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 ...
Is Rubio Eligible?
1. Is Obama?
2. Why ask about Rubio?
rubio is NOT eligible according to the dick cheney. rubio has what, one, two years as senator? rubio is also NOT eligible regarding Natural Born, but the dick cheney knows that.
The same test would apply to obama
No
Libs and 0bots here trying to help their guy. This Rubio for VP gonna be coming back over and over till he names is running mate.
Actually, that probably makes sense, since at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it took a long time, a lot of money, a lot of determination and risking one's life on the seas to journey from continent-to continent.
Things have changed.
Fred lost me when he started pushing de facto elimination of the Electoral College. I suppose I should click on the site to see his yes/no answer since it is not in the excerpt, but I cannot seem to do it.
There is absolutely, positively, no legal case against the eligibility of Rubio.
If you don't like Rubio, that is your right and decision, but please drop the crackpot radical birther nonsense!
At least one parent required to be a citizen? Unless it's both, you get into the dual citizenship problem. As I recall, the one citizen parent interpretation was developed out of thin air several years ago to try to legitimize Obama.
I do like Rubio, very much. That was not the question. And I could not agree more re: the radical birther nonsense.
Rubio has been co-opted now by the rhinos and sadly cannot be trusted to be a solid conservative and constitutionalist anymore , regardless of whether he is eliliginle or not IMHO.
I can’t say that I agree with Fred on this, but one thing os for sure, we will never know how the Supreme Court will rule on the issue. That’s because they are too weak-kneed to ever take the issue up.
I say nominate Rubio, and then send both Rubio’s case and Obama’s case up to the Supreme Court for decision.
In fact, I like Rubio so much I hope against hope that he does not run with Romney. I think it would hurt him in 2016. I cannot imagine how anyone would run with Romney. Most of all, Rubio. He does not need Romney.
Oops...’eligible’ . Typing on iPad lol.
My apologies.
Thanks for your comments.
No need to apologize. I completely understand why you had that reaction. The birthers cause my hair to hurt. And..you are more than welcome.
The bottom line is that to be a natural born citizen means that it is not necessary to be naturalized to become a citizen. Anyone born on American soil with the exception of those whose parents are here as an official representing a another nation is a NBC. Rubio and Jindle are both NBC.
Well put.
Not a bad idea except this is the same SC that gave us Obamacare, soooooo .....
Fred....You are wrong and your arguments is synthetic sleight of hand.
Seen it before.
BTW, Fred...Did you vote for Senate Resolution 511?
Where you affirmed in that vote that John Sydney McCain was qualified because he was born of two American Citizens on a US Military Base?
How about radical “birther” certificate fraud nonsence?
Now that’s a ‘Brilliant’ idea! These folks on our side , that have sold our constitution down the river for the sole purpose of getting their own ineligible candidates in the oval office, are going to be shocked when their partners in crime on the other side of the aisle show them no such deference when their time comes! The dems will be screaming from the rooftop that Rubio is not eligible. Mark my word.
Nope.
There were born with divided citizenship and loyalties.
If they were drafted into war by the United States they could easily exercise their citizenship in Cuba or India and return.
The US wouldn’t do a thing to them either.
Does HI State Registrar Alvin Onaka make your hair hurt now too, since he indirectly confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the birth record Hawaii has for Obama is not legally valid?
Citizenship is hereditary..... You get it from your parents.
No parental us citizenship at birth means NO natural-born (jus sanguines) citizen child.
IMHO, the confusion comes because the Founders only originally accounted for the two types of citizens...natural-born and naturalized. They also used the terms native an natural interchangeably (which doesn't help matters either)
With the passage of the 14th Amendment, a 'new' type of citizenship emerged. A foreigner's child born on the soil (jus soli) is a NATIVE born citizen. He is basically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment.
But the still doesn't make him natural-born.
Also:
in the rare instance when a judge has said that a NBC must have parents who are citizens, it has not been part of the decision in the case. Such comments have been gratuitous or “dictum,” as the lawyers say. That is, not necessary to the actual holding in the case.
Good way to resolve that would be to present the specific case to SCOTUS ... IIRC it's never been specifically addressed before.
Oh, that's right, apparently no one in the USA has proper standing to raise the issue.
Congressional Research Service
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Birth within the United States
Main articles: Birthright citizenship in the United States and Jus soli
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:
Is born in the United States
Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Has parents that are in the United States for business
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[6] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[7]”
The RINO Rubio is way down on my list for VP. West would be good. So would Gov. Walker from Wisconsin, but I understand that the badger folk want to keep him. I get it. That’s cool.
I think a hard-core retired Marine general might fit in as VP. Somebody has to clean up the Aegean stables that Holder’s “peeples” are occupying.
“Senate Resolution 511”
You ARE aware that SR511 had NOTHING to do with those born in the USA...aren’t you?
You think I care what the Congressional Research has to opine on this matter? I don’t. Lol
We don't need no steenkin' Constitution anymore.
It matters not what you think what his loyalties might be, the fact is that Rubio is a NBC,
“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.”
John Adams
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.”
...
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
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.
Both of Rubio’s parents had green cards, and were fully subject to the laws (e.g., taxation) of the USA.
To demonstrate how unbelievably misinformed you are, I present the following:
If Rubio is eligible as you believe, then so are Ahmed and Shaimaa Morsi.
Who are Ahmed and Shaimaa Morsi?
Why they are the children of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.
There is a reason the Founders specifically included a requirement for the president to be “natural born” — two American citizen parents and born in the USA.
And being a Birther is far preferable to being a GUllible.
http://theobamafile.com/_opinion/Gullibles.htm
HUA disease.
That silly dicta in WKA was about English common law that is a English regulation and not natural law. The English law of Natural born subjects had no distinction between naturalized subjects and natural subjects. Naturalized citizens can become president sport? Nope.
“The US wouldn’t do a thing to them either.”
The USA didn’t do a thing to draft-dodgers who feld to Canada, either.
keyword....indirectly. Even a dog knows when it is time to bury a pork chop bone. That poor pork chop bone has been chewed on way too long. This will do nothing but hurt us in the election. 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.
It all comes down to this - What is the legal definition of NBC (Natural Born Citizen)?
According to Freddie on his page, it simply means being born on US soil.
According to other sources - the original intent and understanding was that both parents had to be US Citizens at the time of birth (on US Soil) for a child to have NBC status.
Both sides present court cases to back up their side. Which is right. I firmly believe that those who crafted the NBC requirement for POTUS had in mind a limiting of foreign influence. I can’t prove that, other than it seems far more consistent with other writings and ideas of the time.
How many times has the US Supreme Court used the term “Natural Born Citizen” to describe any other person besides “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”?
But we all know that case law and the US Constitution are all “living and breathing documents” subject to the interpretation and application of the person doing the interpreting.
UGH
Also, take a look at these citations:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
I disagree with a few of the citations, but they ALL disagree with you!
Things have changed...
Agreed. That's why NBC should be firmed up a bit. Perhaps a NBC is a person born on US soil that has NOT left American soil more than 2 weeks in any one year of their life.
Yes, it would discriminate against anybody that works abroad; but so what? We have lots of other people to draw from. It would allow for even a frequent vacationer to Aruba or London or whatever.
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.