RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
September 29, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's Emmy in Loveland, Colorado. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's great to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Hey, I'm no fan of the establishment.
They irritate me most of the time, but what if they want Christie to run for the same reason I want him to run?
Because he's the best at articulating conservatism, besides you and maybe Marco Rubio,
but there's no one else out there.

RUSH: That's an interesting question.
Let me ask you, why do you think they're not begging Rubio to run?
Rubio has been just as adamant as Christie that he doesn't want to run.
In a contest of conservatism, Rubio wins versus Christie.
So why are they not asking Rubio to run?

CALLER: You know, I don't know. Maybe it's --

RUSH: Well, part of it is -- (crosstalk)

CALLER: He'd be my second choice.

RUSH: Part of it is, I think,
that they genuinely believe that whoever the other nominees are can't win.
That's another thing that frosts me.
I think Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this election coming up because I think this is going to largely be about Obama.
It's going to be a referendum on his outright destruction of the wealth-creating genius of this country.
I think Elmer Fudd could win, but I'm more concerned than that.
I don't want to just get rid of Obama,
I want to take advantage of the opportunity we have to finally get a genuine, full-fledged, unapologetic conservative
because this is going to be a major task, Emmy, rolling this stuff back.
It's going to take more than one election, and it's going to take somebody fearless.
And we're not going to roll this stuff back having compromise and bipartisanship as our primary objectives.

CALLER: I agree.

RUSH: I think as far as the establishment's concerned, there are two things.
They don't want a conservative to win for that reason,
plus they do want to win.
And I think they probably think
Christie has a better chance than anybody else up there of beating Obama.
That's my guess. But I think what will happen is this:
Whoever gets the nomination, if it is somebody outside the approval of the establishment,
what then will happen is
that all these establishment types will then start trying to buddy up to the winner,
want to be part of his administration,
and then spend the rest of their lives saying
they were there at the right hand of this great, terrific president.
That's what happened to Reagan.
Half the people that opposed Reagan did end up, especially in the second term, doing things in his administration,
and they made the rest of their life career out of it.

To this day, some of these people still guest on television shows as Ronald Reagan's X, or Ronald Reagan's Y.
Even the during the era of Reagan is over period, which Mitch Daniels also uttered,
I should say, even when they were saying the era of Reagan was over,
still some of these marginal characters in the Reagan Administration's second term are still out there, claiming
they were there, they were in the inner circle, they were making all these decisions. (interruption)
I know it's a serious question, Snerdley.
Why aren't people telling Rubio it's not up to him?
You've got Chris Christie saying,
"It's got to be in me.
It isn't in me."
"Well, it's not up to you."
Why aren't they saying it to Rubio?
Because Rubio would win in a walkover.
Rubio would win in a landslide over Obama.

I'm hearing Bob McDonnell, Virginia, is the preferred veep candidate.
I wouldn't waste that on Rubio.
Emmy, thanks for the call.

Folks, it's not true that other conservatives are not well articulating our beliefs.
What's happening is
that they're all competing with each other for time during these debates.
That's a crowded stage up there
and they are having to actually face each other and contrast and compare themselves to each other.
Christie doesn't have to do this.
And this could be a well-planned strategery.
Look at it this way:
You've got the people that have announced and they're on the stage of these debates.
They have 30 seconds here, a minute there, but some of them get an unfair amount of time.
Some of them don't get very many questions asked of them.
Some, the questions that are asked are gotcha types.

They don't have clearly an unfettered opportunity to explain themselves on such a crowded stage.
They actually having to face each other, contrast and compare themselves to each other.
But Governor Christie isn't having to do any of that.
He can go give a speech at the Reagan Library or release a YouTube video,
and there's no challenge on the issues and there's nobody out there disagreeing or contrasting or harping on it.
He can say what he says about global warming or gun control, immigration, what have you,
and he's not getting dirty in the process. Nobody's opposing him.
Nobody is disagreeing with what he's saying.
He has a free ride, so to speak.

Perry, same thing.
Perry had a free ride before he jumped in.
Look at what happened to Perry when he got in.
He announces, he gets in, automatically jumps to the top of the list, becomes the target of everybody on stage.
He's not an accomplished debater and wasn't prepped for it.
Look what has happened to Perry.
Christie is not running that risk. Could be a good strategy.
Christie is out there making these speeches and YouTube videos and they stand all alone.
No disagreement, no challenging to any of it.
But Perry jumped in, very little was said about the specifics of his record.
I'm not attacking his record. I'm just saying it was not as carefully scrutinized.
Christie would go through that, too, if he got in.

So as far as Christie is concerned, there's an understandably good strategy in not getting in now.
Now, at some point he's going to have to.
But he gets a free ride all the way down the road where he's not in.
Once he gets in, everything changes.
Everybody on that stage will be gunning for him,
and things about his record that some of you may not know will surface.
And then you'll be scratching your heads going,
"Gee, can't we all get along?
Why are we tearing each other up?"
Nature of the beast.

But Rubio, Rubio would win in a walkover.
He's conservative. He's articulate. He's great-looking.
He's Hispanic and sounds very smart.
How can he possibly lose?
If this were the Democrat Party,
the party father would probably tell Obama to step aside and let Rubio run,
if Rubio were a Democrat.
There are more Hispanic voters now than there are blacks,
and Rubio's got more experience than Obama had when he decided to run.
I don't know how many times Rubio has voted "present" versus Obama.

Here's Richard, El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, great speaking with you.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: Great to have you, sir.

CALLER: Your theme this morning has been Republican enthusiasm. Of course that equates to the voter turnout.
I understand that one of the major factors in us losing in '08 was that
Republicans were, quote, mad at Bush and many stayed home.
To me, that's ridiculous and childish.
We can't afford another four years of anything close to this socialist agenda.

RUSH: That happened in '06, by the way, too.

CALLER: I'm sure it's happened a number of times.

RUSH: Republicans stayed home because
they were mad at Republicans in Congress spending all the money.

CALLER: Yeah. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where it wasn't a choice of the lesser of the evils.
We've got to make some intelligent choices here
and it's absolutely essential that we must turn out in droves in order to overcome this obstacle.

RUSH: Frankly -- it's still 14 months out -- but I don't think that's a problem here.

CALLER: I hope you're correct.
We have to all do whatever we can to gin up the enthusiasm level and get these people to the polls.
They've got to understand what's at stake.

RUSH: I think they do. I think you'd be surprised.
I think you're going to be stunned. The voter enthusiasm...
The Gallup poll that's out today finds a 27 percentage point lead in voter enthusiasm, Republican over Democrat. (interruption)
Well, frankly, I'm not hearing people saying if it's X, they're not going to vote.
If I start hearing that, I'll talk to them about it. I'll fix it.
I'm not going to put up with that this time.
I'm not going to put up with that, "If it's X I'm not going to vote." (interruption)
Who? (interruption)
No. Shoot them at me!
If you've got some people who say
if Romney is the nominee they're not voting,
shoot them at me.

Let me just say, I haven't actually heard that specifically.
It doesn't surprise me. Some people think that.
I do know that there's a lot of passion for the proposition that Romney can't win,
and that if he does it's not enough to actually start rolling back what's going on.
Anyway, look, the reason why they're not pushing Rubio...
I'm going to answer my own question.
That's what I do.
I ask myself the best questions I'm ever asked and, therefore, I give the best answers.
They're not pushing Rubio because while they praise him, they don't think he has had enough experience yet.

And Rubio is --
sorry to say this, folks -- another example of the RINOs being wrong.
In case you have forgotten, Rubio was not initially supported by the Republican establishment.
Charlie Crist was.
I have not forgotten this.
Crist was supported by the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican millionaires and billionaires.
Crist was supported by McCain and Graham, and on and on.
Rubio was the Tea Party candidate.
Rubio was the conservative candidate, the candidate supported by conservative talk radio.
Rubio was the outsider. But look what's happened.
Now that Rubio has won,
"Oh, yeah, everybody was involved in the campaign!
Everybody had a role in electing Rubio!"

You people have forgotten:
Charlie Crist was the guy,
and Rubio kept coming on and on and on, and the conservative energy behind him and his conservatism triumphed
-- and Crist started talking to Democrats about a role in the party.
The RINOs had nothing to do with Rubio triumphing.
The RINOs weren't even in his camp to start with.
Another reason why they're not pushing Rubio is he's too conservative for them.
With Obama on any ballot, this whole notion of "lesser of two evils," I don't think exists.
Nobody's in that camp on our side.
There is no "almost an Obama" on our side, even Romney.
I think this "lesser of two evils" business gets thrown out, too.
There's a whole lot of conventional wisdom here that's going to be stood on its head before this is all over.
Don't doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Rubio/Crist election is almost a great microcosm of what we are talking about:
The Republican establishment versus an insurgent conservative Tea Party.
If you go back and try to remember that, Rubio came from nowhere.
He was seen as unelectable.
"Way too extreme. Too much of a risk.
Charlie Crist, he's the elected governor. He's the sure bet.
Charlie Crist will give us the majority in the Senate.
Charlie Crist is the way we need to go.
Who cares that Crist may as well have been a Democrat?
We need another (R), somebody who has an (R) beside their name.
We don't care whether they're conservative or not.
We just need the numbers here because we want to be in charge of the money.
We want the committee chairmanships."

You remember who the first prominent politician to support Rubio was?
It was Jim DeMint, South Carolina Senator.
Jim DeMint was the first prominent politician to come out and support Rubio.
Rubio, the outsider, fighting his way in.
Now, after he wins, the RINOs, the establishment come to his side (after Charlie Crist imploded) and they talk him up for vice president.
But don't forget:
There wouldn't be any Marco Rubio in the Senate today
except for the conservative movement and Tea Party movement
and a conservative effort to beat back the establishment.
Rubio, I'm not saying he had no role. Don't misunderstand.
He was, of course, key, but he had the Republican establishment against him.
It's almost, as I say, a microcosm of what we are talking about and facing today as we choose a nominee.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

Weekly Standard: It’s Not About You - William Kristol

New York Post: Christie Seriously Considering Presidential Bid after GOP Prodding

AP: Tea Party Darling Sen. Marco Rubio Writing Memoir



RUSH:

[patlin]

As I said, you have neither actually read Mark's books to be able to cite the sources he cites in them. If you had, you would know that my research cites his sources. The only difference, I cite his sources without political bias, using the author's words in context so they speak for themselves.

So long drone as I see that if Mark said it was good for you to jump off a cliff, you would actually do it. How sad.

[wintertime]

Rubio is not a natural born citizen.

[Squeeky]

You are NOT being sincere!!! Here is what you said:

" NBC: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Citizenship by birth: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."
==========

By putting the "But" where you did you made it read the way you wanted, like NBC was one thing and "citizenship by birth" was another. BUT, here is the actual COMPLETE quotation:

As stated by the Court in the historic decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702,

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

Sooo, now it is clear that the second part, citizenship by birth is being contrast with NATURALIZATION, not with NATURAL BORN CITIZEN like you tried to get away with!!!

Because I googled your words and it sent me here which made it clear what you were trying to do:

Perez v. Brownell

I guess I am going to have to google it every time you quote something.

[Yosemitest]

I've read it, and listened to it a couple of times, although that was sometime late 2009.
I dusted it off again, and I find pages 200-201 about Judges to be something we need to do.
Page 202 about Immigration is what we're fighting about with the "Establishment Republicans", right now.
Pages 204-205, hits the nail on the head, and must be done.

But I'm not going to sit here and transcribe Mark Levin's book.
Somewhere around here, I've got his book on "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America".
But I've got to find it again, and I just can't lay my hands on it, right now.

But back to the issue of Marco Rubio's citizenship, I think DiogenesLamp has a better response than I can think of.

---



Reading stuff written in the founding era leads me to believe they may have handled it in the same way.
Look at these comments from General George Washington for example.


“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.

“You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them.
I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any individual distinction between them and foreigners.”

“The General has great Reason; and is highly displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers,
who have placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not acquainted.
He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country,
or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached.
This Order is to be consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril.” - 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day. 9

Not conclusive, but indicative. Other quotes showing Washington's disdain for foreigners here.

Another example would be this excerpt from the 1783 version of the Virginia Citizenship act.

and that all persons, other than alien enemies, who shall migrate into this State,
and shall before some Court of Record give satisfactory proof by oath (or being Quakers of Menonists by affirmation) that they intend to reside therein,
and also take the legal oath, or affirmation, for giving assurance of fidelity to the Commonwealth
(which oaths or affirmations the Clerk of the Court shall enter on record,
and give a certificate thereof to the person taking the fame, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar)
shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and advantages of citizens,
except that they shall not be capable of election or appointment to any office, legislative, executive, or judiciary,
until an actual residence in the State of two years from the time of taking such oaths or affirmations as aforesaid,
nor until the shall have evinced a permanent attachment to the State, by having intermarried with a citizen of this Commonwealth,
or a citizen of any other of the United States, or purchased lands to the value of one hundred pounds therein.

My understanding is that Rubio's Father (already a long time resident) had initiated the paperwork prior to Mark's Birth to become a citizen.
His mother had already become a citizen prior to his birth.
Given that the mother had already become a citizen, and the father had filed to become one, it is evident that the Father intended, and indeed did became a citizen.
It is apparent to me that the family met the spirit of the law if not the letter.
That his father didn't complete the process before his birth is in my mind a technicality.



---

And for DiogenesLamp;

Sorry to pull you into this debate, but your post was well said.
I 'm tired of answering these charges, and I'm not a lawyer.
Please fell free to join it.

Goodnight to all.

[edge919]

Sorry, squeeks, BUT you're NOT being sincere. You need to go to the ORIGINAL SOURCE, which is Wong Kim Ark (which is noted in my previous post), and then go back to the beginning of the cited paragraph and not just one sentence prior:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

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,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

Do you UNDERSTAND what this is saying?? This is talking ONLY about the 14th amendment, which is part of the Constitution. Remember: the court already said in this same decision that the Constitution does NOT say who shall be NBCs. This paragraph says the Constitution via the 14th amendment contemplates two SOURCES of citizenship. One is naturalization, but this type of citizenship is not defined nor controlled by the 14th amendment but by Congress, while the source of "citizenship by birth" is defined ONLY by the 14th amendment and not by Congress. IOW, this makes an even STRONGER distinction between NBC and citizenship by birth, than I originally explained. Thanks for stabbing your own argument in the foot.

[patlin]

I quoted Liberty & Tyranny, NOT Men in Black. Although Men in Black touches the 14th, the way Mark addresses it is very different from how he addressed in L&T. So, If you are going to respond, at least respond with the correct book.
What is interesting to me & shows Mark's bias is the fact that he cites Erler in L&T, but what he does not cite from Erler is the fact that 14th citizenship can not be defined without using the sister act, the Expatriation Act of 1868, that was passed the same week. This Act of Congress was very specific, dual citizenship is not, nor had it ever been, a practice of the US. In fact, it states that dual citizenship is the opposite of US policy as it is a threat to our sovereignty & national security.

A man's true colors are more often shown by what he does not say, rather than what he does say.

Marco Rubio’s father did not initiate immigration papers until 4 yrs after Marco was born. The released FOIA docs prove this fact.

And also for the record, a comment from my website: From DiogenesLamp on Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law: By the way, you do excellent work and it is greatly appreciated.

You are welcome to educate yourself: http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/

[Yosemitest]

"I quoted Liberty & Tyranny"

Did you open up "Men in Black" and find Judges, Immigration, and The Constitution?
I think NOT.
It was out of "Liberty and Tyranny" that I addressed the following:

I find pages 200-201 about Judges to be something we need to do.
Page 202 about Immigration is what we're fighting about with the "Establishment Republicans", right now.
Pages 204-205, hits the nail on the head, and must be done.

Again you refuse to state your credentials? WHY?
Again, what is your position on Obama and eligibility?

[patlin]

Did you open up “Men in Black” and find Judges, Immigration, and The Constitution?

True to form, you did not actually read what I wrote:

Although Men in Black touches the 14th, the way Mark addresses it is very different from how he addressed in L&T

Plus, you can drop the credentials cr@p as it is nothing but a strawman argument of those trying to obfuscate the issue. Obama is not & never was eligible for office & neither is Rubio. Both for the same reason, their fathers were citizens of a foreign country who passed that citizenship onto their children when the child was born. AND FYI...This is not my position, it is the position of the founding fathers & the framers of the 14th & the 1868 Expatriation Act by merely using their words to define NBC without interjecting personal biases & opinions.

[Squeeky]

You are wrong again. Plus, I am getting better and better every day at all these court cases thingies and there is no difference between the 14th and NBC. I just clobbered a Vattle Birther WITH LOGIC at another place who tried this same thing, plus I even found a Secret Book last night that I don’t think even the Obots know about and it was VERY helpful!!! Sooo, here is what I said to that Vattle Birther WITH quotes from law cases:

---

You said: We are then left simply with the question as to whether the 14th amendment changed article II to add the privilege of holding the Office of President to those who were of alien ancestry but fortunate enough to be born in the United States.

No we aren’t. It is obvious the Courts read the 14th and NBC as meaning the same thing. Where O Where do if find this information???
...
FIRST, in Federal law BEFORE Wong Kim Ark, in Ex Parte Chin King in 1888:

” By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen there­of, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen.

“The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents.

” This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign gov­ernments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country.

“THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND.

” The fourteenth amendment declares : 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.’

---

SECOND, in Wong Kim Ark in 1898:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

---

Third, after Wong Kim Ark in 2009 in the Indiana Case:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

---

Sooo, NO!!! You are just WRONG.

[edge919]

Sorry, but this is nothing more than a bunch of Saran Wrap. When you stretch it too hard, you get a bunch of holes. Justice Gray cited Ex Parte Chin King in the Wong Kim Ark decision. Did he cite the dicta you provided?? Not only, no, but hell no. Gray went for the quantity over quality approach in saying:

In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.

Notice the deft bait and switch. Gray does NOT recognize any of these decisions as declaring anyone to be a "natural-born citizen." By this point in the decision, Gray has already affirmed the Minor definition of NBC and is working on separate and different terminology.

The part of WKA you quoted cites a Mr. Binney who said:

... his child ... if born in the country,as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen

This still makes a distinction between one and the other. As much of a citizen does not = natural born citizen. A naturalized citizen is as much of a citizen as a natural born citizen too, but it is still not the same thing. Plus, Gray allows that this type of citizenship by birth is dependent on domicil:

... includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

IOW, Gray is building a justification for giving the 14th amendment teeth. This does NOT in any way preclude his previous point that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. At this point, Gray is talking about 14th amendment "citizenship by birth," which he uses in the very first sentence you quoted.

The dicta in the Indiana case simply doesn't say anything about how natural-born citizen is defined. It points out something that is limited in its relevance, and it ignores that the court made a distinction between NBC and 14th amendment citizenship by birth.

Sorry, but your Saran Wrap is ruined.

[Squeeky]

You just said the same thing as me. You quoted this, (and thank you because I did not see this Chin King case in the Wong Kim Ark thingy:

In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States.

Native born citizens ARE natural born citizen. (BUT, all natural born citizens are not native born, like John McCain). This is what else I PROVED to another Vattle Birther at another place:

---

To put it into NBC terms its like this. ALL NBC are Citizens at Birth CANNOT be converted to ALL Citizens at Birth are NBC without proof of such. Without such proof, the quantitative element of the conversion much be changed to: ALL NBC are Citizens at Birth converts to SOME Citizens at Birth are NBC.
...
Therefore, you must either accept the quantitative adjustment or prove the original conversion. BTW, there is nothing in the Indiana Supreme Court statement you provided that alters that logic.

Now if you’d like to PROVE the Conversion, please do. I’m all ears.

ME To the Vattle Birther: Oh let a poor, little ILLOGICAL Girl Reporter try:

You said:”To put it into NBC terms its like this. ALL NBC are Citizens at Birth CANNOT be converted to ALL Citizens at Birth are NBC without proof of such.

Sooo, here is the PROOF: The Court said, AGAIN:
...
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 as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Sooo 1. ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

NOW, what else did the SUPREME COURT say about being BORN IN THE ALLEGIANCE???:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13

Sooo 2. EVERYBODY BORN IN AMERICA, (WHO ISN”T THE KID OF A DIPLOMAT OR INVADING SOLDIER) IS BORN IN THE ALLEGIANCE.

Now what this equals when you add No. 2 to No. 1 is:

ALL PERSONS BORN IN AMERICA, (WHO ISN”T THE KID OF A DIPLOMAT OR INVADING SOLDIER) ARE BORN IN THE ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES [and] ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

Proven!!! And that is right from the Horse’s Mouth!!! Sooo, do I win a prize or anything??? How about my prize is that YOU admit you are mistaken and quit being a Vattle Birther???

---

This is just like when I was fighting Obots all the time. Once you get past all the name calling and teasing, then it is really pretty easy to win debates and stuff.

[edge919]

Native born citizens ARE natural born citizen.

What you mean to says is that NBCs are native born, but native-born citizens are NOT necessarily NBCs. McCain qualifies as native-born under Vattel who said that children born in the Armies of the State are considered born in the country.

Your "quantitative" arugment is a bunch of babbling. Maybe you can try again and articulate a point that makes sense.

[DiogenesLamp]

Marco Rubio’s father did not initiate immigration papers until 4 yrs after Marco was born. The released FOIA docs prove this fact.

There was a poster (xzins) on a week (or so) ago claiming that Marco Rubio's father had initiated the process of becoming a citizen prior to Marco's birth. If that is not true, then that changes my perspective. To give a man a break on this question there must be at least an argument for it. If his father had not at least STARTED the process, then no stretch of interpretation will save him. Here is the comment.

And also for the record, a comment from my website: From DiogenesLamp on Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law: By the way, you do excellent work and it is greatly appreciated.

Yes, that's me. I didn't realize who you were until you mentioned this. You do excellent work and it is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Squeeky]

You said:What you mean to says is that NBCs are native born, but native-born citizens are NOT necessarily NBCs.

---

No I didn’t. I said EXACTLY what I meant. People who are native born are born in the allegiance of the U.S., except for kids of diplomats and kids of invading soldiers. Actually, I DIDN’T say that, the SUPREME COURT babbled it first. See, AGAIN:

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13”

Sooo, NATIVE BORNS are born in the allegiance even if they are aliens: And what is that little tern the court also uses for these native born people who are born in the allegiance??? Here, again the court BABBLES:

“ll 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 as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Sooo, native born people, even aliens, are born here if they are NATIVE BORN (duh!!!) and they are in the allegiance of the U.S. and therefor since ALL people born in the allegiance of the U.S are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, these people are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS too.

Sooo, really it is YOU who are babbling. Not me. Sooo, quit being a Vattle Birther. OK???

[DiogenesLamp]

Your "quantitative" arugment is a bunch of babbling. Maybe you can try again and articulate a point that makes sense.

No she can't. I just skim over anything she or "Mr Rogers" writes. You should try it. Your brain will feel better as a result.

[patlin]

Mario Rubio’s initial petition for US citizenship...Rubio was lawfully admitted into the US in 1956 but didn't file his petition for US citizenship until Sept 9, 1975. Why did it take him 20 years to make up his mind and why did he wait until after all his children were born? http://www.scribd.com/doc/62055196/Rubio-Naturalization-Petition-CERTIFIED-from-National-Archives

[edge919]

People who are native born are born in the allegiance of the U.S., except for kids of diplomats and kids of invading soldiers.

Which is only pertinent through the 14th amendment. We've already established that natural born is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Gray went further and said the court was committed to the view that NBCs were EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.

Here, again the court BABBLES:

ll 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.

The problem is that this passage was used by the Supreme Court in acknolwedging that you could be born IN THE UNITED STATES and be a natural born SUBJECT if your parents still held allegiance to the King. This is mentioned in both Shanks v. Dupont and in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, the latter of which said very clearly:

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.

Read the underlined and bolded parts above. The SCOTUS is using Vattel to adjudge a person born IN the U.S. as a British subject. Here's Vattel:

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Sorry, but I'm a Supreme Court legalist. The court says NBC = all children born in the country to citizen parents BECAUSE children follow the condition of the father. The concept of so-called "native-born children" is not the same thing. It is based only on circumstances defined by the Constitution via the 14th amendment, which was CLEARLY what the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled, subject to permanent domicil and residence.

[Squeeky]

I don’t think you are much of a Supreme Court Legalist because you can’t read stuff and retain it very long. Plus, you did NOT give linky thingies to your cases. You did not explain what the cases were about. Because I found one of them and it was something to do about the American Revolution and stuff and was from 1830.

Which, 1830 is before 1888, 1898, and 2009 all three of them. Plus things were very iffy around the time of the American Revolution, and stuff depended on who went where and when, by what I did find real fast on your case thingy. Sooo, Mr. Supreme Court Legalist, whatever that is, which I wish all you Vattle Birthers would start calling yourselves sooo you wouldn’t embarrass regular Common Sense Suspicious Birthers sooo much, you can not take cases which are before Wong Kim Ark and try to overturn Wong Kim Ark with them. Because another one of you Vattle Birthers here tried that already and my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a REAL lawyer called him “Perry Mason” and not in a good way.

What you are doing is just stringing words together to mislead people here and give conservatives bad and false legal advice about Mark Rubio.

Sooo, if you want to give linky thingys to your cases, and tell what they are about, and what year, and how it relates to NBC and stuff, then do it. If not, I am going with the 1898 Supreme Court which says, and I REPEAT, for the slow of learning:

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13”

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 as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Which is simply, “everybody born here, even aliens, except kids of diplomats or soldiers, is born in the allegiance of the United States, and all these people are natural born citizens.

It doesn’t say nothing about Vattel. It doesn’t say nothing about their parents, except for diplomats and soldiers, and it doesn’t say nothing about whatever else you are just making up.

So There!!!

[ebysan]

“Rubio, and Jindal, are both ineligble because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their births. ....I think both of the guys are very good for the Conservative portion of the GOP!

Just because Obama has gotten away with the scam on America does not mean it’s okay to ignore the Constitutional requirements relating to a President being a Natural Born Citizen;”

Thank you for the Post!!

Rubio & Jindal are both very good Conservative Men & an assets to the GOP... But, you are correct!!!

Neither Rubio nor Jindal are eligible to be POTUS or VP of the US!!!

Their parents did not become “American Citizens” until after they were born!!

The Constitution has not been changed!! ......Parents must be American Citizens .....

Obama is not eligible to be POTUS; but, Congressmen have their heads in the sand & want to ignore this!!

Thanks Again!!

[edge919]

The 1898 court "thingy" says that the Supreme Court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..." and that "all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ..." This is a specific and EXCLUSIVE definition. This definition is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.

The paragraph you quoted about "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" is from U.S. v Rhodes which recognized that you could be born IN THE UNITED STATES and NOT be a U.S. citizen. To be in the allegiance of the United States required that the parents ADHERED to the United States and NOT to Great Britain. Swayne cited Shanks v. Dupont for this part of the common law:

"All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”

Are you UNDERSTANDING what this says?? If a person was NATIVE or otherwise ... IOW, this would include those who were born in the United States who would NOT be U.S. citizen, but would be British subjects because they adhered to the Crown. Thus, in U.S. v Rhodes, you get TWO possible conditions from being born in the United States: NBC or subject of Great Britain. Those persons who adhered to the United States were U.S. citizens and of course, their children if born in the country would be natural born citizens.