Consider United State vs Rhodes (1866):
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well [**18] as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.
Rubio's parents were not ambassadors nor is the slavery exception operative.
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) makes a distinction only between "adopted citizens" and "natural born citizens" rather than an third class. Clearly Rubio is not an "adopted citizen" because he was a citizen by birth rather than naturalized.
There are yet other court precedents suggesting Vattel is not operative.
As far as I can determine, Rhodes was a Circuit Court case. At that time, mid-1860’s, the 14th Amendment was being debated in Congess and we have discussed the debates involved in its adoption here on FR ad nauseum. The congressional players took a rather strict interpretation, if memory serves.
Forget any application of the common law to this problem. When we are born here, we are not “subjects” of anyone, we are citizens. Natural born if born in the US of citizen parentss so there can be the least posssible doubt as to allegiance.
BTW, the idea of “citizenship” is unknown in English common law. SCOTUS erred in the Ark case in 1898 by determining it to be a CL matter.
Allegiance is the crux of the matter: Look at the problem of Obama: what is HIS allegiance? Just to Obama, I would argue.
Do you want a repetition of the eligibility question with the Republican Party? The Democrats would jump all over Rubio, just as they did McCain. At least Marco is smart enough to realize it, which is why he plays it so coy.
Vattel irrelevant? Not to the Founders. His authority on international and citizenship law was incontrovertible in 1787. For the sake of conciseness, the Founders used great brevity in constructing the Constitution. They saw no need to elaborate on NBC, anymore than they did to elaborate on Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press. Any educated person would know the meanings.
If you need any more clarification of doubt, read John Jay’s letter to George Washington. It follows Vattel down the line.
Another little fly in the ointment: Mr. Rubio is claimed as a Cuban citizen by the Castro regime, as is his mother and was his late father. That would need an up-to-date ruling on what constitutes a dual citizen in the view of the US court system.
SCOTUS has been very vague on this subject over the years and needs to step up and clarify. If all the plaintiffs in Obama suits hadn’t been deemed “without standing” maybe we’d havet some clarification. But there isn’t much in the way of guts on the federal bench these days.
You are hearing this from one of Rubio’s first and most fervent supporters who encouraged him to run against “Suntan Charlie” Crist. He ran a great campaign and shows every sign of being a crack US Senator. I would love to see him replace weak sister Mitch McConnell as Leader.
Rubio doesn’t want to be on the national ticket. Please-—let’s let sleeping doga lie and go after Obama with people who WANT to run....we can get rid of him without creating a constitutional mess——and the Dhimmis will cause one. Count on it.