Posted on 05/22/2011 6:31:10 PM PDT by jdirt
MIAMI, Fla. – Are U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal natural-born citizens of the United States, and thus eligible for the presidency?
It's a simple question, but the answer may not be so easy.
The next national election is less than 18 months away, and both rising Republican stars have been touted as potential contenders for either the No. 1 or No. 2 spot on a presidential ticket.
But their eligibility is in doubt since both men's parents were not U.S. citizens at the time their future political children were born, WND can reveal. That factor is important because the Constitution mandates a presidential candidate to be a "natural-born citizen," a requirement that has dogged President Barack Obama since the 2008 campaign.
With 2011 being the apparent year of the birth certificate, 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.
Based on that disclosure, the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper declared him to be qualified for the White House, stating, "Piyush Jindal was born at Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge, a natural-born U.S. citizen, who like every other child born in America, could, constitutionally, grow up to be president."
Kyle Plotkin, Jindal's press secretary, echoed that proclamation, telling WND, "The governor is obviously a natural-born citizen."
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Fla., on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.
Read more: Now popular Republicans 'not natural-born citizens' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485#ixzz1N8MU2PlT
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Why is the Republican Party making “stars” out of people who won’t be eligible to be President?
Or ANYone not NBC, for that matter.
They've used our freedom and law against us so many times, totally ignoring Constitutional parameters at the least, common decency at the most ... We should feel obligated to return the punches they've thrown.
So all of our presidents who were born after, but whose parents were born before, the ratification of the Constitution were ineligible. That is exactly what Weird Net Daily and way too many Freepers are saying.
Simply not true. If the parents were naturalized citizens or in the country with an intent to become citizens they are fine. The courts decided this before the turn of the last century.
If this is so, Jindal, Rubio AND Obama are NOT natural born citizens ( yep, even with Obama’s Birth Certificate).
________________________
But Obama only had 1 legal parent at the time of his birth.
Even though Obama Sr. was supposedly married to Obama’s mum, he was already married to others in Kenya at the time and American law doesn’t allow polygamy so I can’t see their marriage as being legal.
Even if Obama Sr. signed paternity papers afterwards, that would have been afterwards, after Obama was born.
The Republicans aren't making stars out of anyone . Jindal and Rubio are men of their own making based on their actions and abitities . It's true the party tries to sell us on Tiny Tim , capt. Insano and Mittens , however no one cares where they were born.
What about Romney’s parents? His father was born in Mexico when Mexico did not allow citizenship just by birth location. George’s parents were both U.S. citizens so he was always a U.S. citizen, never a Mexican citizen, and thus Mitt has no NBC conflict under anyone’s definition unless they choose to ignore the facts which, on this topic, is nearly guaranteed.
Then Obama is doubly screwed on this. His mother had not lived 5 consecutive years in the US after the age of 14 in order to confer status to him.
According to Vittel's laws of nations, if the father is a citizen at the time of the birth, then the child is a natural born citizen. Both parents do not need to be born in the United States. Indeed, if the father is a Citizen, even if born elsewhere, then the child is a Natural Born Citizen.
I left the thread, "missy"......Free Republic used to be a forum, and I posted my opinion and moved on. Apparently you have a problem with that -- so you might want to just "leave the thread".
Ach....idiots abounding here.
Thought you said you left the thread smart mouth?
"They were both permanent legal residents at the time of his birth," Plotkin told WND. "They became citizens after his birth."
Plotkin says Jindal's mother became a U.S. citizen Sept. 21, 1976, and his father was naturalized 10 years later on Dec. 4, 1986.
It's a similar situation for Rubio, as his press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator's parents "were permanent legal residents of the U.S." at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, "Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975," Burgos told WND.
There are certainly people who will disagree - vehemently - but per my understanding of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, I believe the USSC would rule that they're both qualified to become President.
In 1916 the Republican nominee was a former SCOTUS justice named Charles Evans Hughes. His father was a British subject. He narrow lost to Wilson and was later appointed Chief Justice. At least one Democrat lawyer took issue with whether he met the NBC criteria but he didn't win.
Obama's set precedent. No court is going to remove him, there were no objections when he was certified, no impeachment proceedings have occurred. While NBC may (emphasis on MAY) have once meant two citizen parents at birth, that's clearly been superseded.
After reading much about birther claims, presidential history, citizenship law and court decisions I believe if SCOTUS ever took the question they'd narrowly exclude just three classes of people: 1. those never citizens 2. those naturalized and 3. those who had formally renounced U.S. citizenship (something the State Dept. has made harder to do in recent years).
It may not be what the Founders intended, or what the standard should be to best protect the office from foreign influence but it's where I believe it'll be set if SCOTUS took up the issue and I expect they won't.
The only people who will object to Jindal and Rubio for POTUS or VPOTUS on NBC grounds will be agents of the Democratic party, allies of the same and useful idiots on the fringe.
I asked them this question a couple of months ago, it must be hard to figure out. I figured if they did run the left would bring it up.
“I believe the USSC would rule that they’re both qualified to become President. “
Yep, these folks did it the right way.
>> “So now “natural-born citizen” means that, not only the citizen, but also his parents, must be born in the US?” <<
.
No, born in the US to parents that are citizens.
.
>> “Both Rubio and Jindal are citizens from birth. <<
.
True.
>> “The law only knows about natural-born citizens and naturalized ones.” <<
.
False.
Many citizens by birth do not qualify as “natural born” citizens, as clearly stated by the SCOTUS three times:
.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.
.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
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…
.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
The republicans had better get straight on this issue. First they have ignored it but now they flirt with putting their rubber stamp approval on disregarding the Presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution.
They must have a screw loose if they decide to stick it in the eye of those who believe a NBC is someone with TWO American citizen parents at birth.
What amazes me is that we have so many first generation people who want to be president and have worked themselves into position to run. Too bad so many are ineligible and we didn’t have Obama thrown out for being ineligible. But, would McCain have been able to beat Hillary, and would he have continued excessive government spending?
You are Chris Matthews.
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.