Is Rubio Eligible?

Fred Thmpson America ^ | 07.31.12 | Sen Fred Thompson

[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.

[Red Steel]

SURVEYS PERSISTENTLY SHOW 44% OF ALL VOTERS AND 66% OF RANK & FILE REPUBLICANS DOUBT OR REFUTE OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY. THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA. IT'S ABOUT THE US CONSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT "GOING AWAY."

Yup. The RINOS, Libs, Dems have totally failed to BS this away as in Epic Failure. A very recent poll June 30 - July 2, 2012. The graphics below are from this poll.

Published July 11th - http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/07/11/birthers-are-still-back/

This translate to about 140.85 Million US Citizens who don't believe these liars.

And for what Republicans and Conservatives believe.

That's 69% Rs who are not sure or who don't believe Obama or his DUmmy supporters.

Total Epic Failure. LoL.

[Kansas58]

““you say we must have a law to prevent what you do not want.”

Please pay closer attention. I say we ALREADY have a law to prevent foreign influence on the Presidency. You refute that with ... nothing.”

---

The fact that absolutely no one of any importance or legal power agrees with you is a bit more than “nothing” don't you think? Natural Born Citizen means "Citizen at the moment of Birth" A Naturalized Citizen can not be President. This is what the law says, today, this is what the law has always said. However? Congress can change the rules for "Birthright Citizenship" and has done so, several times. These changes can not be done retroactively, so those who were not born as Citizens can not be President.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t guess it would matter to you at all that the supreme court disagrees with you on law and history:

“[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States…the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words….in this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution…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.”

History disagrees with you more. The very act of rebelling against the crown and declaring an independent nation is contrary to English Common law. The principles which founded this nation are complete rejections and rebukes of English common law. It requires a special kind of fool to believe that on the issue most central to our freedom, that we should attach it back to the writ of servitude which is the English Common law.

No, the founders broke decisively with English Subjectude law. Our very existence as a nation is testament to the fact that we don't recognize it as governing our Citizens.

We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. --George Mason-- At the Virginia U.S. Constitution Ratifying Assembly.

And another example:

The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. --James Madison Letter to George Washington.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)

And Wong Kim Ark is a decision constantly cited by idiots. Firstly, it wasn't addressing the qualifications for the Presidency as outlined in article II, Secondly it never uses the term "Natural born citizen", And Thirdly it was applied to those people who's parents had set up a permanent domicile within this nation. It was never meant to apply to transients such as "anchor babies." Fourthly, it is entirely contradicted by the debates in the congress during the voting on and ratification of the 14th amendment, which is the only thing which grants it any legitimacy at all.

As I said, Wong Kim Ark is the favored decision of Ignorant idiots. Look up Minor v Happersett. It expressly states that a "natural citizen" is the child of two citizen parents. It specifically and explicitly rejects 14th amendment claims for "natural born citizen" status.

[DiogenesLamp]

The parents do not need to be citizens; they merely need to have consented to be under the laws of the the USA — that is, legal residents.

That is not true. That is a fiction that has come about since 1898 on the basis of a faulty understanding of the court's ruling in Wong Kim Ark. The history demonstrates that prior to the late 19th century, Slaves, Indians, British Loyalists after the war, Women married to foreigners, and the children of Foreign Diplomats have always been considered non-citizens even though they were born here. If birth here was the sole criteria, none of these people would have ever been excluded from citizenship.

Not even the English use the "born on the soil" standard for their Chief Executive. No, a King (or Queen) only has legitimacy if they are descended from a member of the Royal Family. The ONLY test for legitimacy in the English Executive is jus sanguinus. Being born in England is simply not good enough.

[DiogenesLamp]

I work with the Republican Party in Texas. I do not know one Republican...even amongst the big dawgs here..who thinks President Obama is not eligible to be President. And they really, really want this argument to go away before it gets any closer to the election. They find it an embarrassment. And makes us look like nuts and kooks.

And there is the essence of the opposition to our side. They do not have the knowledge base to understand what is the truth, AND they are opposed to questioning his legitimacy because they are afraid it will be politically embarrassing.

I am sorry that so many of the Republicans which you know are so badly informed on this topic. It is a common problem across the nation where the ignorant people keep a circle jerk going to celebrates the fact that they ARE ignorant about this topic.

Even some of our top intellectual talent displays ignorance on this subject, but they make arguments which support the notion that birth on the soil is not sufficient to transfer citizenship. Both George Will and Ann Coulter have written "birther" articles, without even realizing that they were justifying the "birther" position.

How funny is that?

Here's George Will's "birther" argument that he doesn't realize is a "birther" argument. Read it closely. He doesn't realize that his facts and logic would also apply to Obama.

Here is Ann Coulter's foray into "birtherism" without realizing it. Again, if she realized that she was making a "birther" argument, she would probably faint.

I would advise you to keep an open mind and carefully weigh the facts and reasoning from the other side before you decide there is nothing to our arguments. I firmly believe I can convince any reasonable person that the currently fashionable understanding of what "natural born citizen" means is wrong. The only difficulty is finding reasonable people to which to present the evidence.

Just for kicks and grins, I will show you this letter purportedly written by James Madison (Who as the Father of our Constitution ought to know what he is talking about) under his pen name "Publius" to at least two Virginia Newspapers regarding a man in Europe claiming American citizenship. Madison disagrees.

[DiogenesLamp]

You again. God what a ****** idiot you are. Fred Thompson is simply wrong on this. He is just repeating the conventional wisdom (which is also wrong) just like everybody else. People have been taught this wrong crap for so long that it is now ubiquitous.

But the truth it is not. There is just too much evidence out there that demonstrates "birth on the soil" was not the standard by which the founders granted "natural citizen" status.

[Kansas58]

“just like everybody else.”

“just like everybody else.”

just like everybody else.

just like everybody else.

just like everybody else.

-— But the 1,000 or so radical birthers in this country are right, somehow?

[Red Steel]

But the 1,000 or so radical birthers in this country are right, somehow?

Radical? LoL. Make that well over 100 million people who don't believe you Afterbirthers.

[Kansas58]

You claim too much credit.

I, like many Americans, doubt most of what Obama says.

However? Even among the Ted Trump types who think that Obama is less than honest about his past, there is very little support for the FALSE idea that there are more than 2 types of Citizenship in the United States.

[Kansas58]

Your problem is with logic.

Nowhere do your citations say who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

And this is one reason among many why I consider you an idiot.

Why don't these people agree with you?

Rush Limbaugh? NO Hannity? NO Levin? NO Fred Thompson? NO Beck? NO Any member of Congress? NO Any sitting Judge? NO Landmark Legal Foundation? NO American Center for Law and Justice? NO Jay Sekulow? NO Newt Gingrich? NO Rick Santorum? NO Herman Cain? NO Americans for Prosperity? NO The NRA? NO National Right to Life Committee? NO

None of the groups or individuals, above, agree with your crackpot interpretations of the law.

Intelligent, educated people would not be proud of the fact that they are arguing a fallacy.

You are apparently so ignorant that you don't even realize it. My recollection of you is that you don't have any arguments that are NOT logical fallacies. Your other favorite argument is THIS FALLACY.

You really should wait till you grow up and learn stuff before you start opining in your ignorance. I perceive you have nothing worthwhile to espouse.

[NOVACPA]

Senate resolutions carry as much legal weight as a Hallmark Card.

[DiogenesLamp]

To: Kansas58

Please don’t resort to the leftist tactic of calling anyone who doesn’t agree worn you a crackpot. It’s a vile way to argue.

This person knows no other way. It is ignorant, but loud anyway.

[Red Steel]

You claim too much credit.

No stretch - see post 181.

However? Even among the Ted Trump types who think that Obama is less than honest about his past, there is very little support for the FALSE idea that there are more than 2 types of Citizenship in the United States.

He's either ignorant of the facts, or it is just toooo complicated and "abstract" for him to make the argument to convince the DUmmies (so why try) who would rather forsake the truth for la la land.

If the Establishment from the left and the right, especially the leftists and socialists, lie about whatever is the truth from A to Z, it is no stretch for them to lie about natural born citizenship, which they do easily.

[Jewbacca]

“If birth here was the sole criteria, none of these people would have ever been excluded from citizenship.”

You misread the post. I did not say, nor evern imply, birth was the sole criteria.

There is a material difference between children of diplomats, for example (who are not citizens, even now) and children of persons who have have consented to pay taxes and submit themsleves to the laws of the USA (such as resident aliens).

Children of legally resident aliens are natual born citizens.

[Kansas58]

Among your other faults, you are also, obviously, a hypocrite.

You bash me for calling radical birthers “crackpots” and then you call me an “idiot”???

You live in your own world, and you obviously have no clue about the real world.

[Kansas58]

Senate Resolutions serve a very useful purpose.

They state, clearly, for people like you, what informed people with POWER given to them by the Constitution and by the voters, THINK!

You are wrong.

The Senate told you that you were wrong, but you don’t care.

[Kansas58]

Senate Resolutions serve a very useful purpose.

They state, clearly, for people like you, what informed people with POWER given to them by the Constitution and by the voters, THINK!

You are wrong.

The Senate told you that you were wrong, but you don’t care.

[Red Steel]

Nowhere do your citations say who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

Disengious - your 'logic' is to conflate citizen into natural born citizen. No there there.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not a single radical birther who claims that Rubio is not eligible seems to be able to debate, or understand common legal terms, or to understand history.

That doesn't stop you either, so I don't know why you would object to it in others. I guess hypocrite is no great leap from idiot.