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.
Well, obviously the electorate was, in fact, smart enough to clearly see the design of our founding fathers when they elected O, much as you are.
However, regardless of what our founding fathers wanted, they are all dead now, and the ball of America is in our court, and we have what we wanted, or at least what a majority wanted.
The only question that remains is does a majority still want the same, or did that majority learn from its mistake, or does that majority want a judge to tell it what can have, or can’t have?
Hmmmm....
Her child would be born in our Jurisdiction, while not invading or arriving as a diplomat. So her child could qualify if he could produce either a Photo-shopped or authentic BC from Gitmo. He could go back to Afghanistan and be raised there and then return to the USA for a political career.
A "BC" of any form declaring US Jurisdiction at birth are now the preeminent qualifying factors. Obama, exhibit 1. Inhereted Loyalty born of singular citizenship is now a relic of the past regarding the presidency. Obama, exhibit 1. Millions of Mexican national citizens are now qualified to be President of the USA. God Bless Mexico.
Now why didn’t I think of that? If the Founders are dead, who cares what they thought? Thanks for enlightening me, that it doesn’t matter one way or another what the dead white guys intended.
What does that have to do with the question of natural-born citizenship?
“Are you pro-life, or pro-abortion? How do you define life?”
That is a polite, reasonable and informative question. SoJoCo, did you answer, and I just missed it?
It’s a simple, straightforward question. Is there any reason you would avoid answering it?
At least he was actually born here and we know it.
I agree. We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. The commies got away with a dirt bag allegedly born in America creep, then we should be able to put someone in we know was born in America, loves America, is conservative, and is cool.
I am less concerned with the parent not being a us citizen, than I am with the parents being communist and all the freaking delays and questionable “proof” that the little marxist was born here.
I am not a birther, never said I was. But you and many others want to control what others do qnd/or say, that is your problem not mine. Your point is we can only do it my way, well you are wrong. But ramble on and try to stop others from discussing things, no shin off my back. Have a good night.
LOL. Shine on you crazy diamond.
No, I think you're misinterpreting what the Chief Justice is saying. Chief Justice Waite wrote, "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." He then noted that they were known as 'natural-born' citizens, distinguishing them from foreigners and the only other form of citizen; naturalized citizens. Nowhere does the Chief Justice define or imply a third class of citizenship, and in the quote in question he is clearly talking about natural-born citizens and those who define them one way as opposed to those who define them another.
But regardless, the Chief Justice is clearly not defining natural-born citizen as only those born in the U.S. of two citizen parents.
You’re welcome.
You’re quite right, and so am I, that it doesn’ matter what they intended, because what matters is what we did, and that’s the reality of it.
It’s kind of like the way God created man, then set us on our own with free will. We are free to make decisions that save us, and we are free to make decisions that damn us. Yes, we can read the Bible and see what his intentions were for us, but that’s no guarantee that we will precisely follow, is it?
We are own our own.
Our freedom is our responsibility.
Which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Huh?
I’m not trying to control you. I simply told you that if you want to win, you won’t by employing a losing strategy.
I never told anyone to stop discussing anything, in fact, I told someone else like you to “Shine on, you crazy diamond”.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t want to take any “shin” off your back, because it looks like you need it all.
Good night.
ALL naturalization laws from 1790 forward stated that “IN THE EVENT” the husband/father dies before naturalization is complete, the wife/child does not have to start the process all over again, they become citizens as if the husband/father had lived. SCOTUS cases after the ratification of the 14th Amendment uphold this...
28th Congress, 2nd Session page 129
MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION
First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.
It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States
All persons … Chief Justice Waite in 1874:
The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”
born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … again Chief Justice Waite in 1874:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
Then 10 yrs later Gray upholds the ruling of the court written by Chief Justice Waite as it pertains to the paths to Us citizenship as it stands under the 14th Amendment:
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
Thus, if your parents are not citizens at the time of your birth, neither are you and if the parents are naturalized after you are born, so too are you a naturalized citizen.
So abortion is the new ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’? Is being pro or con now a deep dark secret on FR?
So you don’t care, and don’t think it matters, what the Founders intended.
Well there goes originalism, right out the window.
Welcome to the Living Constitution.
Are you sure you’re on the right site?
How does what they intended matter versus what we willingly did to ourselves?
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.