Posted on 08/24/2011 12:34:43 PM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Despite my hopes, Sen. Marco Rubio will not run for president in 2012. But that doesn’t mean he won’t soon be within a heartbeat of the presidency. As the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza asked on Twitter: “Is it time to rename GOP primaries ‘the contest to become Marco Rubio’s running mate’?”
Indeed, despite his protestations, Rubio has to be on the short list of potential GOP running mates.
But the downside is that there is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That’s right — some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a “natural born citizen.”
Here’s how the logic works (according to World Net Daily’s Joe Kovacs): “While the Constitution does not define ‘natural-born citizen,’ there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.”
Kovacs (and he is not alone) goes on to reason that Rubio’s “eligibility is in doubt” because — though his parents were legal U.S. residents when he was born — they were not yet naturalized citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Thanks for the response! I did have a vague understanding of that, but you stated it much, much better than I could.
What I see today is a very cozy and mutually satisfactory (to the powers that be) arrangement: we take the offspring of foreigners, and ask nothing of them (only that some do menial work, and that they all vote). Other countries seem happy to get rid of them, because if push came to shove the US would never really impose any kind of burdensome claim on these people.
The only people who don’t like it are the American workers, citizend, taxpayers and legal residents, and our leaders don’t give a damn.
Oops, another rant.
Thanks again.
Yes, I didn't think IDIOTS could use the internet, so you surprised me with your mundane level of competency.
Barry v. Mercein
But MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU have admitted openly lying to people here by quoting the lawyer for the side that lost and trying to pretend it was the Supreme Court that said it.
Wow, can't sneak anything past you. Funny though, I don't remember admitting to lying, I remember admitting I was mistaken. Lying is saying something which you know to be untrue. Apparently you are too stupid to understand the distinction.
Why would you do such a thing??? What is motivation to lie??? Why would YOU quote a footnote in a case and try to pretend it was the court that said it??? Lying is a sin and it is wrong!!! Plus, YOU make it worse by calling yourself "Diogenes" who went around looking for a honest man. Well KEEP LOOKING because YOU are NOT a honest man.
And you are lying to yourself. You get away with it because you are easily fooled. You still seemingly don't get the point. You said it was a dissenting judge, therefore YOU LIED! You are a LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!
You got something WRONG so YOU LIED! At least you are a liar by YOUR standard, by the objective standard, not so much but by your standard? Absolutely. Fortunately, I judge myself by objective standards, so you can be a liar if you want to, while I'll just be mistaken.
So There!!!
What a twit.
Good for you that you were able to recognize it. I looked around and was surprised to see other people using that quote, even after they were shown the truth. One blog went as far to say that it's "the clearest" United States Supreme Court precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen. Yikes!
But as I mentioned to Kleon, if Plaintiff's attorney did not think the argument had merit, why would he have presented it to the court?
Maybe he believed it to be true, I don't know. We shouldn't assume that anything presented in court must have a kernel of truth to it.
Interesting question. If all born in Cuba during this period of time were American Citizens, (Did we naturalize all Cuban citizens after the war?) then shouldn’t we have “rescued” them when another government oppressed them? (i.e. Castro?)
No, I was too busy looking up the case to read your discussion with Kleon. Plus, if you will look at 203 above, I put quotation marks around the second thingie which means I was quoting somebody.
Perhaps you should start reading cases before you quote them. If you are sooo shoddy in YOUR research, people will continue to doubt your intentions.
He was being paid to take a side, and had to argue something.
Which is more excuse than Birthers have. They make preposterous arguments for free.
The Democrats gain strength by getting these people to vote. Of course they don't want anything interfering with a condition that benefits them. The Republicans are afraid of offending Hispanics, and won't make an issue of it for that reason. (Political Pragmatism)
The "jus soli" theory of law makes no sense for a nation that isn't intent upon forcing "thus" claimed citizens into servitude. It's basically a free "gimme" to everyone in the world against the interests of actual citizens. (diluting the franchise.)
The Rules of economics will eventually collapse this silly idea, but we will all get crunched pretty good when it does.
I have NO answer to your other question...this isn't something I've ever look into.
I repeated something cited by others without checking it out thoroughly enough. I have done that before, and it is something for which I try to pay attention, but I am not always successful. In this case, it was not easy to discern because the language is a bit of a hard slog to follow. I did find this bit of text which confirms what you said.
Mr. Barry, in opposition to the motion, made the following points, which he maintained at great length.
Followed by the numbered points of which the one quoted was number "4".
Maybe he believed it to be true, I don't know. We shouldn't assume that anything presented in court must have a kernel of truth to it.
Though I haven't verified it, I would assume that Mr. Barry had an American lawyer pleading his case for him, and that it was the American Attorney's understanding of the law at the time. If it were Mr. Barry doing his own pleading, then he may have been putting forth his opinion based on British law, in which his argument is undeniably correct. If it was however an American attorney, this tends to indicate that this was accepted law as he was taught. This piece of evidence would tend to confirm that:
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%2B%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false
At this point, without further information, (and perhaps not even then ) not much of consequence can be made of this case.
Oh, and thank you for correcting me.
Well said, and unfortunately correct.
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
The lawyer's argument wasn't that the child wasn't a natural born citizen. He was saying she wasn't a citizen at all, despite being born in the United States to a citizen Mother. I know of no contemporaneous evidence that the lawyer might have gotten that idea from.
I do read cases, and I read related material. The problem is I read too much, and one sentence is easy to miss an a horrifically long case syllabus. The Sentence I missed (and you did too.) was:
Mr. Barry, in opposition to the motion, made the following points, which he maintained at great length.
Followed by the numbered points, of which the one I quoted was Number "4". That several people cited this as a Supreme Court decision also played a role in my accepting it as such.
Dealing with shoddy research and faulty opinions is a constant in this discussion topic. It is a constant search for what is actually true as opposed to what is alleged.
An Attorney arguing an obviously false fact of law could face sanction from the court, especially in 1847 when they did not put up with much nonsense, unlike today.
Which is more excuse than Birthers have. They make preposterous arguments for free.
We can't afford to pay our side. You've got Daddy Sorros and Obama to fund your side.
“The latest was Chris Matthews from Hardball saying on December 18, 2007 that Obama was born in Indonesia.”
You said:
“I’ll tell you what *I* remember. Obama had been telling everyone for years that he was from Kenya.”
And the only example you have offhand of Obama saying he was from Kenya is Chris Matthews saying he was born in Indonesia? Did I misunderstand what you meant by “Obama had been telling everyone”? That pretty unequivocally suggests that Obama is the one doing the telling, not some basic cable blowhard.
So I think I’ll pass on digging through your old posts if that’s the best you can do.
“It does not discuss anything about Natural Born Citizenship other than the born abroad question. The only time it mentions parents it does so in the plural form, which implies that BOTH parents are required to be US Citizens. YOUR LINK is only marginally useful in our discussion because their is no definition of Natural Born Citizen given within the book.”
I see. So it’s not good enough to produce a book that talks about natural born citizenship but doesn’t support any two-parent qualification. I need a book that could’ve been used as a text in the mid-20th century and which actively defined ‘natural born citizen’ in such a way that clearly *rejects* the two-parent qualification?
Okay:
“A person born in the United States is a natural born citizen”
And from ‘Introduction to American Government’:
“But children born in the United States to foreign consuls or to other foreign citizens or subjects residing or temporarily sojourning here are held to be natural-born citizens”
Is that last one specific enough?
I accept your explanation that it was a mistake on your part and not intentional.
I am, or was, a Birther, until Obama coughed up his long form and for a while I was uncertain about the Vattle stuff. One thing I noticed was that whenever I debated Obots, I beat them like carpets over a clothesline on stuff. While the Vattle Birthers always got beat like drums by the Obots. While I was busy and effective at convincing people that something was fishy about Obama or he would have coughed it up, the Vattle Birthers were just getting clobbered by Obots who understood the law.
Sooo, I did some asking around, and I read some of the arguments about 10 times and it became obvious to me that all the Vattle stuff was just stupid. There is the Chinese guy case and one from somewhere in 2009 that just nailed it. Ever since then, I have not had any use for the Vattle foolishness. That was about a year ago.
I would suggest that you read those two cases and forget the all the stuff from 50 years before the Chinese guy case. I can find the cases if you need a cite because I did a couple of Internet Articles on them.
Plus, there is still a lot of mileage that can be milked out of Obama taking 3 years to cough up a $14 document but the Vattle stuff is just a dead end and is embarrassing to rest of the Birther movement.
Why are you discussing “citizenship” on a thread that is about “eligibility?”
They are separate and distinct issues.
In the issue of eligibility, a person is eligible if they are a Natural Born Citizen. If the citizenship is not conferred, then they were a citizen at birth, and they are eligible.
The book I cited the quote from was, I believe, a Yale Law book. Perhaps he got the idea from books such as that? You cannot dismiss the idea of "citizen parents" as being peculiar, even the supreme court acknowledges that aspect of it.
...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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
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.