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.
Now it is rude to ask a person posting on FR when life begins?
It’s even rude to ask if you favor RU486?
If so, strange definition of rudeness.
If not, kindly answer the questions.
Just can't get past that pesky natural law as defined int he Declaration of Independence. You see presumption does not equate to citizenship. Citizenship is an act of personal choice not what is necessary.
“You would be correct as England was part of German Saxony before she became England.”
Well, I am glad they moved England a whole bunch to the left because Saxony is pretty close to Russia the way it looks on the map.
“You can’t always get due process so forget about it.”
-14th Amendment of the US Constitution (NOT!)
Sure. I’ll define “us” for you.
We’re the people quietly working behind political lines to get ballot initiatives on Nov.2012 ballots that propose amendments to state constitutions defining “natural born citizen”.
Here’s why.
The following information comes from our government, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, and describes the three statutory types of citizenship - native born (jus solis), derived citizenship (jus sanguinis), and naturalized citizenship.
CITIZENSHIP
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
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; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
To become a citizen after birth, you must:
Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
Apply for naturalization
*****************************************
Note: all three types of the above are U.S. citizens. All may serve in the U.S.Congress, as either Representatives in the House, or as Senators in the Senate. Natural born citizen is not mentioned as it is not a type of citizenship.
Per Article I, Section 2 and 3 of the United State Constitution, Representatives and Senators shall be Citizens of the United States.
The ONLY place “natural born citizen” appears in our national laws is as an eligibility requirement to be President of the United States.
Per Article II, Section 1, clause 5: “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.”
The eligibility requirement to be President is not the same as that for Congress. Simply being a “citizen” is not enough.
Our founders understood the difference. Here is where the definition exists in national law:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/
ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.
The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor [Minor vs. Happersett] is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.
Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that [Virginia] Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
The other sources are not necessary. Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor. There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.
On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:
“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism. I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s. I don’t enforce natural law. I suppose God enforces natural law. I enforce United States law. United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:
“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”
Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources. We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition. Neither are eligible to be President.
While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor. To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.
Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible. I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility. I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people. And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
(Note: Wordpress removed NatrualBornCitizen off its web hosting site. Political reasons are supected.)
*****************************************
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party seriously considered amending the U.S. Constitution eligibility requirement so that Henry Kissinger (born in Germany) or Arnold Schwarznegger (born in Austria) could run for President. Thank God they didn’t do that and reason prevailed.
As recently as 2006 there was a paper written by Sarah Herlihy claiming that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirment was stupid and prevented the U.S. from being part of the Globalism movement. THAT gave away the real intent of so-called Progressives; that United States sovereignty was a constraint on the establishment of a socialist Global government.
If enough states have the definition of natural born citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents - it will effectively block the New World Order / Globalist government operatives.
Understand now, Kemosabe?
I already answered your question.
I don’t guess you enjoyed the video.
Oh well.
Peace.
I would be forced to vote for nobody, unless there was a third-party slate that I knew was fully eligible.
I have never voted for Obama and wouldn’t vote for him if he was the last person on earth.
Natural Law knows no boundaries because it comes from the ONE who has no boundaries.
You’ve been too busy making an endless stream of false accusations against me to answer the question.
Or did I miss it?
Kindly point me to the exact post where you said, in plain, simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ terms whether you are an originalist.
(Hint: no such post exists.)
I see Rubio’s situation the same way. But it is not up to me to decide whether Rubio is eligible. Every man is NOT a law unto himself. That is what we have courts for - to interpret the law so the nation knows what interpretation is legally binding. I think that’s all any of us are really asking for, and if that is too much for the courts to do then let’s just get rid of the courts because they’re worthless.
You’re going to vote to replace Obama with somebody just as lawless as he is? And then call that a win?
We’re fighting different battles, I think. My battle is against a corrupt and lawless system. As long as the system is lawless, anybody we put into office will be corrupted and we will have no guarantees of anything.
Do you honestly think it is OK for the courts to all tell us that we the voting, taxpaying people have no standing to know whether we have a treasonous usurper in our White House? Do you really believe that as long as the government screws everybody equally, nobody has “standing” to get a redress of grievances?
Suppose the government denied us all due process and threw us all in concentration camps. None of us suffered damage above and beyond what everybody else suffered, therefore none of us has standing. Do you really believe that? If that is the case, the only redress for grievances done to the people as a whole is revolution. Is that really where this nation was intended to go, when the Founders came up with the Constitution?
No, I don’t think it’s OK, but that is exactly what they did, many times.
My response to their stonewall is to simply go around it with the power of my vote.
Then how come we didn't hear a peep about it before the election?
After all, everybody knew Zero's daddy was a foreigner. He'd gotten rich off a book about the very fact. Here he is introducing himself to the nation by giving the keynote address at the Democrat convention in 2004:
On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, Land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention.Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father -- my grandfather -- was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.
Zero's Fight the Smears website presents his Hawaiian CoLB naming his parents and quotes the following statement by FactCheck.org (29 August 2008):
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Zero was proud of his daddy. The smear he was fighting was the allegation that he was born as he said he was.
So, we see he was not hiding any Vattel-relevant facts about his origin. Rather just the opposite. But nobody trotted out the Vattel theory until after the election. The first thread I could find on FR was in December, 2008, discussing Leo Donofrio's legal arguments (which have gone exactly nowhere). Prior to that, the birther argument for his ineligibility depended solely on foreign birth to a married mother too young to pass on citizenship, yada, yada. Problem was, he was born in Honolulu.
And, further, his mother's marriage was invalid due to bigamy. Thus the age limit did not apply, so little bastard Barry would have been eligible even if born in Kenya!
“Rubio’s parents were born Cuban citizen. Did they ever claim US citizenship????? Was it prior to Marco’s birth?”
They applied for naturalization in 1975. Marco was born in 1971. So...it’s a no-go for Marco. If the GOP makes Rubio their VP choice, they will risk losing a LOT of Conservative Constitutionalist voters.
I like Rubio a LOT, but could not, in good conscience, vote for a ticket with him on it, and would not. “obama did it” is not reason enough for me to abandon my Constitution.
I will use my vote to get rid of Obama, if the stupid R’s let me. If they give me candidates whose eligibility is just as questionable as Obama’s eligibility is, they don’t leave me a whole lot of options. That’s what I’m saying they should not do. I’m saying straight out that if their option is just as lawless as Obama, they can count me out. So if they want to play with fire, that decision is on their shoulders.
Why can’t Mark Levin just say that since the issue is so “settled” (because of this, this, and this...), SCOTUS should take up these cases and simply clarify the issue in a legally binding way so the people clamoring for the rule of law will be satisfied and we can move on? Why does he have to belittle, mock, and play electoral “chicken” with people for no other reason than that they want a legal answer for a legal question? If he really wants to spit on us just for that, then I’m afraid I’m not too keen on being allies even though we probably agree on most things.
I expect my enemies to try to trample me underfoot, and I’ve got enough of them that I don’t need my so-called “friends” doing the same.
If a judge interprets the law/Constitution badly then at least we know where we’re at and can go on to the next step, which is to amend the Constitution if we strongly believe the current interpretation is dangerous.
Your suggestion wins the prize for absurdity.
Welcome back. You were missed.
I appreciate your taking the time to provide the explanation in the detail that you did. But I'm sorry, I don't see the logic behind it. Factors present in the womb do not influence a person as much as experiences after birth. As James Madison said, "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States..." William Rawle said, "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." You all claim that Vattel was the be-all and end-all for the founders when it came to the question of citizenship. Yet it is obvious that such a claim isn't so.
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.