presidential election and was denied registration because of her gender.
Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitutional framers did not define natural born Citizen but that they did know its meaning and that it was different from Citizen as stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of parents (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens eligible for the Presidency.
The courts decision states: 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.
In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court fully understood and applied the Principles of Constitutional Construction in their decision.
The first seven Presidents were Citizens of the United States and not natural born Citizens, yet they qualified for the office (Washington through Jackson); because they were citizens at the time of the adoption of [the] Constitution! These Presidents had lived through the Revolutionary War, they were patriots, loved our country at the exclusion of Great Britain, and held allegiance to our country as patriots. The founders recognized that a natural born Citizen, being born to Citizen parents (plural) would have the same regard and love of country as these founders; at least that was their hope, prayer and intention.
The founders recognized that congress may define at any time who can become a citizen and how they become a citizen; one only need to begin reading the naturalization acts passed by congress, and include the 14th Amendment. These enactments define citizenship and naturalization of citizens but never define the eligibility requirement for President of the United States because it is already constitutionally established.
How does the endorsement of a fledgling political party(1856) trump the Constitution? Not very logical. LOL!
The constitution supports the Natural Born vs. Naturalized Definition.
Natural born is being born a legitimate citizen in the US.
As Fremont sets in historical precedent. If there was a problem, Constitutionalists of the day would have balked at Fremont.
Your definition of natural born citizen has no support in case law, nor has any contextual basis in the Constitution.
In fact, there’s many been numerous Presidents who don’t meet your criteria of “natural born citizen.”
Other than Arthur, can you name other American Presidents who did not meet the definition?
The criteria is were both parents citizens of America at the time of the birth of the child.
Seriously, Fremont sets no precedent of legal import.
No legal decision came of his candidacy that I am aware of.
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.