Posted on 07/03/2011 7:26:19 PM PDT by sourcery
So then, Marco Rubio, who was born in Miami, and Bobby Jindal who was born in Baton Rouge, LA, are eligible to be Prez or VP even though their parents were NOT citizens. Am I right or wrong?
zer0 is a fraud, Republicans know it, the world knows it.
interest bookmark...not that any Constitutional law applies anymore.
Yes, they can become president following the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Senate and Obama.
Now , the next step is any global citizen becoming pres. Pres Chavez.
Wrong
Obviously you didn't read this. You are WRONG!
A most excellent article - although my eyelids are propped open.
Now, all we need to find is a few serious respected individuals that cannot be ignored by the media; who are willing to stand up in congress and shout, “YOU’RE A LIER, A FRAUD, A POSEUR”!!!
Certainly not amongst this bunch of pantywaist pubbies!
In SR 511, Obama agreed and signed his name that the definition of NBC means born in the US with TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.
This is a moot point. The courts will recognize only two types of citizens: “natural born” and “naturalized”. Appeals to original intent will be no more successful in this case than in the case of the “general welfare” clause.
Ultimately, the Constitution means what the people insist it means. Judges beware.
Cases in point:
1.) President Chester A. Arthur
2.) Vice President Spiro Agnew.
President Chester A. Arthur's father, William Arthur, was born in County Antrim, Ireland. Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829 but his father was not naturalized a U.S. citizen until 1843.
Vice President Spiro Agnew's father, Theodore Spiros Anagnostopoulos, was born in Greece. Spiro Agnew was born in 1918 but his father was still listed as an "alien" in the 1920 U.S. Census.
In Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."
In Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, the Supreme Court rule that children born in New York City between July 4, 1776 and September 15, 1776 were U.S. citizens by birth but those children born in New York City between September 16, 1776 and November 24, 1783 were not U.S. citizens by birth.
Why?
Because, from September 16, 1776 to November 24, 1783, New York City was occupied by the British.
What mattered was that "the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance". After September 15, 1776, that "Government" in New York City was Great Britain. Therefore, the Supreme court ruled, any child born in New York City during the British occupation was a British subject by birth and not an American citizen by birth.
What I have learned from this whole affair is that the strict definition of NBC that some want enforced in such a way that it rules Obama out isn’t going to be enforced in such a manner.
Let’s face reality on that, ok? He isn’t going to be marched out of the white house on this, he just isn’t.
The problem here is that he was elected in the first place. That is the root of the problem, and having a judge cut off the head of a weed by removing him from office isn’t going to address the root, and it will grow back.
The problem is with us, and it is up to us as voters, as guardians of our own freedom, to vote him out and put in a proper president.
It’s up to us, and no one but us. I do not want a judge to guard my freedom. Who will guard the judge who guards my freedom? This is our task, this is our duty, and if we cannot do it, then we do not deserve to have it done for us.
I am in total agreement with your explanation. Now, I would be interested in hearing how you propose ‘we the people insist’ the definition be enforced? The pirate Roberts’ court isn’t ging to rule on the issue, the pubby controlled House and democrap controlled Senate are not going to address the issue, and we the people are now subjects of a federal oligarchy orchestrating crisis and mayhem to herd us along while the Republic is aborted via economic demise. So how do you propose we ‘insist’ the Constitution be enforced? By what means do you see this even possible at this point since our elected representatives have abrogated their oath to our Constitution?
Bobby Jindal good guy that he is is not a natural born citizen. His parents were not naturalized citizens at the time of his birth.
It may be that Marco Rubio qualifies since his parents were born in Cuba when it was an American territory after the Spanish American War. They were both born before 1932 when Cuba became independent. Marco was born in the states so he probably is elegible to run for president.
A Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1830, the fact that Chester A. Arthur was President of the United States and the fact that Spiro Agnew was Vice President of the United States say no dems is correct.
See Post 13.
"The Rule of Law" is not "The Rule of Speculative Articles on the Internet".
We each have to take responsibility for our own freedom. Those who rely on politicians to guard their freedom should not be surprised if they end up enslaved.
One very important aspect of freedom is convincing others that is is in their best interests to constrain their actions according the principles of individual liberty, and to sell that idea to yet others, recursively.
Hence this and other websites, magazines and books. Hence the conversations I have with my relatives, friends and acquaintances. Hence ths essay I put together and posted, and others I will contribute in the future.
The process is the same as the one that eventually resulted in the founding of the US.
It took the enemies of liberty more than a century to bring us to the perilous precipice we now find ourselves on. It will take decades to undo any significant part of the damage, if not longer. But that’s no excuse for not doing what can reasonably be done, when and as opportunities arise.
The Presidency of Chester Arthur sets no precedents, neither de jure nor de facto. Without a court decision, there is no legal precedent. Without the public and Congress knowingly allowing Arthur to serve in spite of the fact his father was a British subject, there is no de facto precedent, either. And we know beyond any reasonable doubt that neither the public nor Congress knew about Arthur's father not being a citizen, because of an article published in The American Law Review in 1884, while Arthur was President.
The article was written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review. The article was entitled "ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?", and was an in depth discussion and review of the legalities of US citizenship.
The article makes a compelling case that "natural born citizen" means exactly what de Vattel meant by "les naturels, ou indigenes": persons born on the soil of a nation both of whose parents were citizens of that same nation. But here's the point: There is no way the article could have been written, or published by the American Law Review, while the current sitting President is shown by the article to clearly fail the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, unless it was not generally known that such was the case. No way in Dante's Inferno could any such thing have happened, especially not in 1884!
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.