Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by Perdogg
I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredthompsonsamerica.com ...
So, now you compare YOURSELF to Jesus?
get over yourself.
You are alone, and you are not Jesus!
(1). Since the law currently recognizes birthright citizens as being natural born citizens, then Rubio will be eligible. In one sense, it makes moot any additional discussion.
2. Is the law wrong? Is Rubio, in fact, a natural born citizen? Research done into the date of his birth (1970?) and the date of BOTH parent's naturalization (1975?) suggest that Rubio was not an NBC at the time of his birth. With NEITHER parent an NBC at the time, this does raise questions. I had originally been told his mother was naturalized just a few years after arriving in the US and prior to Marco's birth. Documents and articles I've seen actually demonstrate her naturalization was in 1975.
This is all moot, though, in that the law, as previously stated, has ruled that born citizens are natural born citizens.
Read Thompson’s article at the top of the thread.
NONE of the cases you cite say what you say they do.
None of them!
You do not understand how legal rulings work. That something is mentioned does not mean it is controlling, or necessary for the case at hand.
My extended family is similar to what you describe. But only because they are either in denial over where the country is at as a whole, or else have given up on truth making any difference in this nation. IOW, they are either dead or almost dead.
I’m not ready to hand this country over to death yet.
Texans of all people should realize what awaits if we don’t get the rule of law back. Those beheadings just across the border, the mass burials, the disemboweled folks hung from a bridge.... that’s going to be Texas by the time you blink if truth and the rule of law continue to be too “embarrassing” for this country to address. It will start out as your children being butchered by the lawlessness but it will travel up through Oklahoma and Kansas and it will soon be my children.
I’m sorry if I embarrass the good people of Texas by caring, but I do care whether their children and mine are massacred by the anarchy that comes when men rule and not laws.
I started out this business mostly apathetic, thinking the Hawaii people probably meant to say that Obama’s records prove he was born in Hawaii, but the more I saw through my requests the more I realized there is no rule of law. And that was when I realized that I had to fight. Because those who are unfaithful in a little will be unfaithful in a lot. I started my blog by pointing out that this isn’t about Obama at all, but about the rule of law, and I said that if we ignored this lawlessness it would begat all manner of lawlessness.
Now people are looking at Roberts’ ruling, Obama’s executive amnesty, Obama’s claimed right to kill any American with no questions asked, etc.... and people are wondering what happened to this country.
What happened is what I and the other “crazies” said all along would happen - that cute little cockroach (that everybody was too “embarrassed” to acknowledge) has had free rein in this country for 4 years. The lawless grand-daddy cockroach was not stopped at the beginning, and now there is more lawlessness than any of us can stop. A candidate for the R nomination said within Lawrence Sellin’s hearing that the issue is deeper than anybody knows. Too deep for anybody to be able to address.
What would you think if a doctor told you that your cancer is too deep for anybody to even look at?
That’s where America is at. Again, I hate to “embarrass” anybody, but I do care that this country is dying of a disease that nobody will even dare to mention, much less try to cure. To me, love means caring about stuff like that. The opposite of love isn’t hatred; it’s apathy. If we don’t care about each other, what’s left?
That’s what the courts are supposed to be for.
But the way things are supposed to be is just a very distant memory. The system has been sabotaged. We no longer have the checks and balances, separation of powers, Constitutional government, the rule of law rather than the rule of men, or electoral consequences holding elected officials accountable. Everything the Founders built into the system to make it work has been disabled. And that is the really sobering thing about this issue.
“Do you know how many times legislation has been introduced and shot down, that would do exactly what you want to happen in this case? “
Never.
Someone born in the USA of alien parents can run for President because they are natural born citizens.
The courts haven’t addressed the issue of defining NBC except for Minor v. Happersett - which doesn’t agree with Sen. Thompson. KWA wasn’t defining NBC.
There are 3 people who have seen Obama’s Hawaii birth record: Chiyome Fukino, Loretta Fuddy, and Alvin Onaka. The only one who made a public disclosure authorized and regulated by law was Alvin Onaka, and in an official legal response he indirectly confirmed that the record they have is not legally valid.
Nobody else has been allowed to see the record. That’s the problem, which is what the “birthers” have been saying all along. The best anybody can do is guess; we’re playing peek-a-boo (or Russian roulette) over who gets to hold the nuclear football.
And what these people are guessing conflicts with the official legal response of the person who has seen the record.
Who are you going to believe?
According to Lawrence Sellin, one of the R presidential candidates said that the eligibility issue is not being touched because it goes far deeper than anybody knows. IOW, they know there are deep, deep problems. They are afraid of stirring that pot because they know it is not a superficial little scratch; it is a gaping, bleeding, gangrenous, festering pile of pus and dead flesh. They’re afraid of how big this issue is.
Gangrene kills. You don’t put a band-aid over gangrene and live to tell about it.
yes, from a lib site, but the citations seem accurate.
I also think that McCain is and was eligible for POTUS, even though the author if this list thinks otherwise.
Still, the list of quotes is overwhelmingly on my side of this argument.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth and nothing more.
Congress has the power to define what rules are in place, and change those rules, for Citizens not born on American soil. However, the rules can not be changed retroactively.
A Naturalized Citizen can never be President. This is the ONLY prohibition found in the Constitution.
I think I have a decent handle on how rulings work.
The cases he cites are irrelevant in that they address citizenship, not natural born citizenship.
Look, I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you. You jump on every thread that mentions Rubio to call anyone who raises the issue a crackpot. Clearly you have an agenda here.
If you are fine with ignoring the laws, that’s your prerogative. You and Zero can be kindred spirits in that regard.
“Correct, in the case Rubio, his parents were legal residents therefore he is natural born in accordance with the 14th Amendment.”
Yes, but so many here are intent on making up their own laws to reflect the way they wish it to be.
Again I quote John Adams.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Some here are blinded by their passion and I understand that passion when it comes to Obama. Hopefully that nightmare will be behind us after Nov. 6 th.
There are two forms of Citizenship in the United States:
Natural Born
Naturalized
You have absolutely no legal case to argue otherwise.
Nobody of any importance or authority agrees with you.
Very, very few people of any caliber agree with you.
Where did I come into this picture? I said nothing about myself. I said that using your logic, Jesus would have to be a LOSER because he died alone. You’re arguing like a junior high girl - that if you’re not part of the cool crowd you’re a loser. I was just applying your logic to Jesus. He died outside the camp. He was spat upon. His friends deserted Him. According to your logic He had to be the world’s biggest loser.
You keep talking about people like me being alone. You don’t seem to get it: it doesn’t matter to me (or others like me) if I am alone. If being alone was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me. No matter who is mocking and spitting at me outside the camp.
And if you can’t follow what I’m saying then what I said before is true: the only One who can possibly help you is the One your own logic calls an epic fail.
The One who conquered sin, death, and the devil.
“Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth and nothing more.”
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
You present yourself as a Martyr
You present yourself as Jesus
It would be hard for anyone to read your pompous posts and say otherwise.
If you wish to win legal arguments you must rest your opinion on the opinions of others.
Your opinion does not stand, and can not stand, as no opinion of any weight, at law, or in politics, agrees with you.
Minor v Happersett was after the 14th Amendment. If citizenship at birth was the same thing as natural born citizenship, then why did the court in Minor v Happersett even mention the citizenship of the parents in regard to natural born citizenship, since the 14th Amendment when defining citizenship-at-birth made no mention of parents’ citizenship? Where did the Supreme Court get the idea that parents’ citizenship had any relevance to natural born citizenship, when location of birth was all that mattered to the 14th Amendment’s mandate regarding citizenship at birth?
Why didn’t the court simply cite the 14th Amendment for determining the definition of natural born citizenship? Why DID they refer to something not in the 14th Amendment?
Your Alinskyesque ridicule tactics expose you for what you are. That you are tolerated at FR is a credit to the genuine conservative principles of the site members ... which include, for your information, defense of the Constitution, even in the little details like requiring a president to be an NBC not just a citizen.
Haha ha. Only people of “importance” have this issue “right”?...ha ha ha
That’s when you know you are winning the argument....when you have resort to saying no one of “importance” agrees with you! Ha ha. I’m guessing Zero and the legions of folks willing to look the other way are people of “importance”. Ha ha.
The condescension is a nice touch. Ha ha. I guess us “low caliber” folk will just shirk away. Ha ha
Clearly the founding fathers rejected your claim.
“Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.”
Someone born a US citizen is neither a foreigner or an alien.
You think your opinion is more valuable than the opinions of:
Judges
Elected officials
Immigration attorneys
Historians
Yes, their opinions are more important than yours, and NONE of them are on your side.
You see? To WIN you must convince at least some of these folks that your crackpot interpretation is correct.
You have failed to do that.
Why do you think that is?
No, you are not winning, you have lost at every turn.
You are in denial.
My point is not to open your closed and hopeless mind, my point is to help those reading these threads understand that they should avoid you and your fringe and false legal theories.
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.