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.
That is a lie.
Thank you for ‘splainin’ that. I thought it worked something like that, but I never can remember all the details.
Actually he said they were "evading the issue" of whether or not they had to be born in the US and it sounded like a joke.
A precedent is only set when the court has actually ruled. That’s why we need the court to rule - regardless of which way we think they should rule. If a lower court had ruled on the issue and SCOTUS refused to hear the case then the lower court’s ruling would stand, but what we’ve got here is every court refusing to issue a ruling. So there is no precedent.
The one case that was similar was Chester Arthur, but he hid all his documentation until about 2 years ago when it was unearthed showing that his father did not naturalize until after Chester was born. And there were no court decisions in that instance.
All we’re asking for is a decision. I can’t understand why that seems so stupid for people like Levin. Until there is a decision there is no precedent and nothing is settled.
Geeze, I have answered this so many times it's becoming a mantra. Obama led everyone to believe that he was foreign born for years prior to running for President. Since most Americans have the false notion that birth within our borders is the salient requirement for citizenship, the most pressing issue was to determine if he was even born within our borders. His release of that little rump document COLB rather than settling the issue, made it appear that he was trying very hard to hide the truth about it.
He was giving every indication of trying to dodge the question, and everybody smelled blood. Naturally people became focused on his odoriferous birth certificate rather than the secondary point. If he couldn't even prove he was born here, what need to go any further?
Add to that all the hanky panky laws Hawaii has allowing birth certificates to be issued to people not actually born there, and all his previous claims of having been from "Kenya", and that is exactly why most people focused on his birth certificate and not his father. His father was just as disqualifying, but apparently nowadays most Americans are so utterly ignorant of this fact, thinking instead that the 14th amendment is all that matters on this question.
Eventually more knowledgeable people started getting heard on the father issue.
In any case, your question belies the point. I have demonstrated to you with the links I provided that no one made this up. It has ALWAYS been a requirement, and the fact that most people are ignorant of it does not render it void. That you didn't see much discussion of it until after the election is because many people didn't believe Obama could even pass the first hurdle (born in our borders) after he submitted that computer print-out certificaTION, and so people followed the birth certificate discussion as they would a magician's gesturing hand.
The MSM vetted Obama less than any pres in my lifetime. That, plus PC, fear of being called a racist and suffering a vicious, never ending attack [a la Allen/macaca] and a constant drumbeat of praise for Obama’s ghostwritten fantasy novel, Dreams, enabled Little Barry to get away w murder. Now his supporters point to the very fact of his being given a near complete pass as proof that it’s the ‘birthers’ who are/have the problem.
The only analogy I can think of is to beat to death any dog that dares to bark, and then say, ‘see, there are no strangers in the area; no dogs are barking’.
“I read the transcript of what Levin said and it translates into, “Who are you to question what I say? Just go away, you little peons.” Very disappointing. I’d expect that from somebody like Nancy Pelosi but coming from Mark Levin it just saddens and sickens me.”
I don’t think you are right about this. I have been debating Vattle Birthers for several days now at another place, and what is going on is that the Vattle Birthers are just sooo wrong and messed up that people don’t think they are even being honest about it, because really how stupid is it that somebody supposedly doesn’t understand these 3 paragraphs from a SCOTUS (which means Supreme Court of the U.S.) case:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Sooo, that is why I bet Mark Levin is mad at the Vattle Birthers, because like he said, There’s No debate. There’s nothing to all the Vattle birther stuff and it is just time to call it what it is-—CRAP. 100% CRAP.
Apparently people did. And not just amateur Constitutional scholars, either, but Madison, Rawle, and Kent. The first was the man most people agree was the most influential figure in creating the Constitution. The second was the most respected Constitutional scholar of his time. And the third was a noted expert in U.S. law whose "Commentaries on American Law" was widely respected on two continents. So like I said, when stacking their expertise up against yours it really isn't even close.
Then by all means point me to where you answered it.
First you lied about me, then you repeated the lie, and then you repeated it again. Why should anybody care what you say, when you lie so shamelessly?
Easy enough to demonstrate. Show me to be a liar and provide the link where you answered my perfectly reasonable question.
Why should anybody care what you say, when you lie so shamelessly?
Anyone with half a brain can check me out. Madison's speech, Rawle's "A View of the Constitution" and Kent's Commentaries are all available on-line where anyone can read what they had to say on the subject.
It is a classic, classic troll strategy to get someone they disagree w to repeat their position over and over and over ad infinitum. I answered your question at excruciating, painstaking length yesterday. But you kept asking. I said, ‘go back and read what I already wrote; I won’t write it all out a second time because it took too long the first time’.
At which point you began boldfaced lying about me and saying I never answered the question at all. Today you’re doing it again.
You are hounding me, harassing me, and lying repeatedly about me.
I call you a troll.
Then point me to where you answered it.
I call you a troll.
And...I take it that's a bad thing?
In it's simplest form, asserting a legal "status" upon birth is the Liberal argument for Abortion. Pro-lifers reject this argument for abortion, and they should also reject this argument for citizenship.
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.
Yes, Madison is often quoted by anyone arguing your position, and his quote appears pretty compelling when excerpted in this manner. However, he thereafter immediately said this:
"Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion;"
This is a tacit acknowledgement of the Jus Sanguinus concept of citizenship. After he states that place of birth is so important, his very next statement is an appeal to Jus Sanguinus. He said:
"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Rather an odd thing to say if "place" is the only meaningful criteria.
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."
In 1829. A bit out of the founding era, and in conflict with opinions stated by courts (The Supreme Court explicitly cites Vattel's definition of citizenship in the case of the Venus, 1814) and founders previously.
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.
It is certainly not obvious to me. I cannot fathom how it can be obvious to you. You have perhaps a few quotes that support your position, I have dozens which support mine. I don't think you are aware of how intimate were the founders with the works of Vattel. He is even cited during the constitutional convention. Read through this thread if you haven't already done so.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts?q=1&;page=1
I expect that most Judges are ignorant of the original meaning of "natural born citizen" and I believe that if it ever gets to court, many judges will just rule that 14th amendment is all that matters, and they will so rule him qualified.
I agree that the law should be decided by a court, but I would add that it needs to be decided by a COMPETENT court, which seem in short supply nowadays. Our courts nowadays are seemingly as competent at their jobs as Obama is at his, and I have no warm feelings about them getting this ruling correct.
As for me, I have been told that Rubio's mother became a citizen before his birth, and his father applied to become a citizen before he was born. If this is indeed true, then the rest of the process is merely a technicality. I have long complained about the legal system's use of technicalities to justify a bad ruling, and in my mind the overruling factor should always be the spirit of the law, not the letter.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Many a true word is said in jest. I think this is one of those times.
Pretty good analogy. It reminds me of that judge that claimed Obama was eligible because he was thoroughly vetted by the news media. :)
What a complete non sequitur!
“I expect that most Judges are ignorant of the original meaning of “natural born citizen” and I believe that if it ever gets to court, many judges will just rule that 14th amendment is all that matters, and they will so rule him qualified.”
And you know how I bet this happens??? I bet when they go to law school, the professors didn’t teach them, “Now when you are trying to discover what the Founders meant by something, go look up what dead Swiss and French people wrote. And maybe some Germans, too. And just ignore what all the English and American courts said.”
Yep! I bet that is how all these judges became sooo stupid. (This is sarcasm, in case you didn’t get it.)
It occurs to me that as the courts have become (through the infiltration of Liberal drones since Roosevelt) huge steaming piles of crap, that any lawyer arguing correct law is bound to do poorly.
Roe v Wade, Kelo, et al tells me all I need to know about a system that needs to be disassembled and rebuilt correctly.
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.