Obama’s ineligibility: Marco Rubio can’t be President or Vice President

Canada Free Press ^ | September 20, 2011 | Lawrence Sellin

[Ordinary_American]

The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.

The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.

Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.

The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.

In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.

[Squeeky]

YOU couldn’t be more wrong. Read your own stuff:

“To become a citizen at birth, you must:

Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;”

Now, read this court case thingie from Won Kim Ark in 1898:

“The Supreme Court was very clear that there were only two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized:

The Fourteenth Amendmentof the Constitution, in the declaration 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, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”

And now read this thingie from a 2009 case:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

Sooo, the Vattle Birthers are WRONG. Your own stuff you posted said the same thing, and I wonder why you people keep trying to mislead people???

[SatinDoll]

The 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do with Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the U.S.Constitution.

You are spreading lies and disinformation. Keep it up and you’ll be zotted.

[FromTheSidelines]

What would such a understanding do to the unity of the United States, its culture, and its national security?

Seems to me that three Presidents without any concern about bloodlines from anyone - FDR, Johnson and Clinton - more than divided this nation. Not just culturally but socially, economically, and politically.

Some of the most rabid, pro-American unity folks I know are naturalized citizens. And some of the most anti-American, tear-it-all-down types are Americans by birth.

What groups take English/American names for themselves, insist their kids learn our History and language? Typically immigrants from Asia. What groups make up names to sound foreign or insist on names from back in their home country, and ignore what their kids learn about our history and language? Sad to say - a lot of Mexican aliens and a good chunk of our own blacks.

I'd take a Jindal or Rubio any day as President over what we have now, or someone like Waxman, or Rangel. Jindal and Rubio are so much more American to the core...

[allmendream]

Naturalized is different from natural born? Wow. Way to argue for something I never argued against. In fact the entire basis of my argument is that the US Constitution only mentions or envisions two types of US citizen, those that are natural born and those in need of naturalization.

Now where in the US Constitution or in US Statute or US Legislation do you find “native born citizen” defined as a third type of US citizenship that is not natural born - and with no need to be naturalized?

You cannot be tired of posting THAT because it doesn’t exist.

[Squeeky]

If I get zotted for telling the truth I don’t care. I wonder why you Vattle Birthers come on a place like Free Republic and spread your lies and silliness??? Anybody can just read the cases and see how totally wrong you Vattle Birthers are.

You Vattle Birthers don’t do nothing but LIE and DECEIVE. What if you came on here and told everybody that income taxes were illegal and you didn’t have to pay them??? Do you not think there would be people wondering why you spreading that lie and what your motivation was???

Because you Vattle Birthers are doing the same thing, trying to mess conservatives up, and now you are trying to keep people like Rubio and Jindle from running for president. Sooo, if you don’t like people telling the truth about you, maybe you ought to quit your lying!!!

So There!!!

[betty boop]

I fail to see how that distinction meaningfully impacts the unity, culture, and national security of the U.S.

And that is why the United States is a constitutional system of "rule of law," not a "rule of men."

[wintertime]

I'd take a Jindal or Rubio any day as President over what we have now, or someone like Waxman, or Rangel. Jindal and Rubio are so much more American to the core..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Great! Since you feel strongly about this, join with others and lobby for a Constitutional Amendment that would allow a Jindal or Rubio to be president.

[DiogenesLamp]

Was Rubio born here? Then he is eligible. What exactly does Natural Born mean to you? Where was it defined further in the constitution or in any amendment?

It is defined in the same place as "Freedom of Speech", "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", "We the People", and other terms of art used in the US Constitution: The common vernacular of the Educated Founders.

They were highly educated men who spoke French, Greek, and Latin as well as English. They knew of Ancient and World History, and they knew it well. They knew of the Philosophies of the Romans and the Greeks, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Vattel, Burke, et al.

Only modern Americans are so simpleminded as to claim that just being born here makes one a citizen. The founders obviously did not agree for they specifically excluded Slaves and Indians DESPITE the fact of being born here.

[Political Junkie Too]

So a child born on January 2, 2011, whose parents were both naturalized on January 3, cannot be President. Had the parents been nationalized two days previously, he could. I fail to see how that distinction meaningfully impacts the unity, culture, and national security of the U.S.

So, do you think that a person who turns 18 on November 7, 2012, should be allowed to vote for President Obama, even though they miss being eligible to vote by only one day?

-PJ

[La Enchiladita]

“Ordinary American” = Lawrence Sellin, who re-posts to FR from his blog without acknowledging who he is. The only topic he writes on is “birther-ism”.... like a broken record.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The problem with your interpretation is that Virginia Minor was arguing that her citizenship was due to the 14th amendment, which would have fallen under that second class of persons. IOW, the court had a perfect opportunity to solve any doubts, if it could do so, without regard to the citizenship of the parents.

The Court does not normally take advantage of "perfect opportunities" to decide issues that it is not required to decide to adjudicate a case. If an issue is not necessary to a decision, it is not decided. That's Supreme Court Jurisprudence 101.

Therefore, by including that criteria in a definition specifically about natural citizenship, they EXCLUSIVELY limited that definition to those persons born in the country of citizen parents.

That is simply not true. The fact that they gave one particular defintion as an example does not mean that other examples do not exist. Do you even know what the case was about?

It was a case about the right of women to vote. A woman was claiming that the 14th amendment granted women additional citizenship rights that women did not have before, and that these necessarily included the right to vote. In other words, citizenship = the right to vote.

The Court rejected that argument by pointing out that women were considered full citizens even prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, but that being a full citizen clearly did not necessarily include the right to vote. To illustrate that point, the Court pointed to the most inarguable, widely agreed upon definition of a natural born citizen -- born in this country of two citizen parents. It picked that definition not because it was the only one, but because it was the one on which everyone agreed.

The court then pointed out that even women who met that most stringent definition of Natural Born Citizen didn't have the right to vote at our founding, therefore, the right to vote was not something inherent in being a full citizen. Voting rights case dismissed.

Given that the only reason the Court looked at the NBC clause was to point to the only language in the Constitution that defined what a citizen was, and to show that voting was not inherent in citizenship, there was no reason to resolve exactly what it takes to be an NBC. Merely being able to point at those who met the tightest definition was enough to prove the point. And when there is no reason for the Court to resolve a disputed legal issue that is not essential to the case before it, it doesn't. It's basic logic, but saying that all linebackers play defense does not imply that all defensive players are linebackers. By the same token, saying that persons born in this country of citizen parents are natural born citizens does not imply that all natural born citizens are born in this country of two citizen parents.

[DiogenesLamp]

So naturally someone born in a stable must be a horse.

Reducto ad absurdum.

Yes, I have reduced your argument to it's absurd conclusions. You're welcome.

If the stable was in the US or its territories, then the person is a US citizen by birth. If that stable was in Bethlehem, then the child born is a citizen of Israel - not the US.

So a person doesn't become a citizen until it is born? Funny. Liberals argue that a "fetus" doesn't become a person until it is born. Pro-lifers argue that it's characteristics as both a citizen and a person are inherent in it's existence.

Here's a direct, simple question for you: do you gain citizenship by being born on US soil? Simple yes or no answer is all that is required.

No. Indians and Slaves were born on the soil and were yet not citizens. If being born on the soil was the rule, even ambassadors could not be exempt from it. The "Birth within boundaries" theory is simply an artificial man made doctrine completely disconnected from natural law.

What the silly people of the world don't seem to comprehend is that it is a left over from British Law of Subjugation. It was created to grab servants for the crown under any pretext, not for the benefits of those servants. England was alone in this doctrine. The Other nations of Europe (and indeed since Roman and Greek times) recognized children as being in the allegiance of their parents.

[DiogenesLamp]

Read the Cable Act. Where or how did it create a new subcategory of citizenship? You're either not a citizen, still a full citizen, or considered a naturalized citizen - the three that have always been. If you're a citizen, you're either a citizen by birth or by process of naturalization. The Cable Act does nothing to change that.

I've read it. It affects the citizenship of the Woman. Therefore it Affects the citizenship of her Children. You are dodging the salient point.

Please point out in the Cable Act where it deals with citizenship other than the mother.

The operative word is "mother." I'm sorry you don't "get it."

Please point out how it changes the citizenship of any children to a "new" subcategory that did not exist before. I've linked the actual text of the Act - it's just 1 page, it should be easy to identify this new subcategory of citizenship if it exists, as you claim.

I have linked for you the text of the Women's Citizenship act of 1934. You fail to see the subtler connection to the Cable act, but you cannot fail to see the absolute connection to the 1934 act. That you ignore it to prattle on about how you can't see how an act which affects a woman's citizenship could possibly affect her offspring belies the fact that you cannot ignore my point regarding the subsequent act.

These two acts created dual citizens under different circumstances. Dual citizens were non-existent prior to these two acts. If you cannot comprehend the significance of this point then I simply feel sorry for you. More like you understand it all too well, and simply don't want to admit that you had never considered the ramifications of it before.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you think all children born to US citizen fathers were born within the state of matrimony?

Do you think a known bastard could win? Even so, the Bastard's citizenship is still determined by the father. Obama would be a Kenyan Bastard by that standard. Actually, there is doubt that his parents were actually married.

Talk about arguing from a position of absolute IGNORANCE!

When you talk, it usually *IS* from a position of WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Under the 1790 act there was no mention of the requirement that the father and mother be married for the child of a US citizen father (one parent) born overseas (not in country) to be a natural born citizen.

In the Second Amendment there is no mention of the word "Gun." Yet everyone had no illusions about what they were talking about. When they used the term "Freedom of the Press" they weren't talking about making wine. Some things are axiomatic to the zeitgeist.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not been adjudicated yet = according to you, not according to any law or precedent. I.e. just your ignorant and misguided self serving opinion.

No, Not adjudicated according to FACT! Name a case adjudicated by the court regarding Article II. If you cannot name one, then you need to STFU.

The condition of being born to a US citizen father and a non US citizen mother most certainly DID exist, unless you are intent upon insisting that all children born were born to married parents - a rather dubious proposition - one apparently far beyond your ability to comprehend.

Children born without fathers are called "bastards." If the Father is not known, then the natural born citizenship status is likewise unknown. He could be born to an Ambassador for all we know! :)

Senseless droning is all anyone can expect from you - but maybe if you speculate about who 0bama’s REAL father and mother is it will convince people you R serious poster dealing with serious stuff!!!!

I don't know who Obama's father is. It might even be who he says it is. Even if his father is actually an American, Under the rule of American law, the Father of the marriage is the legal father, so he STILL isn't a "natural born citizen."

[betty boop]

“What if Osama Bin Laden had a kid born in America—are you saying he could be president???”—the answer is YES. IF he wins the election.

Well dear Squeeky, if elected, what could we expect the radically differently-cultured President Bin Laden to do to this?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To be a citizen of the United States is to be (or join) the We the People of the United States of America.

Your so-called "Vattel birthers" are not "going around the law." They are understanding the law in a way closer to what the Framers intended than you are. The Framers always understood that the very concept of citizenship involves loyalty, fealty, allegiance to the nation to which one belongs.

Certainly the Framers did not intend that the Second Amendment "ONLY applies to authorized militias." Only liberals and (worse) Left Progressives "believe" that. Nor did they intend that of the First Amendment religion clauses, only the first should be respected (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion), while the second must be totally suppressed (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

I hold a Class A license to carry (all lawful purposes) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I exercise my Second Amendment right (while not belonging to an organized militia), and also my First Amendment right of "free exercise."

I do not go down and shoot up MacDonalds. Very few people do that sort of thing. But when a whacko does such a thing, the liberals bleed and moan and try to take my guns. Why??? There's no such thing as a perfect, risk-free world. Because nutcases will be nutcases on fairly rare occasions is no reason to disarm a free citizenry.

As they say, "hard cases make for bad law."

It's better to stick with the Constitution. We live in an imperfect world; the document itself is not "perfect." But it is the longest-lived written constitution in the history of the world, and has formed the basis of the freest and most prosperous people on earth.

Winston Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government ever tried — except for all the others.

I do not believe that Churchill was here alluding to a "pure democracy." Ever since Plato, it has been understood that so-called "pure democracies" inevitably lead to rule by the mob.

The United States is a democratic constitutional republic — not a "pure democracy." We are a system of rule of law, not a rule of men — as would be the case with a "pure democracy." The bloody aftermath of the French Revolution showed us what that looks like. Then a "strongman" — Napoleon — had to come in to "restore order." Liberty died on the spot.

I think it's high time for Americans to consider what it means to be an American citizen... and not dwell so much on what the "legal hows" of it may be — especially since the latter have been so degraded by progressivist thinking since around the turn of the twentieth century....

FWIW.

I have the flu; am running a fever of 100° and so I think I'm going to tuck myself in and take a nap for a while. But I'll check back later....

'Bye for now!

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m not reading any of your crap. You have been beaten to a bloody pulp so many times that nothing you have to say is worth responding to.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, you just blew out Diogene’s Lamp’s flame with fire extinguisher. Tee Hee!!! But, I bet he comes back with some more Vattel Birther dribble to try to pretend the law stuff doesn’t say what it clearly says. I am waiting for the day when Pigs fly and Vattle Birthers admit they are completely wrong. They will be same day.

Mr. Rogers keeps repeating a mountain of the same drivel. He has been beaten down by virtually everyone on Free Republic, yet persists in posting the same disproven crap. BushPilot1 has torn him a new @sshole so many times it is no longer funny.

As for you and your squeeky little candlepower intellect, I am not going to bother trying to see things from your perspective, because I doubt their is enough room up your @ss for both our heads.

[EDINVA]

Rubio isn’t the reason Rs were quiet. No one outside FL had heard of him till the Obama eligibility issue had pretty much run its course.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whether it's convenient to the birther community or not, the English Common Law had been the law of each of the 13 colonies since each came under British jurisdiction and continued to be the law of each of the 13 states of the United States of America at the time of the drafting and signing of the Constitution.

The English Common Law, as modified by two more centuries of American experience, continues to be the law of each of those states.

In every regard except where it was explicitly rejected by the creation of New American law, as in Citizenship. When we rejected the King, we rejected the laws that bound us to him. Jus Soli is merely the means by which a King gains servants.

Other proof that it didn't apply as you assert it is in the fact that Indians and Slaves were not citizens until made citizens by the 14th amendment and later statutes.