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
It’s not legal precedent, it’s historical.
Are you drinking?
Who knows who Bill Clinton's biological father was--but if it wasn't Billy Blythe it was presumably some other Arkansas native.
I hear yuh and I keep my eye on all of em.
He’s being promoted for President.
You show me where the Constitution defines the term “Natural Born Citizen.”
Being born in Miami makes him a citizen. It does not make him a Natural Born Citizen.
The greatest service Rubio could perform for his country would be to say: I want to stop all speculation that I am running for President—because, like the current occupant of the White House, I am not eligible to hold the office of President.
Obama ISN’T President. He’s a usurper.
You haven’t noticed that Obama cares nothing for the provisions of the Constitution?
You haven’t noticed that his “birth certificate” is a crude forgery?
You haven’t noticed that his Selective Service registration is a crude forgery?
You haven’t noticed that he is using someone else’s Social Security number?
Fuhgett bout it.
He ain’t NBC....
The definition of the term, natural born citizen, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9 in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattels definition when he said:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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.
John A. Bingham - March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866), page 1291
[Sorry for the cut & paste, but the Library of Congress disables active links]
The founders recognized that congress may define at any time who can become a citizen and how they become a citizen;
The Founders never gave Congress the ability to define who can become a citizen, and the only ability it was given to determine HOW they became a citizen was by making a regular rule for immigration that the States were required to follow.
The federal government has no direct authority concerning citizenship.....period.
MT, thanks for the post in 62.You are a seeker of truth, not a nitpicker.
In 63, i went back and saw that you were highlighting what the author of the article I referenced highlighted.
What I like is that after that sentence he said that the definition of who was eligible for President was never in doubt as it had been documented in the Constitution.
But the way you harp on it, you think it actually is important. It is an interesting side note to the discussion, but is meaningless otherwise. It doesn't support your argument one bit.
Could you imagine the firestorm that would erupt over that statement.
The pressure would build on Hussein to release documents and prove his fabricated life story.
The water bottle incident would be completely forgotten.
Wow. We have been here about the same amount of time. Reread FR's homepage and see if I got off at the wrong exit.
Benghazi - no problem for Obama
Glass of water - end of Rubio’s career
Yep, the press has great perspective.
Yes, Bingham's definition is the most concise one I've found in all my wanderings through historical records. Apparently the definition was such common knowledge during the time of the Founders they saw little reason to remark upon it.
As one truth seeker to another - keep fighting the good fight, and when you get discouraged by all the nay-sayers, remember:
All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
“You show me where the Constitution defines the term Natural Born Citizen. “
Since there are only two way to become citizens: natural born and naturalized, it is evident.
Ok. If Rubio is elected President you can flail away aimlessly at your delusions of expertise.
You will still claim your are right, but you will be proven wrong.
That's a swift condemnation from someone who has provided no 'proof'.
If you felt you were right about something, do you truly believe you should remain silent about it, or would you find that you could not, in all good conscience, go along with what you believed to be a lie?
That’s like saying I need to prove that water is wet.
Natural born....is self-defined and it’s also supported by historical precedent of Fremont being supported as the Republican nominee many years ago.
The difference with Obama is simple.
There has never been a Birth Cert. that was valid, showing he was born in Hawaii. All put forward have been forgeries or fake.
The likely reason his college records haven’t been put in public is that he likely had a foreign student ID card.
A historical precedent is just something that happens, and a 'historical precedent' is not a legal one.
Nor does a 'nomination' have anything to do with it since the question of Constitutional qualification is supplied via affidavit by the parties, but the affidavits aren't certified until AFTER the election and at the meeting of the Electoral College.
Basically, Fremont started the race really well, but since he never crossed the finish line your conclusion his situation has any bearing on the Original definition of natural-born is flawed.
Posts including Supreme Court decisions as well as Congressional Records documenting the FACT that the definition of natural born required citizenship of the parents have been sourced for your convenience.
You may continue to declare yourself the sole arbitrator of the truth, but the FACT is you have yet to provide any substantiation for your assertions.
On that conclusion, I'll heartily agree. From what few records of his life I have seen, US citizenship was never claimed, and the 'birth certificate' provided is a joke!
“You may continue to declare yourself the sole arbitrator of the truth, but the FACT is you have yet to provide any substantiation for your assertions.”
Sure, I have. You simply disagree.
“Fremont started the race really well, but since he never crossed the finish line your conclusion his situation has any bearing on the Original definition of natural-born is flawed.”
By that logic, applying your argument to Rubio is invalid and irrelevant, since he is not President.
LOL! Then by you logic, your defense of his eligibility is 'irrelevant' as well.
STILL waiting for you to provide a historical source for your conclusion, BTW.
Pardon my bluntness, but I've had enough 'You're wrong because I say so' arguments to last me a lifetime. It's like trying to have a rational debate with a 2 year old.
Apparently, you haven’t followed the entire thread.
My evidence is the Constitution, Section II, Article I, I believe.
Section I, Article II.........my bad.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
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.
The Twelfth Amendment states, “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that “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.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report 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”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
ROFLMAO! Trying to act as if a stated requirement for eligibility equates a definition of it is pretty pathetic.
Again, your actual evidence is [crickets]
I noticed that you didn’t comment on all of the sources.
Pathetic? No. Just your selective perception.
I detect a sweet anger as you flail away, though.
Lynn v. Clark in regard to “natural born”
Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on “natural-born citizen”. The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke, which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents’ nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
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
WHICH 'Congressional Research Service'? Was it an official government body actually attached to the Congress, or was it done by one of the Democrat's PACs?
Without seeing and verifying the source, your evidence is meaningless.
Do you have a link?
Here is the citation to the CRS analysis.
Would you also like the citation to the Lynch case, that is a case used as precedent to define “natural born”?
It’s easy to find, though.
“^ “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”. Congressional Research Service report. Federation of American Scientists. November 14, 2011. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2012. “In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.”
and he direct link...
Seriously? And still link-less to boot!
that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen
British common law ceased to exist in the country once the Constitution was adopted. That's WHY the Founders needed the special 'at the time of its adoption' provision
That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.
View of the Constitution of the United States - the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification
While it is a perfectly legitimate function of a State to decide whether or not a alien can hold land -
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle, View of the Constitution of the United States - the second legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification
It is NOT within the jurisdiction of a State to 'determine' an alien is eligible to be President of the United States. Why? Because it is not within the State's JURISTICTION, just as it is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to redefine the term natural born contrary to its original meaning.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
center column halfway down
Again, you present an analogous argument that looks good on the surface but disintegrates once held under the lens of applied Constitutional Law.
I had to research the Congressional Research Service and came across this from the Canada Free Press;
Jack Maskell, a CRS attorney, drew the short straw and was assigned the task of drafting a response. His April 3, 2009 memorandum, provided to all members of Congress, read, in part, as follows:
Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that vets candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.
The 'study' that you're citing as evidence to make Rubio eligible comes straight from an Obama shill!
You obviously don’t understand common law and precedent.
Your refutation is not on point and summarizes by saying that the legal precedent for the definition of “natural born” is not in Constitutional Law.
LOL. That’s because nobody of any legal merit has brought a case to bear at the Constitutional level. Which means you have to look at your “Birther” religion as not quite meeting the lofty status of your “legal degree” from the bubble gum machine you attained it.
The Lynn case indeed, was used as precedent and authoritatively.
“The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing, on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.
It is “evident” to you because you haven’t been paying attention to the issue.
The Constitution distinguishes between a “citizen” (which a Senator must be) and a “natural born citizen” which a President must be.
Chester A. Arthur was born a citizen, in the U.S., yet he destroyed documents and lied about the fact that his father was not a citizen at the time of his (Chester’s) birth. Clearly, Chester Arthur was of the view, and knew that the entire political world was of the view, that being born in the U.S. and a citizen from the moment of birth was NOT equivalent to being a “natural born citizen.”
How do you explain the fact that Chester Arthur and the political world in his time held to a different meaning of the term “natural born citizen” than you do?
The Constitution uses the term “natural born citizen.”
The Constitution nowhere DEFINES the term “natural born citizen.”
Despite this, you repeatedly refer others to the Constitution for the MEANING of the term “natural born citizen.”
There are two ways to become a citizen (birth and naturalization), but not just two kinds of citizen.
There are those who are citizens because born in the U.S., there are those who are "natural born citizens" because born of two citizen parents, and there are naturalized citizens.
Only a natural born citizen may be President. Therefore, Barry Soetoro is not President. The WH website says he was born a British Subject because his father was a British Subject.
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not Natural Born Citzens. Therefore, if the Republic Party nominates either one for President, it will reveal itself to be as contemptuous of the Constitution and self-government as the Democrats.
Quite a big deal was made of it at the time
Do you people just make this crap up as you go along?
The "big deal" surrounding Arthur was that he himself was born in Canada and thus ineligible. A Big Deal was made about this because as Garfield's health deteriorated, many Republicans did not want to see Vice President Arthur, a Stalwart and Conkling stooge become President. Fearing a return to the civil service patronage system that Garfield railed against, they floated the notion that Arthur was a stealth Canadian in a futile effort to prevent his Presidency.
His father had nothing to do with it.
(And Arthur went on to sign into law the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.)
“The Constitution nowhere DEFINES the term natural born citizen. “
Then where is your argument?
Legal precedent shows several cases that define it as being born in the US.
I don’t make things up. Chester Arthur was born in Vermont, not Canada. His father emigrated to the US from Canada but was born in Ireland.
 Birth and family
Chester Alan Arthur was born October 5, 1829, in Fairfield, Vermont.[a] His father, William Arthur, was born just outside the village of Cullybackey, County Antrim, Ireland, and emigrated to Dunham, Lower Canada (in present-day Quebec) in 1818 or 1819 after graduating from Belfast College. Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born in Vermont, the daughter of George Washington Stone and Judith Stevens. Malvina’s family was primarily of English descent, and her grandfather, Uriah Stone, fought in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Arthur’s mother met his father while he was teaching at a school in Dunham, just over the border from her native Vermont, and the two soon married in Dunham, Missisquoi, Quebec, Canada on April 12, 1821. After their first child, Regina, was born in Dunham, the Arthurs moved around Vermont in quick succession to Burlington, Jericho, and Waterville, as William moved to jobs with different schools. In Waterville, William Arthur departed from his Presbyterian upbringing and joined the Free Will Baptists, spending the rest of his life as a minister in that sect. He also became an outspoken abolitionist, which at times made him unpopular with parts of his congregations and contributed to the family’s frequent moves. In 1828, the family moved again, to Fairfield, where Chester Alan Arthur was born the following year. He was named “Chester” after Chester Abell, the physician and family friend who assisted in his birth, and “Alan” after his paternal grandfather.[b] After Arthur’s birth, the family remained in Fairfield until 1832, when the elder Arthur’s profession took them on the road again to several towns in Vermont and upstate New York, finally settling in the Schenectady area.
William Arthur’s frequent moves would later form the basis for accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause.[c] When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.
There was never any conclusive proof that Chester Arthur was born in Canada. However, his father was still not naturalized before 1843, a fact that was later lied about to make the father seem he was a citizen in 1828 or 1829, whenever Arthur’s correct birthdate was. However, at that time,(1829) the father was still a citizen of the British Empire.
shows a link to the actual document wherein William Arthur, Chester’s father, was naturalized in August 1843.
Thus, Chester Arthur was born in 1829 a dual citizen and not a natural born citizen, very similar to Obama, as his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth.
It is true that in 1880 and again in 1884, theories and facts were brought out in a political effort to discredit Arthur, however, the father’s naturalization document is proof that Arthur’s father was not a citizen when Chester was born.
The rest of the article above, by Leo D’Onofrio, is quite explicit about the various lies Chester Arthur told in the 1880 campaign to direct away from his father’s timeline. Chester Arthur also burned all of his personal papers after his Presidency—and we can see why. He lied to run for office and to stay in office.
That's why the term NATURAL born is used, and the citizenship of your NATURAL parents is the requirement. It is not a citizenship AT birth [jus soli], but a citizenship BY birth [jus sanguinis]
Which means you have to look at your Birther religion as not quite meeting the lofty status of your legal degree from the bubble gum machine you attained it.
No, all it 'means' is that you've finally begun the ad hominem attacks, signaling that you adhere to a 'living' Constitution instead of the Original Intent of the Founders.
Look Tin Sing
By the time that case was heard in 1884, the bastardization of our founding document had already begun. Just a few short years earlier, however, it was a different story:
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
You post on another thread is highly illuminating. You are apparently such a Rubio fan that the question of his eligibility is inconsequential to you.
Enjoy your 'living document' today.....bowing and scraping before the federal government as it spoon-feeds you its 'interpretations' ensures you can never know HOW it will read tomorrow.
Indeed he was, but much like many of Hawaiian-born Barack Obama's political opponents tried to float the "born in Kenya" myth, many of Arthur's political opponents tried to float the "born in Canada" myth.
The citizenship of Arthur's father never factored in to anything. Why? Because the citizenship of one's parents has no bearing on their natural born status if they were born in the United States. Not President Arthur's Not President Obama's and it won't for Senator Rubio when he throws his hat into the ring. Nothing but birther nonsense that gets laughed out of every courtroom every single time.
Nobody of any importance is buying this crap. It is the abode of unhinged crackpots and, like Donofrio, conspiracy nuts.
“No, all it ‘means’ is that you’ve finally begun the ad hominem attacks”
Let the record reflect that she called me a 2 year old and I called her a unicorn believer.
“signaling that you adhere to a ‘living’ Constitution instead of the Original Intent of the Founders.”
You’re showing your ignorance of the Constitution and our legal system. Legal precedent is not a “living” Constitution argument. It’s real law and how we decide problems that arise in law.
“Look Tin: case By the time that case was heard in 1884, the bastardization of our founding document had already begun. “
Oh, I see...Pink unicorns giving strawberry milk again eh?