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 ...
But we have people on FR now who will argue until they are blue in the face that if both of your parents weren't US citizens at your birth, or if you were born out of the country to two US citizen parents, you're not qualified to be President.
In the former case, they completely ignore the repeated (something like 6 or 7 times) assertions in the majority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark that English common law, from which the framers of the Constitution drew their legal framework, regarded children of permanent residents as natural born subjects.
WKA even asserts that there's no reason the same shouldn't apply here.
But I'm transgressing the sacred doctrine here, and will shortly be dragged out of the temple and beaten.
Some people are so intent on proving Obama legally ineligible that they are prepared to throw away some fine potential candidates on our side of the aisle in order to do it.
So the first 8 or nine presidents (or more) were ineligible, according to your criteria. Since the US was not a country prior to 1776, any president born prior to that year could not be “natural born citizens” since their parents obviously could not have citizens of the USA at the time of the birth. If you go by the stricter criteria (parents must have been born in the USA), then most of the presidents up until 1900 were probably ineligible.
we also have to keep in mind the immigration laws of the USA have changed over time.
(not to be confused with some nonsese about a treaty article on extradition)
The issue is a distraction and has no place here. Obama is not the first and will not be the last, assuming he was physically born in the USA. Obama is not the precident, he is just following the existing precident. (physically born in the usa was the only hope of any real birther issue)
these threads are getting kookier than ron paul.
Sadly no longer matters.
Read the clause and you will see that they grandfathered in every citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible because they knew of course that none of them could have two parents in a country that didn’t exist yet.
Unfortunately, in these times, there seems to be greater emphasis on the individuals right to seek the presidency than in making sure the country is secure from foreign influence or loyalty in the chief executive. While we only have one country, we have millions of people who qualify for the presidency even under the most restrictive eligibility requirements. In this instance, it should be about the welfare of the country, not the right of any individual. There is no harm to the country by being careful who is allowed to command, but great harm can be done by being careless.
It is about the welfare of our country, not about protecting anyone’s individual right to hold a job.
United States Supreme Court reports, Volume 15 By United States. Supreme Court, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company
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 natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents and succeed to all their rights. Again, I say to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Born of parents who are citizens - it does not specifically state that the parents must be born here, just that they are to be citizens. The parents allegiance would lie with the United States, thus it also would be with the child! No divided allegiance!
(1) Wong Kim Ark wasn’t running for President. Or Vice-President. Those are the only two positions that require that one be a natural born citizen to be eligible. If you presented the nut of that ruling correctly, then the part of the decision in re “natural born citizen” was moot. Or is the word moot mooted in these days of whatever a Judge says goes?
(2) Even after WKA legal scholars still held to that theory interprets closer to that desired of the founders — that the Father (or both parents) had to be citizens and the child born in the US. Albeit some allow that the parents might be posted abroad on official duty.
(3) There is no consensus on this issue. WKA is a weak precedent.
(4) The Supreme Court can revisit old rulings. They make mistakes. Dred Scott, Lawrence v Texas come to mind.
Good post.
But if you look further into the political landscape of the country it gets even worst. We have a movement to allow people with dual citizenship at birth to become President and we have movements in both political parties to give amnesty and maintian open borders.
I also notice that there is virtually no enforcement of the Logan Act as well so any politician or political activist at all can secretly consult with the enemy or make secret deals with foreign nations.
The NBC issue is important. It is one step in how our National Security and our Constitution both are being destroyed.
Very well stated. Thank you for posting this.
If the welfare and the security of the country are not put FIRST, then there won't be any "individual rights" left to protect.
That doesn’t cover those who were born after the Constitution, but whose parents were born before it. John Tyler, or James Polk, for instance. There are several, including Lincoln. They were not citizens at the time of ratification, because they were not yet born, and their parents were not possibly born as U.S. Citizens, because there was no U.S. They are not covered by the “grandfather” clause, because it only applies to those seeking the office, not their parents.
True. I personally think the precedent from common law still applies.
(2) Even after WKA legal scholars still held to that theory interprets closer to that desired of the founders — that the Father (or both parents) had to be citizens and the child born in the US. Albeit some allow that the parents might be posted abroad on official duty.
I have no idea what legal scholars you're talking about. In any event, legal scholars don't overrule the USSC.
(3) There is no consensus on this issue. WKA is a weak precedent.
I agree. I do think WKA provides some guidance, but I agree that we don't have a definitive ruling on the matter of exactly what constitutes NBC status for the purpose of Presidential eligibility. Until and unless we get such a ruling, the questions will continue.
(4) The Supreme Court can revisit old rulings. They make mistakes. Dred Scott, Lawrence v Texas come to mind.
I agree. You're correct.
Zerobama isn’t one & he’s already president-so what does it matter now?
Can you restate your point? The way you wrote that seems to not make sense to me at all. No offense.
The second part of the Presidential eligiblity clause was meant to cover those who were citizens at the time of the Constitution being that they could not be ‘natural born citizens’ being that their parents could not have been American citizens at the time of their birth.
Many were already born in America though. They just were not born to two American citizen parents being the United States did not exist yet.
The Constitution takes into consideration those born at the time of the writing of the constitution. It states Natural born citizens or citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution. That was the only exception for a citizen to become president.
That is the framers intent...and what established law has said.
So...you would deny the right for ALL kids born out of this country because their parents were 1) On some business, vacation, etc or 2) Their parent(s) was/were on active duty in Germany, Japan, etc...??? So...according to you, Henry, Madison and Jefferson would agree on preventing some E-4's kid from being president one day because that E-4 was stationed in England when the child was born?
Really?
Seemingly no one has standing to ask for proof of citizenship and if they don't tell, it's full speed ahead to the Presidency.
While I agree with your issues about those born to two American citizen parents overseas, I highly disagree with this:
“If you are born on this soil...you are natural born.”
So in your opinion then, anyone who sneaks across the border can produce a child who will be eligible to be President?
Two Al Quida agents could sneak across and have a baby that is eligible? Iranian secret agents?
Dont answer because you already did. As your post states:
“If you are born on this soil...you are natural born.”
So you obviously believe that the Framers wrote the Presidential eligibility clause section of the Constitution based upon an open borders policy?
That is not a conservative positition at all. It has no respect for our soveriegnity or our National Security at all. It is to assert that the Framers had an open borders mentality towards the position of Commander-in-Chief.
Mitt’s father, former Michigan George Romney, was born in Mexico in a Mormon Mission.
Strange it never came up when George R ran for POTUS.
You must not be old enough to remember: It DID come up.
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.