“Posterity” and “natural born” pretty much means the same thing.
Posterity are the descendants of the original citizens created after the ratification.
The word natural in natural born citizen does not mean at all what you guys think it means. It is a lot more complicated.
Natural is a Kind. Natural born citizen is a Kind. Natural and Kind are the same.
When the Framers used natural born Citizen they placed this type of citizen into a Kind.
This Kind (natural born citizens) are the citizens created after the ratification and their descendants (posterity).
You guys should do your homework before Dr. Conspiracy, fogbow,and nativeborncitizenexplored sends you on a fools errand.
Numerous Supremes Court Justices have quoted and referenced Vattel regarding chapter 19.
The Founders, Constitutional law professors, scholars, Senators, Congressmen, your gal Hillary Clinton said Vattel is the source that guided the drafting of the Constitution.
Vattel is the source who gave the Founders the justification to have their revolution.
Natural born citizens are born in the US to citizen parents.
A country cannot perpetuate itself unless its citizens are born to citizens. A country should desire this for its own preservation.
Jefferson wrote...”they will come and destroy everything we have built.” He meant foreigners.
Ahhh...
Not in any dictionary I ever saw. Which one are you finding this in?
Natural is a Kind. Natural born citizen is a Kind. Natural and Kind are the same. When the Framers used natural born Citizen they placed this type of citizen into a Kind. This Kind (natural born citizens) are the citizens created after the ratification and their descendants (posterity).
Please show where this explanation of "kind" is in the Constitution. By your logic, the only natural born citizens are those who can trace their ancestry back to those in America at the time of Constitution. I don't think that's at all what the Framers had in mind.
Numerous Supremes Court Justices have quoted and referenced Vattel regarding chapter 19.
And numerous Supreme Court Justices have cite Common Law, including one case (Rogers vs. Bellei) that unequivocally states that America follows the British "Jus Soli" model. (Born on the soil = natural born)
Vattel is the source who gave the Founders the justification to have their revolution.
You really ought to check your history references. The revolution occurred not because the colonists didn't like British common law, but because common law was not being applied to the colonists.
Jefferson wrote...”they will come and destroy everything we have built.” He meant foreigners.
Not that I doubt your word, but when I google this quote I don't find it. Please cite your source.
“The word natural in natural born citizen does not mean at all what you guys think it means. It is a lot more complicated.”
All the more reason not to pretend an expertise you do not command. Not being a constitutional scholar myself, I looked it up “natural born citizen” in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, the legal dictionary that the U.S. Supreme Court cites far more than any other (as West Publishing wants everyone to know). I’ve checked several editions, and they all imply that Rubio would qualify; the sixth edition is most explicit on the meaning:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.
The definition plus the fact that Marco Rubio was born in Miami Florida shows that Rubio is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Your own theory, bushpilot1, of what “natural” has to mean, and its implications as to “kind”, strikes me as silly, but either way it’s just your own theory. No one outside an irrelevant fringe buys it. Marco Rubio’s eligibility follows from the real law, regardless of what is going on in your head.