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

Skip to comments.

Trey Gowdy Twists Natural Born Citizen Qualification to Support Marco Rubio
Freedom Outpost ^ | 12/19/2015 | Tim Brown

Posted on 12/21/2015 6:04:59 AM PST by HomerBohn

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. -Article II, Section 1 of the united States Constitution

Before I begin and before you get angry at me for pointing out what I'm about to point out, I want to ask you to hold that thought and ask yourself why you are not more angry at these representatives for their ignorance and willful ignoring of the law! I have been suspicious of Rep. Trey Gowdy for some time now. Though he often says a lot of good things, the reality is that he has been on several congressional committees, including chairing the Benghazi committee and has brought absolutely no resolve to any of those things. However, today, a video was released challenging Gowdy on the Natural Born Citizenship qualifications of presidential candidate Marco Rubio (and we could also apply the same standard to Ted Cruz). Gowdy's answer was simply treasonous.

(Watch Video At Link)

Evan Mulch, who is a constituent of Gowdy's, confronted the congressman concerning and first asked if he had read the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that several congressmen are attempting to have released to the public. Gowdy admitted that he had not read them.

However, it was the follow-up question that generated the ignorance and heat. Mulch asked Gowdy, "When Marco Rubio said that his parents were born in another country, that doesn't make him a natural born citizen, according to the Constitution. What would you say to that?"

"That issue has already been litigated," said Gowdy.

Gowdy then went on to totally distort the idea of what was put to him and asked if John McCain was ineligible, something that has not been a part of being a natural born citizen. In case you miss the dodge there, Rubio's parents were not citizens when he was born in the States. Of course, Rubio is an American citizen, but fails to meet the qualifications that even the founders recognized had to be present to be a natural born citizen.

When Gowdy was asked, "So, we don't need a natural born citizen to be president?"

"It depends on what you mean by that?" he responded.

It depends on what you mean? My goodness, the ignorance is glaring and I will demonstrate just how much shortly, but Gowdy continued to demonstrate his ignorance of the natural born citizen issue.

When Mulch said that we know what the founders meant by it, Gowdy retorted, "No you don't!"

But Mr. Gowdy, we most certainly do know! In fact, we have something called the 1790 Naturalization Act, which clearly defines who a natural born citizen is. And no, it is not just a person born on American soil as the Constitution distinguishes between natural born and "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." If all that was required was to be a "citizen," then why the distinction? It was because of what I'm about to show you.

As Publius Huldah has pointed out, the framers were quite familiar with Vattel's Law of Nations. As such, they understood what it meant to be "natural born," though Vattel used the term subject, not citizen. While many have tried to blow off Congress' use of the Law of Nations, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Charles Dumas on December 9, 1775 to thank him for sending three copies of the book and specifically wrote, "… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…" (2nd para) [boldface added]

So, Congress most definitely was aware of the volume, had high and just esteem for Vattel and continually had it in their hands. Keep in mind that this was all before the Constitution was written in 1787.

In fact, Publius Huldah points out that in the 1916 edition of the Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction which stated that the fathers of independence, "were in accord with the ideas of Vattel," that the found in Vattel "all their maxims of political liberty" and,

"From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel's influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities."

While our founders were originally subjects of Britain, once they won the war for independence, they became citizens, and Vattel was the one who offered that understanding they came to with regard to natural born citizen. Publius Huldah has previously pointed out what the gist of what Vattel penned in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are "citizens".

So, the founders knew what it meant and we know they knew what it meant. Gowdy is just out to lunch here or is being dishonest. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no excuse for a man in his position to not know this.

Furthermore, the 1790 Naturalization Act, which was written within two years of the Constitution, so there is no doubt that these men had the same definition of those who penned the Constitution, reads:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Notice that even in this Act, there is a distinction between "citizens," those who are "naturalized" and "natural born citizens." Notice they also understood that men like John McCain (though he is a traitor to his country) would be a natural born citizen, even if he were born outside US soil in Panama. Why? Because his parents were both citizens! There is no doubt that we can know exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote "natural born citizen."

Finally, you'll notice Trey Gowdy said, "You're either going to follow the law of the land or you're not."

Exactly right, Mr. Gowdy, but it seems you are so ignorant of what the Constitution means by Natural Born Citizen that you are unable to follow the law, or you are simply willfully not following it, but propping up nothing but anchor babies from all over. After all, if all that is required to be president is for one to be a citizen, every anchor baby ever born should fit Gowdy's sentiments, right?

Rubio's parents were born in Cuba and were not naturalized till after he was born in the States, making him a citizen, but not a natural born citizen (remember the language distinguishing between those two in the Constitution. Cruz's father was born in Cuba and his mother was a US citizen. Remember, that one must be born of parents (plural) who are citizens, but more specifically the father must be a citizen. Cruz held dual citizenship in Canada and the united States until he wanted to throw his hat in the ring for a presidential run.

But notice the other problem here. We are told we are a nation of immigrants. No, we are not. I'm not. My family decades ago may have been, but my parents were citizens, their parents were citizens and I'm a citizen. Furthermore we are natural born citizens. Also, one woman turns and ignorantly claims, "You realize we're all not natural born citizens." Talk about why we are in the place we are at!

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

Indeed, America is being destroyed due to the lack of knowledge of the people. As a final thought, keep in mind that the Bible even teaches that a foreigner should not rule over the people, emphasizing the natural born status.

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Deuteronomy 17:15


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: amnestypimp; gangofeight; gowdy; illegalimmigrants; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncuban; openwidethegate; rubio; rubiorubes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-196 next last
To: HomerBohn
that doesn't make him a natural born citizen, according to the Constitution

The Constitution does not define the term.

You can't bootstrap blood from a stone.

21 posted on 12/21/2015 6:55:40 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Not long ago, Gowdy was the darling of FR, not so much now?


22 posted on 12/21/2015 6:59:45 AM PST by bigbob ("Victorious warriors win first and then go to war" Sun Tzu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

This entire article is BS, and the issue was settled long ago.

There are two types of citizens; natural, i.e. natural born citizens by law at the moment of birth, and naturalized, i.e.. those made as if natural later by application for citizenship and operation of law.

It has little to do with where they were physically born. For example, people born in CONUS to parents who both held diplomatic immunity representing a foreign power at the moment of the child’s birth are not citizens, even through they were born here.

The law is very simple. Cruz, Rubio, Romeny, McCain and others, were by operation of law, citizens at the moment of their birth, and are therefore entitled to be POTUS.

This article is perfect proof that too many people are ready to listen to anyone with a computer and a website.


23 posted on 12/21/2015 7:04:24 AM PST by The All Knowing All Seeing Oz (Explaining Obama is very simple: He plays for the other team in every way possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odawg

Agreed.


24 posted on 12/21/2015 7:11:00 AM PST by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Well, duh. This guy’s been a political do-nothing whore all along.


25 posted on 12/21/2015 7:11:27 AM PST by Politicalkiddo ("How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts!"- Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Constitution doesn't define the word “is”, either.

Fundamentally, the **only** thing that makes the Constitution work is the **honest** good will of the citizens. No number of constitutions, laws, or definitions will corral evil. Evil will leak through every time.

So!....If citizens choose to ignore the original intent of the Founders of our nation, don't be surprised when evil comes jack booting its way through your door.

26 posted on 12/21/2015 7:13:52 AM PST by wintertime (Stop treating government teachers like they are reincarnated Mother Teresas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thackney

That is not my understanding of the case law although the media would like to make it so. There was clearly in the mind of the people who wrote the constitution and it had to do with the allegiance of the Father at the time of birth.

Just as allowing right of way develops by not posting your property and allowing people free access the more we allow the muddying of the definition of natural born citizen the less the distinctions will mean.


27 posted on 12/21/2015 7:15:16 AM PST by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: odawg

Rubio is an example of America. His parents came here for a better life. He went from nothing to become a Senator. A crappy amnesty supporting senator but a senator.


28 posted on 12/21/2015 7:16:35 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Gowdy is a whatever's best for "The Party" man.

Kinda like a "Company" man, except more corrupt and richer.

29 posted on 12/21/2015 7:17:00 AM PST by OKSooner (Amendment 25...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Politicalkiddo

Well, duh. This guy’s been a political do-nothing whore all along.


I like to call GOPers like Gowdy porch conservatives. They sit on the GOPe plantation and play “conservative” for us rubes back on Main Street.

Then behind our backs they stuff their pockets with corporate cash & follow K Street all the way. Gowdy has been weak on amnesty and Obama’s TPA. Naturally those votes align with the wishes of his Big Sugar and Big Religion donors.

Gowdy is all hat and no cattle. NO doubt.


30 posted on 12/21/2015 7:18:47 AM PST by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

In the past few weeks, I’ve read on FR that the following are RINOs:

Rush Limbaugh
Mark Levin
Trey Gowdy

Bizarre.


31 posted on 12/21/2015 7:19:42 AM PST by Fundamentally Fair (Pictionary at the Rorschach's tonight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

I will say it again..and again..and again...

Trey Gowdy,

Listen to the oral argument before SCOTUS in the Nguyen case.

It is clear that SCOTUS do not agree on the definition and it is NOT settled law.

Not surprisingly, Ginsburg believes in jus sanguinis. But listen carefully to the discussion.


32 posted on 12/21/2015 7:20:56 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

It seems to me that the Constitution is very clear. Only the President has a requirement for natural born citizen. The Founding Fathers obviously inserted that for a reason.

This country has allowed the Constitution to be subverted for many years. They pick and choose which part of it supports their position and twist the meaning of the part that does not.


33 posted on 12/21/2015 7:22:29 AM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

“Rubio is an example of America. His parents came here for a better life.”

No he is not. Most of our parents, at this point in time, were born in America. The country was built with blood, sweat, and tears, not by immigrants.


34 posted on 12/21/2015 7:24:23 AM PST by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
The Constitution doesn't define the word “is”, either.

Or the word "the" either, but these are terms so generically used as to be unexceptionable.

"Natural born" is a term of legal art that had various shades of meaning at the time.

Original intent is particularly murky on this issue, given how contentious the debate was over the Alien and Sedition acts, and repeals, that occurred in the very first years of government under the Constitution.

35 posted on 12/21/2015 7:24:56 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

Yes it would rule out Cruz. And Cruz’s father did not become a naturalized citizen until 2005 when Ted was in his thirties and deciding to become a president.


36 posted on 12/21/2015 7:26:38 AM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The All Knowing All Seeing Oz

No but we threw out the Constitutional meaning years ago. Whatever twisting it required to support “our” guy, being Rep or Dem.


37 posted on 12/21/2015 7:29:09 AM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

So true.


38 posted on 12/21/2015 7:29:58 AM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Duchess47

Maybe it’s a ‘general’ cover, compliments of Gowdy?


39 posted on 12/21/2015 7:30:27 AM PST by Jane Long (Go Trump, go! Make America Safe Again :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Duchess47

The Constitution doesn’t define natural born American.


40 posted on 12/21/2015 7:34:28 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-196 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