Is Marco Rubio eligible to be President?

http://www.freerepublic.com ^ | 2-10-2012 | self

[Kansas58]

Name a Presidential Candidate who agrees with you please?

Since none of the Presidential Candidates agree with you, are they all “traitors and tools”??

Name one Member of Congress who agrees with you, would you please?

Since not a single Member of Congress agrees with you, are they all “traitors and tools”??

Name one Governor who agrees with you, would you please?

Since not a single Governor agrees with you, are they all “traitors and tools”?

Name one State Attorney General or Election Officer who agrees with you, would you please?

Since not one one them agrees with you, are they all “traitors and tools”??

You are alone.

The cause you fight for is silly and stupid, and birthers have become harmful to the conservative cause.

[Kansas58]

Name a Presidential Candidate who agrees with you please?

Since none of the Presidential Candidates agree with you, are they all “traitors and tools”??

Name one Member of Congress who agrees with you, would you please?

Since not a single Member of Congress agrees with you, are they all “traitors and tools”??

Name one Governor who agrees with you, would you please?

Since not a single Governor agrees with you, are they all “traitors and tools”?

Name one State Attorney General or Election Officer who agrees with you, would you please?

Since not one one them agrees with you, are they all “traitors and tools”??

You are alone.

The cause you fight for is silly and stupid, and birthers have become harmful to the conservative cause.

[Kansas58]

I can't stand Obama.

However, not every strategy will work, and your strategy has failed and will always fail, as you have no legal case.

[Kansas58]

Yes, Marco Rubio IS eligible to run for President or Vice-President.

You do not know what you are talking about.

There isn't a single conservative organization on your side of this issue.

NOT ONE! Did you miss the fact that CPAC, this weekend, did not have a single "Birther" speaker? The conservative movement thinks that this is a wacky, tin foil hat, nutty idea!

[Kansas58]

I can't stand Obama.

However, this thread is about Rubio, who is a Natural Born Citizen in the opinion of every respected Conservative legal authority available.

We should not be called “Obots” or “traitors” for standing up for the law, as we see it.

We should not be called “Obots” or “traitors” for making the valid legal case that Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible. This has been hashed out ad nauseum. There are 4 previous Supreme Court decisions that define Natural Born Citizen and they all require birth in the US of two citizen parents. So read up on it and educate yourself.

[x]

I mean the reason that the whole 'natural born Citizen' clause is in the Constitution in the first place is because John Jay wrote to Washington: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Well, let's see. Horatio Gates, born Essex, England. Charles Lee, born Cheshire, England. Richard Montgomery, born Dublin, Ireland. There were plenty of Revolutionary War generals on our side who were born in the British Isles. Jay wanted the Commander in Chief to be American born.

Of the Americans at the time, very few were "native born citizens" in the sense the Vattelites use it, because most of their parents were born British subjects and Britain had a claim on the allegiance of both the Founders and their parents at birth.

So...even though you were born the son of Chairman Mao, and you were born and raised in communist China, that really doesn't make you, what Jay called a 'foreigner'? Does it? Just because you were born and raised by a communist dictator should not exclude someone from the right to be President of the US. Is that correct?

That's precisely why the framers wanted the President to be a citizen from birth. They didn't want a Prussian or Hessian or Hannoverian heir coming here and winning the presidency and establishing a monarchy.

But I'm not sure they'd exclude someone born in the country with one citizen and one non-citizen parent. Some things they left up to common sense. Herbert Hoover's and Woodrow Wilson's mothers never renounced their allegiance to Britain, though they were extended US citizenship when they married.

[Kansas58]

Your reasoning is the only “hash” we see here.

You have NO current day legal authority on your side.

You state a FALSE reading of the law, over and over and over again, but all of the organizations devoted to tossing out Obama this year think you have a terrible legal case.

National Right to Life ignores you.
National Right to Work ignores you.
National Rifle Association ignores you.
Jay Sekulow has fought for several conservative causes, at the Supreme Court. Jay Sekulow ignores you.

YOU ARE WRONG!

You do not understand the law, and you are promoting and pushing nonsense that will only hurt the conservative cause.

You will NEVER win!

[Kansas58]

Your reasoning is the only “hash” we see here.

You have NO current day legal authority on your side.

You state a FALSE reading of the law, over and over and over again, but all of the organizations devoted to tossing out Obama this year think you have a terrible legal case.

National Right to Life ignores you.
National Right to Work ignores you.
National Rifle Association ignores you.
Jay Sekulow has fought for several conservative causes, at the Supreme Court. Jay Sekulow ignores you.

YOU ARE WRONG!

You do not understand the law, and you are promoting and pushing nonsense that will only hurt the conservative cause.

You will NEVER win!

[Diggity]

NO No and neither can Jindal

[Kansas58]

Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen.
Rubio is eligible to be President.

You have absolutely no binding legal authority which disputes my position.

PERIOD!

[Kansas58]

It is important to note the widely held conservative position that CONGRESS is coequal in its power to interpret, enact and enforce the Constitution.

This is a MAJOR portion of the Newt Gingrich campaign platform, which I hope and pray the GOP adopts, as its own.

Go to Newt.org

Look at his position paper on the Judiciary, and controlling activist judges.

At any time, Congress can pass a Resolution or Legislation, defining Citizenship.

To a true Conservative, such a Congressional Opinion should carry equal weight with any Supreme Court decision.

Congress can go further than simply making it clear where they stand on an issue. Congress can ALSO, at any time, tell the Courts that they have no Jurisdiction over an issue.

Congress can also completely eliminate any of the District or Appellate Court positions, or cut the pay of the Courts.

Also, Congress accepted the vote of the Electors.

It is a VERY LIBERAL position to take, if you think that the Supreme Court should be the final say on any Citizenship issue.

More to the point, however, the Supreme Court is NOT on your side, is it?

(Who swore President Obama in?)

Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen.

I sincerely hope that he is our VP Candidate.

You birthers are wrong, it is as simple as that.

[Kansas58]

It is important to note the widely held conservative position that CONGRESS is coequal in its power to interpret, enact and enforce the Constitution.

This is a MAJOR portion of the Newt Gingrich campaign platform, which I hope and pray the GOP adopts, as its own.

Go to Newt.org

Look at his position paper on the Judiciary, and controlling activist judges.

At any time, Congress can pass a Resolution or Legislation, defining Citizenship.

To a true Conservative, such a Congressional Opinion should carry equal weight with any Supreme Court decision.

Congress can go further than simply making it clear where they stand on an issue. Congress can ALSO, at any time, tell the Courts that they have no Jurisdiction over an issue.

Congress can also completely eliminate any of the District or Appellate Court positions, or cut the pay of the Courts.

Also, Congress accepted the vote of the Electors.

It is a VERY LIBERAL position to take, if you think that the Supreme Court should be the final say on any Citizenship issue.

More to the point, however, the Supreme Court is NOT on your side, is it?

(Who swore President Obama in?)

Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen.

I sincerely hope that he is our VP Candidate.

You birthers are wrong, it is as simple as that.

[Godebert]

testing.....

[waynesa98]

under that misunderstanding the offspring of a diplomat in country x would be a citizen of country x. there are only a handful of countries that recognize birth right citizenship, Russia Zimbabwe Australia, all but the USA are dying to increase their population numbers.

PS what I wrote was the take on citizenship as understood at the time by European countries as written by Vattel in 1758. Read it for yourself.

[mlo]

"under that misunderstanding the offspring of a diplomat in country x would be a citizen of country x."

That's what the "under the jurisdiction" qualification is about. Diplomats are an exception.

"there are only a handful of countries that recognize birth right citizenship, Russia Zimbabwe Australia, all but the USA are dying to increase their population numbers."

However many there might be, the USA is one of them.

"PS what I wrote was the take on citizenship as understood at the time by European countries as written by Vattel in 1758. Read it for yourself."

No, the european countries did not all go by the same rules, as Vattel himself noted. The passage birthers quote applied to most continental countries. He also observed that the rules in England were different.

Vattel was not dictating the rules to anyone. He was observing what the rules already were. We don't need Vattel to tell us this.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well, try not to have a heart attack over it.

[edge919]

The Supreme Court said otherwise. NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution. Citizen at birth is a different type of citizenship, defined ONLY by the 14th amendment, and it does NOT make one eligible for president.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Starting at post #76 when he began chiming in, of the 63 posts put up after that point, 45 are Kansas58 hyperventilating about the supposed fallacy of the two-parent NBC line of reasoning. That is a staggering 71.4% of all comments from that point on. Spam much?

I don't need Vattel, English Common Law or any esoteric historical citations to argue the two-parent citizen paradigm. All that's needed is a simple exercise in logic with the founders' concerns about divided loyalties as its starting point:

Of the two, which logically is to be presumed to be apt to have a stronger sense of loyalty to one's country, a person born of two citizen parents, or one with a father who never had any allegiance whatsoever to said country?

I believe what we're witnessing under an "Obama" pResidency serves as a perfect illustration of the realization of the founders' fears regarding divided loyalties in the CIN of our armed forces.