I wonder if this thread will get any posts.
/s
Ah, so this is why the feckless republicans have allowed little barry bastard to negate the founders’ declarations and defy the Constitution: the treacherous Republicans planned to do the same thing when it suited them to do so. And which of the two socialist/commie parties are you working for, vadumb?
Well, that pretty much captures the simple-minded view.
..but, but, but... we’ve been told that some Frenchman at the time of the founding defined Natural Born as both Citizen parents and Domestic birth and that French law should apply here.
Actually, Rubio has another technicality that could help him above even that argument. Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war. There is a case to be made that they did have protectorate citizenship.
I am curious about another issue though. The big argument on NBC is regarding ‘dual allegiance’. How does this apply to Native Americans. ‘Tribes’ (they are called Nations) have a special place under US law in which they have their own governments and can establish their own laws, etc. I’m both a Natural Born US Citizen as well as a ‘citizen’ of the Citizen Band Pottawatomie Nation. Would someone consider this ‘dual allegiance’?
To get more to the point of what the founder’s intended in the Constitution, I would do a simple test. At the age of 18, could the person in question have chosen to become a citizen of a country other than the United States? As a matter of law that person could have divided loyalties.
I may be wrong, but I believe that Rubio could not have become a citizen of Cuba at the age of majority.
But all that aside, the Dems have trumped the citizenship issue for any candidate until 0bama is declared an unlawful President. Because he clearly had the right to citizenship in another country by right of birth. Hell, me may still have the right to do so.
If Rubio would be a citizen were there no laws making him one, then and only then would he be a natural born citizen. That's what 'natural' means.
"Natural born" as in "vaginal born" not Cesarean Section, right?
Stupid me.
I didn’t know Human Events was so uninformed and a bunch of liars.
I need not spend my short life reading anything from them again.
If Barack Hussein is considered NBC, and serving, and not deposed by congress or SCOTUS, with Kenyan citizenship of his father, then Rubio is also NBC.
My problem with Rubio is not his NBC status in 2012, it is NEE. (not enough experience)
Neither Obama, Rubio, nor Romney are eligible.
Rubio the globalist ?
He sounds polished and smooth, but...
Rubio Praises U.N., World Bank, IMF for Not Asserting ‘Narrow American Interests’
Search the web for the above story...
I’ll make a post of it.
I would not vote for him for any office he ran for.
He’s simply building his “Senate career” in his personal pursuit of the Presidency.
First, JC Fremont wasn’t elected.
Second, if memory serves me correctly, Chester Arthur burned his records shortly before his death, “cleverly” concealing a lot of things from posterity.
Out here on what Mr Zak calls “the fringe,” there those of us who believe there are three kinds of citizen:
1) naturalized, (foreign born)
2) natural, (born in USA, parents maybe or maybe not citizens)
and;
3) natural born, (both parents citizens at time of birth, whether naturalized or natural)
If that is not so, there was no reason to differentiate the categories within the Constitution.
The left will man the ramparts defending obama. If the right elects a president with the exact same qualifications, in regard to his birth, they will attack unmercifully until the “usurper” is deposed. They will never admit to the hypocrisy of their position, and they will never relent.
To use Zak’s logic, one of the Chinese anchor babies, born on a maternity tourism jaunt to the good ol’ US of A, then raised in Communist China would make a dandy president.
Much as what happened with the current occupant of 1600 Penn’a Ave, Wash DC, except he was raised in Indonesia of Communist parents.
That and/or the writer is an example of what happens when the progressives/socialists/liberals, unions, etc. take over the school system.
What the hack propagandist is saying is NOT what was taught in middle school as late as the early 70s. What else have they gotten wrong and then taught us and our kids?
“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.
It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.
Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”
~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967
He and obama are NOT NBC.
LLS
If such was the case, why the need for the 14th amendment???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
I don't think that's accurate. I think his mother became a citizen before his birth. It was his father there are questions about. His father, though, had been an immigrant. Had returned to Cuba apparently due to the instability and revolution, and apparently with the intent of getting his wife (wife-to-be?) to the US. He accomplished that.
He then did appear before the authorities for immigration well after he'd lived here for 2 years. He then accepted various jobs in various locations as an acceptable immigrant and as a Cuban refugee, based on that law as well.
He would have met the requirements for citizenship of the original immigration and citizenship law if he had lived under that first law in the 1790s.
So, if we're going to apply a 1700s definition of "natural born", then we must also apply the first law of the 1790s (1793, I think), to his case.
Had the same situation applied in Rubio's case in the 1790's, there would have been no denying Rubio's natural born citizen status. Both parents had gone before the authorities after two years residence and indicated their desire to be here. Rubio had been born prior to that in the US.
I have no problem with Rubio as a candidate. Jindal, on the other hand, was not born to citizen parents.
I think this is an appeal to Scottish Law.
It should not be surprising that within Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added) Notice the plural use for parentage.
This was based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance. The position being that if a person whose father was born outside the country and the son inside the country it would put the son in a position of dual allegiance between his birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication is that if circumstances placed the country at odds with the country of a president’s father the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against a nation that he has a direct relationship with. How could a man expect to defend against or wage war with the country of his father?
Which brings us to the issue at hand – how do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” As the Constitution is the basis of our law and is law in and of itself we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest contention in determining the meaning as the term is not used in general language today, outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, so it is of little use.
Second; should the “plain meaning” not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“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." (Emphasis added)
From the Federalist Papers:
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into proper context:“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.”
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their native country.