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.
The two are in no way related. It is akin to saying that if you are against abortion then you should also be against capital punishment.
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;"
Followed by: "...it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other..."
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 previous
But from a man who was considered the foremost Constitutional scholar of the times, and whose book was also quoted in numerous legal decisions and used to educate generations of lawyers. It isn't the idle musings of some crackpot.
And I would point out that nobody in the Venus case claimed to be a natural-born citizen. So any comments were made in dicta.
I cannot fathom how it can be obvious to you.
Or to Madison. Or Rawle. Or Kent.
You know you are doing good when all the right people hate you! :)
“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’m with you 100%. Marco Rubio has much to offer in the political areana. It just won’t be in the Oval office.
I’m not sure you’re correct (because I’m not a legal expert) but we’ll see, eventually, I suspect.
You could be right, and this was only a snippet, so I don’t really know the larger context. However, he was not speaking directly about the issue we are talking about here.
Yes, people who do not understand the Supreme Court's rulings on Citizenship really are STUPID and IGNORANT. The paragraphs of this ruling for example:
From the Syllabus:
1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
1814 was close enough to the founding era that they ought to know what they are talking about. Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel as the basis for citizenship. You, of course, think they must be idiots or something.
“Obama led everyone to believe that he was foreign born for years prior to running for President.”
No, he didn’t. And if you had good examples that he DID, you’d be sharing them. But you can’t, so you don’t.
Here’s a New York Times article from 1990 that specifically says “Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii”
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
And just in case one 20-year-old example isn’t enough, here’s another example, where the Chicago Tribune wrote that Obama was “Born in Hawaii” in 1993:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/12/whats-new-aughtiecats.html
And just in case you want to argue that he changed his story *after* 1993, here’s the New York Times again, in 2004, saying Obama is “Hawaii-born.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/23/opinion/everybody-loves-obama.html?src=pm
And do I even need to mention “Dreams From My Father”? Because he specifically referred to a Hawaiian hospital as his place of birth in the book, too.
“I call you a troll.”
‘And...I take it that’s a bad thing?’
No, of course not. Trolls of every stripe and description are always welcome on this site. [ /s ] Who are you, that you don’t know that?
I had to come to terms with the “contempt” myself. Not from Levin so much, he just simply will not speak of this, but from someone else that I admire, Glenn Beck. If you listen to his radio show, there are times in which he, Pat, and Stu just mercilessly mock birthers.
It bothered me a lot at first, I mean, why mock those who love the constitution and want an answer to this question? One may not agree with this angle of attack, but is the proper response to attack in return? I personally do not think so.
However, I have decided to look past this behavior for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s clear to me that they do not wish to discuss this whatsoever. They have chosen a different line of attack. Whether or not this is due to actual threats or perceived threats or no threats, I do not know. Hannity has addressed the issue a few times, Rush has referneced it jokingly a few times, but in such a way that makes me believe that Rush believes Obama is ineligible, but that is just my opinion. Levin is rigid against it, and Glenn can be a jerk about it.
Steyn was the one who addressed it most directly, and although he did become angry and animated during the conversation, he presented his arguments in a clear and convincing manner, and I thank him very much for that.
But I want to address Glenn Beck in particular, and my theories as to why he behaves this way to birthers. I believe that Glenn has determined that attack Obama in this manner is not only ineffective, but also potentially very dangerous for reasons I mentioned previously, such as the empowerment of an unelected judge to remove an elected president, potential riots, revenge, things along those lines, and I personally agree with that assessment.
What Glenn has done positively is show us, those who wish to turn this around, the information that we need to have in order to prevail. And that is the long term, systematic implementation of unelected beaurcracy, tenured professors in our schools to brainwash and manufacture drones and so on. Essentially, Beck has revealed the machine the left has built whose design is to destroy our country then rebuild it in the vision of their Utopia.
Basically, by pulling the curtain back on the machinery, he has made it most vulnerable to defeat. Knowledge is power. He has shown us what our enemy within has been building every minute of every day while we weren’t looking. What he has done is so valuable towards saving our country, that I do not hold his behavior towards birthers against him. He is on America’s team, and so am I, he is a fellow soldier, so I love him.
Furthermore, by revealing this machinery, Glenn has showed us how we can dismantle overtime the stonewall of corruption that is hiding his ineligibilty. Now that we are aware of the extent of our government’s corruption, we can begin to dismantle it by voting smartly and with greater scrutiny. It always was our responsibilty to watch dog our government as free people, and we have shirked that duty for too long.
I just want to add one final thought in terms of winning strategy. I have stated in previous posts that if one wants to win, one must adopt a winning strategy. I believe this is key. Obama knows that pursuing him on this matter only benefits him. He has positioned considerable forces in this line of defense. In fact all of his forces are there, and those birthers who continue to assault this position are essentially walking into a box canyon where they will be endlessly picked off and unable to advance.
Notice that when X number of cases had been tossed, and people began to lose interest in pursuing this matter, the little, punk ass president began to draw attention to his BC himself, as if he wanted people to challenge him, luring us to attack him there, because he knows it’s a futile effort.
Therefore, I do not think it is wise to attack his most heavily defended beachead. It is much wiser to go around and attack the things that he thought were unassailable, such as his intellect. Just look at him now. He is a laughing stock. No one outside of Matt Damon thinks this man is smart. He has made a fool of himself, and everyone with a brain can see it.
By abandoning the BC front and focusing efforts of attack on what Steyn described as “all those things you can hold Obama accountable for”, we have him utterly on the ropes and in the corner, running around the country saying “I,I,I,I,I,I,...pass this bill, pass this bill, blah blah, blah...”
Very sorry for the tl;dr wall of text, but just wanted to share some of my thoughts on this situation with you.
“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!”
That is a perfect illustration. The only people who make such idiotic arguments are liberals. First they self-lobotomize themselves, and then they spew one stupidity after another. Their inability to see the self-contradiction in what they’re saying is damning evidence of their inability to think critically and rationally.
Learn something new every day.
Btw, your reply appears to indicate you wear the title of troll w pride. True?
What case is that quotation from?
And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1814 disagrees with them.
Chief Justice Marshall:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
Would a liberal consider them rude?
You betcha.
One of my purposes in tying the two issues together is to "light up" the targets. For many people abortion is a litmus test of ideology. I suspect that many liberals will simply burst a blood vessel before they can bring themselves to admit that an unborn child is a living human being with a natural right to life.
1. If the "anti-birthers" are actual liberals, they won't answer the question, or will do so with evasion and qualification. Therefore the "target" gets "lit up."
2. Actual pro-lifers will realize that they are advocating the same argument abortion supporters use to claim the child isn't alive. If a child is a "person" at conception, then being a "citizen" at conception is consistent with this concept. Pro-lifers will recognize this as true once it is pointed out to them.
Win win.
Thank you for that fascinating exposition. There was more to your question than I realized. I think your ‘merry-go-round spanning the US/Mexican border was one of the most damning illustrations in the debate. The soil-only crew is arguing nonsense, and yet are too blinded by PC/post-modernism to see it. Sad.
Wonder what happened to the thread troll? He/she was trolling merrily along, and then went quiet. He/she was proud of troll-status only a few posts up-thread. I wonder if thefogbow handler managed to get through w a frantic ‘danger will robinson’ message?
Yes he does. With the very next sentence. Surprised you missed it because it was IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
Madison said:
"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
So when he says "it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other", and then he immediately investigates Mr. Smith's "birthright" and "ancestry", I do regard that as a contradiction of his own statement. If place is all that matters, why mention his family? Your argument is done with "he was born here." End. Period. Finito. Full Stop.
Excellent find!
“Heaven forbid anyone should imagine NBC means more than a chunk of dirt.”
Not only is it based in idiotic conclusions, it demonstrates that allegiance and loyalty to a country can be usurped be a “piece of dirt”. Madison’s Born Citizen was never defined by a piece of dirt. Levin is way off base again and can’t be trusted.
Rubio can do plenty of useful things without being president. He could even be the proud paternal father of a POTUS some day. It’s totally absurd that people do not realize what John Jay meant about “natural born Citizen”. We are being conned for Soetoro’s sake.
Levin might as well be one of these commenter’s… http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091002065922AATQ6lD
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.