Confirmed: Jindal and Rubio NOT Natural Born Citizens

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=297485 ^ | May 22, 2011 | Joe Kovacs

[cdcdawg]

The part of the article I quoted suggests it, and SPECIFICALLY, posts #5, #23 and #33 by Randy Larsen make such a claim. Apparently, you did not see those, as you claim to have not seen or heard such a thing. That’s how this whole discussion got going. Another poster (CA Conservative) questioned Randy Larsen, and you responded to him regarding the grandfather clause. So there’s the article itself, plus three posts, one of which led directly to our exchange to begin with.

It doesn’t matter where Lincoln’s parents were born. They were citizens when he was born.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Read a history book.

Which one?

I DO READ HISTORY BOOKS, None of them ever tell me that the framers insisted that a Natural Born Citizen is someone whose parents MUST ( emphasis ) Both be born in America.

[Jeff Winston]

The conclusion you reach is not clear cut. It certainly does not address the Constitutional distinction for President and all other branches. It flies in the face of all reason to argue that "anchor babys" who never learn English and support the concept of "Aztlan" are "natural born.

A couple of comments:

First the fact that "it was never doubted" that those who met BOTH qualifications were natural-born citizens isn't necessarily a statement that those who meet only one of the qualifications aren't. Gray is simply saying that if people meet both qualifications, there's no room at all for any doubt.

Secondly, you have a point that perhaps "anchor babies" etc. shouldn't be considered natural born citizens. One thing that has happened since the Constitution was adopted is that the world has changed. What used to be a months-long trip to get to the US is now a matter of hours. In other words, when the Constitution was adopted, most foreigner residents were likely here for a long time, if not for the rest of their lives. And foreigners worked harder perhaps in the past to fit in than they do now. There's a practical effect from that. Whether it would change things, I don't know.

I suppose if you believe the Constitution can be amended by judicial fiat you may have a point.

Do I believe the Constitution can be legally amended by fiat? No. Do I believe the Constitution can be practically amended by judicial fiat? One has only to look at the USSC case referenced in my profile page, for example, to recognize that that is indeed the case.

[mlo]

"I DO READ HISTORY BOOKS, None of them ever tell me that the framers insisted that a Natural Born Citizen is someone whose parents MUST ( emphasis ) Both be born in America."

There's a reason for that. The birthers hadn't made it up yet.

[MileHi]

It seems you are better read than I am about the nuts and bolts of court precedent. I never thought the Constitution was written for legal scholars though. A little horse sense should do. However, you said-

Do I believe the Constitution can be legally amended by fiat? No. Do I believe the Constitution can be practically amended by judicial fiat? One has only to look at the USSC case referenced in my profile page, for example, to recognize that that is indeed the case.

and I believe that sums up many of our current troubles. In light of that, I don't think we fundamentally disagree.

Thanks

[Jeff Winston]

I believe that sums up many of our current troubles. In light of that, I don't think we fundamentally disagree.

Yep. I think you've got that right.

[MileHi]

Yes, your profile page. To my mind current Commerce Clause jurisprudence interprets it to say:

Please ignore everything that comes before or after this section...

[22cal]

Why did Chester Arthur lie and hide the fact that his father was not a citizen until Chester was 14 years old? That is, why do this if such a reality was unimportant and not recognized as an issue for the position of V.P.?

Logical Answer: He recognized he was ineligible as people were taught the meaning of 'natural born citizen' in his era. Arthur covered up the circumstances of his birth (and even went to the extreme of burning all his personal papers before he died).

All the differences of opinion here about what the Founders intended are meaningless banter in light of the Arthur counter-example. These events took place when the original meaning of the phrase was still widely understood and not clouded by post-modern 'thought' and lawyer-ese.

A implies B

~A

Therefore, ~B.

P.S. I do not think ineligibility will bring down the travesty of Obama. But promoting the pretense that he is eligible is simply another Arthur-like lie.

[douginthearmy]

Then I guess you missed my point entirely. The whole both parents thing is absolutely ridiculous birther mythos. I was pointing out that you have to look at law chronologically. The rules that the framers established for citizenship are not applicable today, except as they are taken in context of the amendments and the Supreme Court rulings from then to now. And if you are curious enough, you will certainly find that suffrage was reserved to land owning white males and rules were established by each state some of which included religious rules (i.e. Jews).

[83Vet4Life]

A implies B
~A
Therefore, ~B.

---

This is a logical fallacy, called denying the antecedent.

[22cal]

Right--my excuse is it was late. :/

Should be ~B, therefore, ~ A.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks jdirt.

Jindal this month released a copy of his own birth record, indicating he was born on American soil -- specifically, Baton Rouge, La. -- to parents who were born in India... Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Fla., on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio who were born in Cuba

[Jeff Winston]

“Natural born” in common law at the time of the writing of the constitution was taken to mean being born to parents who were CITIZENS.

Not according to the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark.