Read my comment again DL. I posited that you were missing a wick. So many, many things go over your head. Have you ever considered placing your computer on a stand up desk?
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 ...
“According to what LVR quoted, why was your post #14 kicked?”
Total mystery to me...
Read my comment again DL. I posited that you were missing a wick. So many, many things go over your head. Have you ever considered placing your computer on a stand up desk?
How do you suppose the Secretary of State in 1854, William Marcy, got it so wrong?
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40C13FD3E59157493C2AB1788D85F408584F9
It's not that he was unschooled in the law--he was admitted to the bar and served on the New York Supreme Court.
Beats me too????
“Yeah, of course, the WKA court is more in the ‘know’ than two men who were actually there:”
They’re more in the know than *you*. What’s more, Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives them, and not you, appellate jurisdiction. Disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision is you right, but has no effect on whether Marco Rubio or Barack Obama can be President.
Plus, you did not even understand what they said. We adopted the *language* of English Common law:
“There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting Smith v. Alabama]
rxsid, your whole post there goes off on how we did not adopt the Common law, which you wold have known was not the question had you bothered to read and understand the Court’s opinion.
“There are a LOT of quotes supporting the Citizen parent argument, and I just don’t see how so many people in History who ought to know what this stuff means could get it wrong.”
Those quotes fall into two categories: so old that they’re talking about births before the 14t’h Amendment and its interpretation in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, or so recent that they only appeared after Barack Obama was the frontrunner in the 2008 presidential campaigns. If I’m wrong on that, please cite the ones in between.
Marco Rubio and Barack Obama do not need to re-try U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The matter was settled long before they were born.
I wrote, “anyone who considers being a Rubio-birther has the cautionary tail of the Obama-birthers”.
D’oh! With tail between legs, I now serve as a cautionary tale.
For some reason you refuse to do this. Not even one of the books you have listed would have been used in Civics or Political Science classes during the time that I or any other Freepers in this discussion went to school. These latest links are no more relevant than the others. The first books you just listed was published in 1908, the second was last published in 1913, and the third in 1922. None of the books would have been used in Civics classes in the 1950s through 1970s. So all are irrelevant to our discussion.
You or I or anyone else could publish or have had a book published saying anything we want... we would be exercising our right to free speech, but this is not what our discussion here is about. Obviously there have been books that contradict other books on nearly every subject. The only books relevant to our discussion here are books which were likely to have been used as textbooks during the 1950s through 1970s.
So for the umpteenth time lets review again... the discussion between the two of us is about you ridiculing and basically calling other Freepers liars after we repeated what we were taught in school. What is taught in school varies in different time periods. Currently they are teaching kids that people are causing global warming. When I was in school in the 1970s they didn't teach this... in fact we were taught that polution was causing global cooling. So once again you have been asked to back up your accusations and ridicule by providing a textbook from the 1950s through the 1970s that would contradict what we were taught. So far you have not come close, not by a mile. I am convinced that you cannot.
From Civics for Citizens published in 1965:
"A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions."
The textbook Our Constitution and What it Means, published in 1975, for example, says, "The President must be born in the United States or born of citizens of the United States."
It's easy to mistake that "or" with "and" over time.
Constitutional Law: Cases and Other Problems - 1977
"Therefore, every person born in the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 5)"
"Anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land must have been born in the United States, and he must be at least thirty-five years of age. To ensure the fact that his interests really lie within the country, the Constitution also demands that the candidate have lived for fourteen years prior to his election in the United States."
Greetings all birthers!
I must admit in recent months I have become, shall we say, increasingly receptive to the idea of “natural born citizen” defined as a person born of two citizens. It does seem to be a logical deduction. One thing still bugs me though, and I think a simple thought experiment will demonstrate my hesitancy best:
If this is true, then someone like Mark Rubio could not be eligible for the presidency. However also, it would also mean that say, a child born of two “citizen” crack addicts, born in the inner city, would be eligible.
Now I ask, does this make sense? Is this what the framers intended? How is it that a person of Rubio’s upbringing, an upbringing that is clearly rooted in American values is not eligible to be president, whereas some child born of two crack addicted “citizens”, where each parent would probably never be seen again in the child’s life, would be eligible?
The theory is that a person born of two citizens would be raised to be “more American” than someone not born of two citizens, right? IOW, such a person would be raised without any divided loyalties, right? Well, that sounds all fine and dandy in a sterile, argument of logic. But considering reality for a second, can it honestly be said that Rubio was raised “less American” than some person born of two parents who were never a part of his/her life? How can it be said that a child of two crack addicts is more patriotic, has no “divided loyalties”, when compared to a person like Mark Rubio?
The only “argument” I could see to “counter” this point would be to say, “Well, that baby could have been actually raised by two parents who were solid Americans”, but then that automatically defeats the “natural born citizen” rationale. After all, if what makes someone truly “American” is how they are raised, and not how they were born (i.e., not raised by crack addicts, but raised by good Americans) , then it’s irrelevant who actually gave birth to a person. Indeed, the only thing that would seemingly be relevant here is that a person is actually born in the US, thus enabling that person to be raised by Americans, not that “two citizens give birth”.
Input/rebuttals please. I’ve been mulling this over a while, and I don’t see any way around the above other than to concede that “natural born citizen” means simply someone born in the US or its territories, or born of two citizens if overseas, IOW, the common mentality definition.
It's easy to mistake that “or” with “and” over time.
Kleon, although I appreciate your efforts to give me a way out; my recollection is of a discussion about “divided loyalties”.
I have a recollection of a discussion from high school about “divided loyalties” that I did not recall until the memory was triggered by discussions here. I can't say how others minds work but there are a lot of things that I haven't thought about for a long time that come back to me when someone or something gives me a nudge. Usually it is my wife who is trying to get me to remember something that I told her that I would do, but often it will be my parents, my siblings, my friends, or coworkers. They will ask if I remember something that we had done and at first I will say no, but as they give me more detail sometimes a vivid memory will come back and I will wonder why it took so much prompting.
Not having actually been around over two hundred years ago, all we can do is examine writings from the times that would indicate what was being discussed by the framers of the constitution. Also useful are books and letters that would indicate what the common knowledge of certain terms were at that time. Whether or not our own contemporary experiences and prejudices allow us to agree with those discussions is hard to say. It is clear to me that there were differences of opinion back then just as there are now.
I was taught that the framers were concerned about “divided loyalties” and put safeguards into the constitution to prevent monarchs or others from being able to have undue influence over our president. I was taught that Natural Born Citizen had more meaning than just a person born within the geographical borders of this country. I do not believe that a baby whose parents are here illegally is automatically even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen constitutionally eligible to be president.
Did you say something wickless? Your voice is so high pitched I couldn't hardly hear you.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40C13FD3E59157493C2AB1788D85F408584F9
It's not that he was unschooled in the law--he was admitted to the bar and served on the New York Supreme Court.
Very Interesting. I will add your link as a third piece of evidence in support of your position. It is becoming evident to me that there is indeed a long standing misunderstanding among various people in history regarding citizenship in the United States.
Evidence cannot be dismissed just because it doesn't fit what people wish to believe, and I now know of three examples that contradict the "jus sanguinus" perspective on this issue. The first one I could ignore as an outlier, the second caused me to suspect that maybe this wasn't so clearly understood by the founding Generations, and now the third one you have provided has confirmed my suspicion that something is definitely wrong, and so I pondered a bit to try and figure out what is wrong.
I've been thinking about writing an article to address this very point. I think when article II was voted on by the Constitutional delegation, those that were intimately familiar with Vattel, (John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, read and spoke fluent French.) recognized in it the Vattel definition, (They received French Versions of Vattel prior to the war) while those less familiar with it, assumed it to be derived from English Common law, which all states used for citizenship prior to the War.
Everyone voted on what they thought it meant, assuming everyone else believed the same thing they did. Likewise, subsequently through history, people who believed that this Section of English Common law was replaced by American law based on Vattel, repeated this definition, while those that were unfamiliar with this aspect, continued to believe that English Common law was the rule.
That in a nutshell appears to me to explain why there is discrepancies between what various people claim it means throughout history, some claiming the Citizen Parents are the crux of it, while others claiming only the location is important. There is overlap on this as well, because English Common law ALSO accepted Children born out of England, so long as they had an English Father.
The Fact that we kept so much of English law when American law was created only helps to confuse the issue. Whenever an issue isn't certain, or there is no American Precedent, they ALWAYS used English law to fill in the blanks. I think they have been wrongly doing this from the very beginning,(regarding citizenship) and the confusion has persisted as a result.
As I mentioned, If your goal is to grab servants, casting as wide a net as possible is a great idea. (Both soil and blood) But if your goal is to protect the nation from foreign influence, giving anyone citizenship just because they crossed your borders is a terrible idea. (As we are seeing all too clearly now with "anchor babies.")
I think the founders familiar with Vattels definition believed they were revoking English law regarding citizenship, and they believed the rest were aware of their intent. That the English common law version has persisted somewhat throughout history, indicates not everyone was up to speed on this.
You and I have been at odds on this issue from the very first post, but I do not recall any occasion of intellectual dishonesty from you. If you have some legitimate criticism of the above theory, I would be interested in looking at it.
I am not going to do that for two reasons. 1. The evidence of them will not impact you whatsoever, and 2. I have such quotes, but I have yet to organize them for ready use, and I have to read through too much stuff to find them. In any case, It isn't necessary for my purpose. (I will get to it eventually though.)
I am glad you conceded this: "so old that they’re talking about births before the 14t’h Amendment". I regard it as an admission against interest, and it is more significant than you know. That they occurred PRIOR to the 14th Amendment is not as irrelevant as you may think.
Marco Rubio and Barack Obama do not need to re-try U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The matter was settled long before they were born.
Based on Statements by 14th Amendment proponents in the Congress, Wong Kim Ark was an error by the court. Even in error it did not grant Article II eligibility, it granted "citizenship." People keep getting stuck on the meaning of the individual words in "natural born citizen" when it does not mean what the English definitions of the Individual words implies. It is a term of art. Just as "Freedom of Speech" is a term of art. It does not refer to how easily people produce sounds, it refers to an interdiction of government from punishing people for saying things contrary or critical to those in power.
The First Amendment protection of "Freedom of Speech" is an intentional revocation of the English Law crime of "Lèse majesté". Under English law, it was ILLEGAL to say things critical of the King or the Governor, and even criticism of lesser officials could be punished.
In the Same manner the First Amendment revoked English law against criticizing the Government by the use of the three words "Freedom of Speech" whose meaning is way beyond their English Definitions, Article II revoked English Common law regarding Presidential eligibility with the use of three other words "Natural Born Citizen" the meaning of which ALSO goes way beyond their individual English Definitions. The problem with people on your side of the discussion is that you are trying to conflate the meaning of the individual words with the term of art they are intended to represent.
This tactic may work on the ignorant and the foolish, but it won't work on anyone astute enough to comprehend the distinction.
“I am not going to do that for two reasons.”
Imagine my surprise to get excuses instead of the requested citations.
“Based on Statements by 14th Amendment proponents in the Congress, Wong Kim Ark was an error by the court.”
And lots of people disagreed with the Court on Bush v. Gore. That disagreement had no effect on who was president.
“This tactic may work on the ignorant and the foolish, but it won’t work on anyone astute enough to comprehend the distinction.”
So under your theory, professors of constitutional law at top universities, the editors of /Black Law Dictionary/, the referees of esteemed peer-reviewed legal journals, and the judges of the Indianan Court of Appeals are the “ignorant and foolish”, while you are the astute legal mind that comprehends the distinction.
Now consider my stated theory: The 14’th Amendment and the 1898 WKA decision settled the eligibility of the native-born. No one has to be ignorant or foolish for what they held before 1898, or about births prior to the 14’th Amendment. Back then both positions were viable. The people my theory considers ignorant and foolish are those who assert the citizen-parent requirement after that time, and I cannot find any until birthers jumped on it in October or November of 2008.
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.