Rubio is qualified.
Crackpot nonsense. NOBODY with any authority agrees with your interpretation.
Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You challenged folks taking the Vattel position to cite law in support of their position, and someone responded with Minor v. Happersett, which defined “natural born citizen” in the same way Vattel defines “native”: born within the country to parents both of whom were citizens, a definition Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. fails to according to all accounts of his parentage, since his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.
You now assert that legislative law trumps common law based case law, as indeed it does.
So, rather than blustering “Baloney!” at fellow FReepers, please cite a Federal (or Georgia) statute defining “natural born citizen” in a way at variance with Minor v. Happersett.
And every single scientist says that man global warming is real.
Why don't you provide a logical reason why the definition of a NBC doesn't only consist of being born to USC parents.
I’m not sure that’s the question. The president is a citizen like anyone else and is subject to the courts like other citizens. If Obama were being ordered to appear in his capacity as president, a separation of powers argument could be made, but the question of eligibility to run is not related to his current status as president, and would apply equally to a private person running for their first term. If such a person would be subject to the court’s subpoena power, why should Obama escape it by virtue of the question being as to his eligibility for a second term rather than a first?
For what it’s worth, I don’t buy the various birther arguments, but I also wonder how, in a putative situation where a non-citizen did try to run, we’d ever get to the bottom of it. Candidates are not above the law, and people ought to have a mechanism to challenge eligibility.
Rubio is a citizen. Were both his parents citizens when he was born? If not, he’s not a NATURAL born citizen and can’t be president or vice president.
“Birthers” will go after any illegal president - GOP or DNC. It’s a constitution thang. No foreign influence and ties via family in the oval office. Blood runs thicker than water.
IBTZ.
....for all the good it will do.....
“Radical birthers”?????/
You’re showing your bias.
“However, Congress has changed the rules, more than once, as to which New Borns qualify, and which do not. “
You may be right—congresscritters do the damndest things!
Bath-House Barry Propped Up By Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw
Was Obama on the primary ballot in Florida?
If so, sounds like it’s time for any FL voter to challenge his eligibility - within the next 9 days.
Otherwise the time will be the day after the general election.
I found the quote below on line, purporting to be from the US Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett,1875.
If this is a true and accurate quote, it contradicts your definitive statement:
“Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS meant “Citizen at the Moment of Birth”
Since I am not a lawyer, as you appear to be, please enlighten me. Thank you.
“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. 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.”
I represented MYSELF in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals once, and I WON, against multimillionaire abortionist George Tiller.
You kick everyone out of the Conservative movement who does not agree with your crackpot theories, and you will have about enough people left to fill a small room and clap for your crazy rants.
What are you going to do with this information (evidence?) that you have been teasing us with for the past couple of weeks or longer?
What outlet do you require?
...or whether the law even applies to this president?
I guess that would depend upon which whited sepulcher you asked.
Hopefully it’s enough to try him for treason!
A Cordial, Legal PING.
“someone responded with Minor v. Happersett, which defined “natural born citizen” in the same way Vattel defines “native”: born within the country to parents both of whom were citizens”
What Minor says regarding NBC:
“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. 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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
If Georgia decides to use Minor to ban Obama from the ballot, Georgia will have its butt handed to it by the federal courts.
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.