Posted on 08/29/2011 6:07:11 PM PDT by rodguy911
What your post does do however is introduce the question of whether or not the Supremes will ever rule on this issue and if they do what happens to anything obama may have been a part of.
I still think they have made a ruling by not taking the case.
It’s not a problem for me. I’m just passing along what came up at the event.
Wish I had known. I live at mm103 oceanside.
Simply by stating that the current path we are on is unsustainable and sooner or later those who lend us money will either charge more or not lend at all and by pointing out that the accelerating rate of the debt under obama is unsustainable you know where he's at. It was a first class rebuke IMHO.There is no question about his conservative credentials.
Marcos' entire thrust is that he loves the country,explains how socialism has failed everywhere,an inadvertent slam at zero, wants only the best for it, is sad it has lost its # 1 status but he believes we will come back again and its obvious we need new leadership.
No, I know.
Basically, a state would have to reject the application for candidacy on the ballot based on this, and then it would have to be litigated.
I don’t see that happening.
Either there are rules that apply to both sides or there are not.
Now my guess is that if there were any question about whether or not Rubio s was ineligible to run for potus he probably would not run. He impressed me as that kind of guy.
But why are we always the ones to get run over by the bus, get rolled, or forced to take second shift while the dems do pretty much what they want!! How bout a little fairness in the legal system.?
My guess is that he may run for Governor of Fla. is the chance comes up.
OMG so sorry. Come to our meetings at the local Republican Club,we would love to have you.We obviously didn’t do a real stellar job of getting the word out although I did mention it on here several times.Mods were good enough to leave the posts in as well.
Its a fair argument, it will be interesting to see if any states challenge zeros eligibility next year. But like you say its doubtful
Hey Thank you for the thread!
It’s my fault. We’ve lived here since January but I haven’t gotten involved. Still trying to make sense of a new job and raising four daughters. Glad to know FRiends are nearby.
No problem, my pleasure.I’m about exhausted, won’t be on here too much longer.
Here is what the Constitution says on citizenship:
Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Amendment 14:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The only Congressional law which specifically used the term "Natural Born Citizen" was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated children born offshore of citizens were considered Natural Born Citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. The Naturalization Act of 1795 contained no specific language defining Natural Born Citizens.
Regardless, the various Naturalization Acts were superseded by the 14th Amendment in 1868.
Congress gets to define naturalization law within the confines of the Constitution. They have not chosen to do so, therefore the 14th Amendment and associated SCOTUS cases (i.e.: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark; Vance v. Terrazas) define birthright citizenship.
What a wonderful event! So glad you were there
and reported your up close and personal observations.
Sounds like the room was thrilled with him. He’s
got quite a story, and what a strong and wonderful, patriotic speaker! Go, Marco!
As soon as i get the date time and place for the next meeting I will freepmail you with the details.
“No problem, my pleasure.I’m about exhausted, won’t be on here too much longer.”
Nice job!
Tonight I talked to a former house Rep. who spent many years both in Tallahassee and dc who was unequivocal about stating that the only thing that matters is if you were born here in the US but many Freepers believe that both parents have to have been born here. It probably needs to be adjudicated by the Supremes.
I guess the biggest thing you come away with is the clarity in his message. No bs at all. Just straight talk and all of it so logical so conservative with love of country and concern for the citizens of tomorrow so apparent in his words. This is a guy who really loves his country.
It was in 1898 in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark concluded a person born in the U.S. to two legal immigrants (non citizens) was a citizen. The question of a person born to illegal immigrants is still an open issue. However, both of Rubio's parents had legal resident status when he was born.
This was decided by the SCOTUS 73 years before Marco Rubio was born.
Men can imagine there are requirements beyond those specified in the law, but we are a nation of laws, not men.
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.