Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
I agree. They cite these bits and pieces of SC opinions and Federal laws to make some strange conclusion that overrides what the Constitution says in clear language.
The state case isn’t contrary to anything except the legal theories of the Vattle Birthers. The state case is based on Won Kim Ark which is a Federal Case. Because the Vattle Birthers can’t find any case at all that says it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen, and if there aren’t two citizen parents then the person is not a natural born citizen. Sooo, why don’t you admit that you can’t find any case that says that???
I never heard there was a FR rule that someone posting an article had to also post comments.
I understand even less conservatives attacking others conservatives over issues that are very obviously Constitutional. If non-NBCs are allowed to be president, let’s have Netanyahu run. I like him a lot better than Rubio.
What many are missing, is that “Natural Born” citizens do not have to be born here. They are “naturally” citizens by the particular circumstance of their birth, that being that both of their parents were citizens at the time of their birth.
This is why so many were totally wrong about McCain. McCain is a NB citizen because his parents were citizens. He could have been born in Moscow and still been a NB citizen.
Eligibility = Born on U.S. soil to two parents also born on U.S. soil. The founders excluded themselves because they knew they had to....they were the originals with no parents of the same lineage.
It seems soooooo simple....Rubio, NO. Purple lipped Kenyan, NO.
Don't let the leftist over thought play in to your mind. We all see exactly what someone loyal to the muslim faith can do to a country.
His threads are powerful and helpful; why should he need to also comment?
Perhaps he doesn’t feel particularly competent to argue them.
Well, you are half way to the truth. Lookit at what you said:
“They are “naturally” citizens by the particular circumstance of their birth”
Now, just hold that thought and realize that people who are born here, in America, are also “naturally” citizens by the particular circumstances of their birth, that being that they were born here in the jurisdiction of America.
If I can just get you over that hump there may be hope for you!!!
“That is why they coined a new term, ‘native citizen,’ rather than using an existing term that they recognized to have a decidedly different meaning.”
Hmmm:
““As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
Yet you say WKA coined a “new term”?
The terms have been used interchangeably for years. Remember, Vattel never wrote “natural born citizen”. He wrote about natives, or indigenous. It wasn’t until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written that a translation was made of Vattel using NBC.
So you believe that Rubio was born in Cuba? Is that why you don’t believe he is a Natural Born Citizen? Don’t worry one little bit. He was born in Miami FL in 1971. Just to make sure, FL became a state in the union in 1845. I pretty sure that is before 1971.
The typical resolution is to turn his parents into quasi-ambassadors, which creates the legal fiction that any ground they walk on is that of the country they are representing, while away.
Exactly.
I appreciate that you were considerate enough to include me in your response. But really, there is no need. As I said, I have no intention of again debating substance with you. We had our respective says to each other some months ago, left on good terms, and I consider the matter between us to be completely concluded.
>> “Eligibility = Born on U.S. soil to two parents also born on U.S. soil.” <<
.
No, first, the parents could easily be immigrants that become naturalized, as long as it is before the child is born. Sceond, if the parents are both citizens, then the place of the child’s birth is of no consequence, as long as they return when their journey is over.
At the time that the constitution was written, it was common for a journey to take several years, because travel by ship was slow. A child could easily be born in another country and still be a NB citizen.
Perhaps you revised the argument because you were typing in a hurry, and what you meant to say was that "There is no qualifier for anyone's parents to be citizens for that person to become President."
Bingo. Thanks.
Thanks...
I agree with pretty much everything you said - but I don’t see how it addresses anything relating to the definition of what a natural born citizen is.
I used to have the same opinion, but after reading some dual citizenship cases, suggest that a bith on foreign soil may have some consequence.
The consequence of birth on foreign soil is that the foreign country may claim the person born there is subject to that country's laws, "under the allegiance" as it were. This could become a substantive issue, if the president was back to the country he was born in (as a practical matter, probably not, as he travels as the head of state, a super-diplomat, if you will), but in principle, the other country may (and is entitled to) make a claim, just by the accident of birth.
It’s all right there in my copy of Federalist #86, right after the part where Madison explains that, when the President-elect fails to qualify, the losing Vice Presidential nominee becomes President.
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.