Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
AmericanVictory wrote, “...Wong Kim Ark, which, of course, did not even treat of Article II’s eligibility requirement which is evident from that case.”
I posted about half of the WKA decision, showing anyone who wants can read that AmericanVictory doesn’t have clue one about what he is writing.
It is hardly my fault that editor-surveyor & AmericanVictory lie in hopes that those who haven’t read the decision will believe them - which is what WorldNutDaily and Canada Free Press do as a matter of habit. And yes, it takes some room because WKA discussed the issue at great length, quoting many opinions going back to before the Constitution was written.
That is why the Indiana court used it in ruling that Obama DID meet the requirements of the Constitution. Because they can read...
Then how will the Left explain away how BO was able to be "President"?
>> “Justice Daniels was a US Supreme Court Justice.” <<
.
You’re getting ahead of yourself; you’ll have to explain to squeeky what the supreme court is. She believes that state courts can alter the effect of the constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court.
I don’t know who those people are, but its pretty hard to flawedly read this:
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.
I don’t remember how to diagram sentences but it would be like this:
persons - the noun
born within the borders of the United States - adverb phrase because it tells where???
are - linking verb
natural born citizens - the direct object
Regardless of the citizenship of parents - some kind of clause???
Since you are a editor, maybe you can re-diagram this if I have it wrong. But, I think I am getting the gist of it.
Yeah. Right. Like the standard rationality of your posts? How about your typical opening salvo to my reasoned post .
FAIL!
How about you well reasoned folks lay on me where in this bit of Constitution there is any mention of a Presidential candidates parents being a citizen?
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
If one was truly interested in Original Intent, it is plain to see the framers were interested in keeping English Royalty from coming here and taking over using elections. If they did, they would have to have a child born here and wait 35 years for the results.
Never before in the history of this country has the term Natural Born meant anything less than a person born on US soil or person born abroad by American parents. Since Rubio is a Natural Born citizen of the United States, he is fully eligible for higher office.
So far as Rubio is concerned his case is different than that of Jindal. Jindal's parents came to the US on a student visa with his mother already pregnant. They had no intention at that time of remaining in the US. He was born to parents with a foreign allegiance. He is not a natural born citizen.
In the case of Rubio, his parents were refugees from Cuba escaping from Castro's overthrow of the government. According to one lawyer I have read, a Cuban refugee has automatic asylum in the US. Rubio's parents arrived in roughly 1960.
Marco Rubio was born 10 years later to parents who had fully integrated into the United States. His mother had full citizenship status, his father was working on his, and the only delay was the requirement to support a family. His was taking longer, but it was real. And, as already stated, his parents had automatic asylum. They were legally accepted as resident in the US.
Therfore, in my humble opinion, Marco Rubio does fit the definition of a natural born citizen.
All of this is moot, of course, because our courts equate "native born" and "natural born." One can argue with that, but it is the way things currently stand. The US Code spells out requirements for being native born and Rubio definitely meets that standard.
Thank you!!! I wasn’t sure who he was. Like what year is he???
Well, I am not going to be mean and name names, but there is somebody on this thread who just doesn’t think he has to read anything at all. He just MIND READS stuff and then criticizes it!!! I just hope he feels sooo embarassed that he will stop doing that and become a better person.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
WKA had nothing to do with Article two, because no article two issue was before the court.
The US supreme court has only appelate jurisdiction, and thus their decision is only effective as to the issue before them, and to the extent that it was presented in the appealed decision.
WKA was denied citizenship to which he was entitled under the 14th ammendment. Nothing in article two of the constitution addresses anything about WKA’s plight. (your ridiculous tap dance not withstanding)
A reading of the decision makes it clear that they intended to, and very much did, clarify is that WKA was not a natural born citizen, but was a “native citizen,” a term the carefully created to firmly divide the two.
Your deliberate deception, and obfuscation through spamming with irrelevant, bandwidth consuming verbage is typical of your dishonest posting style.
Ask your boss..the known liar and fraud Dr. Conspiracy.
That is a big long case and I don’t feel like reading it again because I have already read it like TEN TIMES or more overt the last year. But the other case thingy quotes it and it seems pretty simple and definite. But I bet one of the other anti-Vattle people will just clobber you with it because I must have watched this happen about a million times.
Dr. Conspiracy threatened to ban me from his website for calling whats her name in Hawaii “Frujinko.” He said it was “racist” even though the Obots misspelt peoples names all the time. The Obots just got tired of me beating them like carpets over a clothesline WITH LOGIC.
Sooo, I don’t go there anymore unless it is as The Head Researcher, which is who I am at my think tank. I am not going to let those Obots threaten me!!! But, just for what it is worth, I am working a new Internet Article that really slams Dr. C and PJFoggy.
“WKA had nothing to do with Article two, because no article two issue was before the court.”
DANG! They sure talked a lot about it if it had no bearing. In fact, they took pains to show it DID have bearing.
“A reading of the decision makes it clear that they intended to, and very much did, clarify is that WKA was not a natural born citizen, but was a “native citizen,” a term the carefully created to firmly divide the two.”
Those are interchangeable, and have been for over 200 years.
If WKA was not a natural born citizen, there was no purpose behind spending half the decision discussing the meaning of NBS/NBC. In fact, the poor translation of Vattel made after the Constitution, where NBC first appears in his writings, equates them: “The natives, or natural-born citizens...”
Except Vattel says a native requires two citizen parents - true under Swiss law, but not under ours.
That is why every state, every Congressman, the GOP & every court agrees with me, and none of them agree with you. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
You cannot convince Utah or Arizona that Obama isn’t eligible. You cannot convince a court anywhere.
IF Obama wasn’t born in the USA, THEN you have a case. An irrefutable one. But until you show that, you have nothing.
Marco Rubio is a great guy, there is no denying that.
But, emotional opinions not withstanding, Natural Born has a real meaning, relative to the time that the constitution was written, and it requires that both parents be citizens.
There are some that have offered, incorrectly, that the citizenship of the father was sufficient, but I have never heard anyone before suggest that the citizenship of the mother was.
You are correct that asylum is automatic for post Castro refugees, but asylum is not citizenship.
I do sympathize with those wishing that Rubio could be elligible, but we cannot make exceptions to our constitution and at the same time be governed by it. I am also convinced that you do understand this principle, because I have seen you espouse it so many times in the past. I have never seen you as a constitutional revisionist.
So, how can Rubio fit the definition?
Would Rubio qualify as a natural born subject in the colonies?
Yep.
Does that mean he qualifies as a natural born citizen in the USA?
Yep.
Easy.
If you can read. The former colonies knew what they were voting on. And the Founders knew what they were writing when they added that phrase.
Rubio's parents, however were Cuban refugees and under the laws of the United States, Cuban Refugees become subjects of the United States the moment their feet hit dry land.
So at the time of his birth, both of Rubio's parents were "subjects" of the United States (not Citizens, but subjects) and therefore Marco Rubio was born a Natural Born Citizen in accordance with the provisions of the 14th amendment (subject to the jurisdiction thereof).
(ITYS somebody was going to clobber you about Won Kim Ark!!!) But you say nobody defined natural born citizen, sooo maybe you can read the case and see if you can cut and paste how the Won Kim Ark case winners defined it??? I bet that would helpful to everybody.
Wishing for deliverance from an imaginary authority is becoming typical of you.
It isn’t going to happen.
The clear definition of the era holds that a person with two citizen parents is what constitutes a natural born citizen. Its not just Vattel, but also the encyclopaedias of the time also make the same point. Our schools taught it until the 80s when they abandoned US history, and basic civics in favor of condomizing cucumbers.
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.