Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
You are lying, it is not settled law.
“But, Obama’s BC was an entirely different issue than his parent’s birthplace.”
First they wanted to know if the BC was real, before they dealt with his constitutional elgibility in AZ.
Aaron Klein keeps making this same absurd mistake on his radio program. He just said recently that the parents have to be natural born when he was interviewing the guy that the FEC said could be a candidate even though he wasn't born here, let alone being born to citizen parents. It is because people speak before they think & speak when they are not learned in the subject matter at hand, that the world is so upside down when it comes to actually defining the LAW.
None of the conservative radio talk-show hosts can discuss this subject objectively. To do so will cost them their careers. They’ve all been threatened by the Obama Regime, a fact which has been covered extensively in other threads over the past four years.
Natural born citizen was a legal term with an established meaning. It wasn’t based on rules of wandering tribes.
We are Americans. We don’t have tribes. Unlike an Israelite, we don’t memorize our genealogy back 20 or 30 generations.
We also don’t have Sabbath years, or Jubilee years, and we don’t obey the OT laws on eating, etc.
But good luck going to court and citing Exodus as your authority on terms in the US Constitution!
All well and good.
The Rule of Law has stated that you and those like you have no standing, and have further dismissed arguments associated with such with prejudice.
What’s your back up plan?
You might read the Fifth Amendment.
ML/NJ
“You are lying, it is not settled law.”
Good point. That would explain the US Supreme Court’s interest in these cases, and why different states have different interpretations. < / sarcasm >
“And I, for one, am not about to play by a different set of rules than our opponents.”
Here Here
Seldom have I seen a person prattle on in greater ignorance. If you would spend more time learning about that to which you are referring your opinion might eventually be regarded as having some value. The first thing you need to learn is how little you actually know.
"The fathers of independence soon felt that they were in accord with the ideas of Vattel. "
Vattel’s Influence on the term "a Natural Born Citizen"
Vattel's ideas were heavily influential for our entire form of government.
Can you really be that stupid?
By "us," the poster was clearly referring to those who are quite certain that natural-born means that the parents have the attribute being modified, or that attribute is otherwise in the newborn's genes.
ML/NJ
Why is anyone even arguing about this? It is clear what the Founders meant: natural born citizen = ‘child of a foreigner’, and equally, ‘child of a foreign enemy of the Republic’.
Why is this even an issue?
"You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." (Jagger v. Richards, 1968)
Amen to all of that!
No only the courts have said that, that is not what the law says.
16,15....262,2,14,',97....574,69,28,5....61,1-8,9
490,35,41....424,35,41,!
Various documents I have read from the founding era indicate that the primary requirement to have a child declared as a natural born citizen was for the father to become a resident and show intent to become a citizen. This notion is reflected in the "naturalization act of 1790" and the Virginia declaration on who shall be deemed a citizen.
If Rubio's father had made his intention to become an American Citizen known prior to Rubio's birth, (and I am assured that he did) Then I am willing to argue that Rubio was born owing no allegiance to any other nation, and is therefore eligible. That the father may not have gone through the "process" by the time he was born is merely a "technicality" in my mind. If the first congress was willing to consider this "good enough", who am I to second guess their intent?
In Wilson’s Commentaries on American Law & Citizenship (1791) when he said that they went back to ancient customs for the definition of citizen, what part of ancient do you NOT understand?
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.