Posted on 05/23/2011 12:43:41 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Rising stars of GOP in doubt because parents from overseas
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?
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Anyone running who IS qualified, not stupid, and not nuts?
= = = = = = = = = = = == == == = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Hitting THAT Trifecta is definitely a ‘long shot’.
IMNSHO, one is Nuts just to seek the office.
In the eyes of the Libs, if you wear an “R” or something similar you are automatically ‘stupid’.
It is beginning to look like the quals are at the whim of a comma, and, much like the gun laws, it depends whose ox is being gored.
As I said if you think the constitution states you have to have US citizen parents to be natural born please show the clause to me. In fact the constitution states that you do not have to have citizen parents because there were no US citizens when it was written therefore that requirement was left out. The only one of us who knows nothing about the constitution is you. Once again, I urge you to read it and this time try to understand what it says, maybe take a reading comprehension class or two.
Did this suddenly become news because idiots who weren’t bothering to study the issue before now comprehend it?
“““Obama isn’t natural born if his dad wasn’t a citizen?””
Not correct. If a person was born within the U.S. or one of it’s territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, Panama Canal Zone from 1903 till 1979 (John McCain)that person is a natural born citizen regardless of their parents legal status.
__________________________________________________________
Well, that was not my quote, but many will disagree with you.
Yes, if born in the US, then you are a citizen, but many question if you are a “natural born” citizen, if the parents are not citizens.
It is a matter of interpretation, and only a court could settle it.
It has obviously not been tested in a court.
As for McStain, the Obots tried to argue that he was not born inside the Canal Zone, but in the city that was excluded from CZ control.
That argument, however, is now moot.
That's a nonsensical comeback if there's ever been one. Got an argument instead of an insult?
The Constitution is the law of the land. Nothing in the Constitution defines "natural-born citizen," much less defines it as requiring both parents to be citizens.
That means the term, legally, would have to be defined in federal statute and/or federal court case. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision defined NBC -- it said anyone born in the US of parents who were under American jurisdiction (not foreign diplomats & not foreign military at war with the US) was an NBC -- but didn't specifically address Presidential eligibility. (Wong wasn't running for anything; he just wanted to get back into the country after visiting his parents in China.)
Someone who wanted to argue that, e.g., Jindal wasn't eligible to be president would have to argue that, although he's a natural-born citizen according to Wong, he's not really a natural-born citizen in the sense intended by Article III. Have fun with that.
You can argue until the cows come up about NBC requiring thus-and-such according to de Vattel, or about what the Founders thought it meant, etc. None of that has the force of law. What matters is what the law says.
I think after all is said and done you will find the answer to this in the 2nd Amendment.
Massive fail on the WKA. It never ‘defined’ natural born Citizen (no hyphen and a capital C BTW).
As for codified laws look to Immigration Act of 1790 for clarification. It made it clear jus sanguinis was the dominant factor in the nbC requirement.
There are a lot of self-described and self-promoting "experts on Constitutional law" on these forums.
Yet they seem to be versed only in whatever Ron Paul or Jerome Corsi's latest ramblings are.
Wow, Bobby Jindal is the same age as me? I feel woefully underachieved.
I would point out that the 1790 legislation was not one that established true ius sanguinis, since under its terms a child of citizens born overseas would be a citizen - but unless that citizen eventually resided in America, his children would not be citizens.
Under true ius sanguinis, those grandchildren of citizens would still be citizens even if their citizen parents had never resided in the home country.
i don’t understand, why people fight so hard, to convince others that Obama with his British citizen father, is “natural born”.
True, the constitution doesn’t define it.
WHY?
it is a short document. not a 2000 page monstrosity,
precisely because it assumes good faith understanding of BASICS, unlike you !
The founders didn’t define a LOT of basic words, because they were clearly understood. They DID read Vattel. They knew EXACTLY what “natural born” meant.
...what do the trolls think it meant?
ONLY the President is required to be natural born.
clearly, this is an stronger additional requirement.
it is ludicrous to think they were simply sloppy,
and meant native, etc.
And i firmly believe you KNOW that.
i have been reading the disinformation campaign, not just here, but in MANY other places on this issue.
this “coverup”, more than anything else, convinces me you know the truth, and that Obama IS ineligible.
His own law firm he worked at, published a paper years ago, that supports this. The paper didn’t argue it. Instead, it said the law was outdated and should be changed. (but it has been largely scrubbed also.)
(2) Vattel wrote from the perspective of code law and not common law.
(3) Vattel's works were still being revised and updated from his posthumous notes and addenda years after the Constitution was ratified.
(4) The laws of various European states at the time of ratification and the final English edition of Vattel (1797) regarding ius sanguinis and ius soli were, to put it mildly, a patchwork.
Okay I am confused wouldn’t this mean Obama isn’t natural born if his dad wasn’t a citizen? Or am I confused which could very well be.
I guarantee you; if either of these guys runs for president, they *will* be considered natural born. No court, no Congress will hold otherwise. And of course, that goes for Romney as well.
Well?...The left would argue that a Vietnamese child who was fathered by an American soldier in the late 1960s and raised his entire life in Vietnam, could ( after living here for a mere 14 years,) go on to be president.
Somehow, I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the nation.
These people are evil. It really is that simple.
Step daughter born on US Navy base in Japan, held dual BC’s, 1 from Japan and 1 from the US Consulate had a US passport at age 6 weeks. Both parents are American citizens from birth. Father was in the Navy, doing a Japan tour when she was born.
If the definition of "natural born" were as cut-and-dried as many here claim, the documentation originally offered by his campaign would have been enough to disqualify him.
Nope, sorry, none of them are NBC. Run for Senate or Governor or dog catcher, but the POTUS is off limits. If the founding fathers ever needed an example of what they were guarding against, we have the current usurper terrorist. Yes, these two might be “good guys” but it a major safety net that is in place for a reason.
The proposed definition of "natural born" is nothing more than a matter of conveniently crafted wording in the service of wishful thinking.
The entire birther thing is little more than desperate but lazy people, looking for a magic solution to a problem that really just requires hard work, patience, and a rational and focused political organization.
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.