RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

You are still NOT giving the facts of the cases you are quoting from. Which, I will not waste my time reading something that is from BEFORE Wong Kim Ark, because you Vattle Birthers have a real bad track record of being able to read stuff and get it right, like the one here who was quoting Venus something which was about a SHIP and the war of 1812 and backed up the notions of allegiance being tied to where you were, which was the same thing the Wong Kim Ark judges said. Talk about me wasting my time and Fabia Sheen, Esq.'s time on a wild goose chase.

What are the cases you are quoting about, what year were they, what are the basics stuff about them, and what is a link. Until then, I can read just fine by myself and I do not need a pretend lawyer on the Internet telling me what stuff means, particularly when they can't understand thwe following:

From 1898 Wong Kim Ark and THE SUPREME COURT:

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.

There is NO Vattle stuff there and none of your theory of citizen stuff there at all. It doesn't say some aliens and not others except for the two exceptions listed. It just says what it says, and it says you are wrong. Sooo, please read it and quit being a Vattle Birther.

You are still NOT giving the facts of the cases you are quoting from. Which, I will not waste my time reading something that is from BEFORE Wong Kim Ark, because you Vattle Birthers have a real bad track record of being able to read stuff and get it right, like the one here who was quoting Venus something which was about a SHIP and the war of 1812 and backed up the notions of allegiance being tied to where you were, which was the same thing the Wong Kim Ark judges said. Talk about me wasting my time and Fabia Sheen, Esq.'s time on a wild goose chase.

The length of a pointless rant does not give it a point. You try too hard to sound like you have a point, but obviously you don't. Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared a natural-born citizen. Period. This is a fact. It was even admitted in the Ankeny v. Daniels case by the Indiana Appeals Court. Gray was handcuffed by the Minor decision which REJECTED an argument of citizenship based on the 14th amendment because Virginia Minor fit this definition of natural born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were it citizens. Wong Kim Ark upheld this decision. This is the highest legal precedent you can have.

The Indiana judges said this:

[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

It was IMMATERIAL because the Indiana judge people understood it was the same thing as they said in their conclusion:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

WHY???Just like I showed you earlier:

Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

This is why Mark Levin says about Rubio and Vattle Birthers:

"Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen."

I am trying to be polite, so I am leaving out the really mad stuff he said about the Vattle Birthers.

You know, I really shouldn't waste my time, responding to you.
You intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.
Post #126 you wrote

"If you are going to respond, at least respond with the correct book."

In post#124 I had wrote:

"Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America"

You didn't even take the time to see what I was talking about.
You just intentionally misrepresented the second paragraph's book as being the subject of the first paragraph.
It was a test, and you failed.

And credentials, ... credentials are important, and obviously, you're ashamed of what you don't have.
At least I made my position and lack of credentials clear.
BUT ... at least you're consistent about Obama not being eligible under the same law.

If rush was always right hillary would be president.

It was IMMATERIAL because the Indiana judge people understood it was the same thing as they said in their conclusion:

It's not the same thing. The Indiana judges have a major reading problem. You can't divine guidance on something that was never actually legally pronounced. Their argument is based on an ignorant assumption and circular logic.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

The court is showing utter stupidity. The basis of persons being born in the allegiance of the United States was through the parents adhering to the United States. If they were loyal to the crown, then by treaty, their children, even if born in the U.S., were British subjects. The same would apply under the Chinese treaty and Wong Kim Ark would be born a Chinese subject. The passage cited by the IAC was NOT Gray's controlling dicta. He relied on distinguishing NBC from "citizenship by birth" with the latter being dependent on pemanent domicil and residence in place of citizen parents. Wong Kim Ark was NOT a natural born citizen and persons such as him who are not born to citizen parents are NOT natural born citizens.

There's no question that Rubio comes CLOSER to being a natural born citizen than Obama because Rubios parents immigrated here. Obama's did not. Like it or not, however, natural law is still natural law and natural born citizen is only defined as those born in the country to citizen parents. Rubio might be a 14th amendment citizen (Obama clearly is not), but he is not a natural born citizen.

You said: "It's not the same thing. The Indiana judges have a major reading problem. You can't divine guidance on something that was never actually legally pronounced. Their argument is based on an ignorant assumption and circular logic. "

But isn't that EXACTLY what you Vattle Birthers do a lot of, whenever you are not just mis-reading stuff completely backwards??? You base your theory stuff on things the court never announced because I have seen you people saying, for example "Well, the court DIDN'T say he was a NBC, they said he was just a regular born citizen." Even though the court just said over and over the two were the same thing.

Then, you said:"The basis of persons being born in the allegiance of the United States was through the parents adhering to the United States. If they were loyal to the crown, then by treaty, their children, even if born in the U.S., were British subjects. The same would apply under the Chinese treaty and Wong Kim Ark would be born a Chinese subject."

??? Because the court people said Wong Kim Ark was a AMERICAN CITIZEN, and the whole point of what they were saying is AGAIN, ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU:

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.

Plus, now that conservatives (like Mark Levin) are getting mad at you Vattle Birthers about giving false and bad legal advice about Mark Rubio, it looks like you are trying to back pedal your way out. Oh, I bet there will be a lot of wiggling going on here. Maybe Vattel said something about people having their applications for citizenship in the mail or something???

Rather than go through all that stuff, why don't you just quit being a Vattle Birther???

But isn't that EXACTLY what you Vattle Birthers do a lot of, whenever you are not just mis-reading stuff completely backwards???

Explain what is backwards about this:

... all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

This is a self-limiting definition ... "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." It provides a basis of citizenship that is dependent on BOTH bloodline and soil, which Justice Gray AFFIRMED in the Wong Kim Ark desision:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ....

If Wong Kim Ark fit this description, then Gray could and WOULD have declared Ark to be a natural-born citizen. No one is left then to divine some sort of "guidance" that just isn't there. Gray's citation of the Minor definition of NBC is linked directly to a description based on citizen parents and it is the LAST time within the decision that Gray uses the term. From this point forward, he is talking about a different type of citizenship that is defined ONLY by the Constitution, while he clearly acknowledged that NBC is NOT defined by the Constitution:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Waite used the definition of NBC to reject a claim of citizenship based on the 14th amendment.

The (14th) amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

Gray told us she was a citizen by virtue of birth in the country to citizen parents. Waite never specifically said Minor was born to citizen parents, but Gray obviously understood that she was. Ark was NOT and could ONLY have citizenship through the 14th amendment or an act of Congress.

All of Gray's dicta on common law was ONLY used to justify that Ark could be declared a citizen by the 14th amendment. He was NOT a natural born citizen. Neither would be anyone else born in this country to noncitizen parents.

I'm glad Christie is staying in NJ, doing the job he was elected to do.
Probably made the teachers union very unhappy.

That sound you hear is the pitter patter of feet leaving NJ looking for a more favorable union state.

Btw, I'd love to see a Palin/Rubio ticket.

You just don’t want to give your silly theory up, do you???

Read your own stuff you just posted:”The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

Well, guess what??? ELSEWHERE is NOT Vattel in any citizenship case at all where somebody was born inside America. Why is it you Vattel Birthers keep trying to get people to go ELSEWHERE to Vattel, when all the courts are going instead to COMMON LAW when somebody is born inside America.

I will tell you why. It is because Vattel says what you like and agree with and American courts do NOT agree with you. What you are doing is misleading people with false and bad legal advice and trying to mess up the simple words the courts say. Why are you doing this to keep Mark Rubio, a conservative Republican, from running for president or vice president???

Plus, I have already shown you where the 14th amendment and natural born citizenship is the same thing, in cases before, during, and after Wong Kim Ark.

So the real question is why do you keep on trying to fool people into believing this Vattel stuff when none of the courts quote him on cases where somebody is born inside America. Why don’t you at least be honest enough to admit to people that AMERICAN courts do not quote the Vattel stuff on citizenship cases where somebody is born inside America???

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

That's pretty conclusive. I would like to hear what xzins's response to this would be.

OK, let me get this straight, I quoted from Liberty & Tyranny, you came back & quote from Men in Black...

then you do go on to quote from Mark's conservative manifesto in the back of L&T that has nothing to do with the quote I took from pg 154 of Chapter 9: On Immigration...

You never specifically respond to the quote from Erler that Mark uses in L&T and how Mark omits very important legislation(1868 Expatriation Act) Erler says is vital to defining 14th Amendment citizenship...

Thus I don't see how this a problem on my part. May I suggest you actually study the art of debate and the importance of a direct & pointed response rather than the leftest tactic of changing the direction & subject matter of the debate which is Mark's obfuscation of citizenship laws for his personal political leanings, US Constitution be damned as long as the lies he proffers support his political agenda.

And about that credentials thing again...I am taking this as you saying that only lawyers can write & thus interpret the laws. This would be news to all the common folk who have ever served & wrote laws, including our 1st President who was a farmer!!! Knowledge does not come by way of a classroom or degree, it comes from self discipline and self determination, regardless of setting. So you can take your leftest logic & stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. I'm done with you, obot drone with no brain of your own. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Because of the fictitious notion that the US adopted dual citizenship, loyalty has eroded to almost nothing. When a man comes from a communist country and then waits 20 yrs to file a petition to become a citizen just who's how deep home country loyalty lies. And this is proven by the fact that Rubio is on the side of the backdoor dream act/amnesty. He didn't get that view from American history, it had to come from what was instilled in him through his father who lived here for 20 years, yet still remained a citizen of his home country in hopes that the political tides would change thus he would be able to take his family and move back to that home country.

You just don’t want to give your silly theory up, do you???

What theory??? The words of the SCOTUS speak for themselves.

ELSEWHERE is NOT Vattel in any citizenship case at all where somebody was born inside America.

Nonsense. Let's look at Justice Waite's (which Gray quoted) unanimous definition side by side with Vattel's. I've underlined the passages that match:

Justice Waite: "... all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ..."

Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Nearly each word of Vattel's definition is used and none of Waite's additional language changes the meaning. Perhaps Waite was simply recognizing what Justice Marshall said in The Venus when citing Vattel by name and verbatim with this same passage on citizenship:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Plus, I have already shown you where the 14th amendment and natural born citizenship is the same thing, in cases before, during, and after Wong Kim Ark.

Well, no. Nothing you've posted says this at all.

I'm glad Christie is staying in NJ,also, and the though of a Palin/Rubio ticket sounds good to me.
But my best choice would be Palin with Cain VP. But Bachmann, Newt, or even Santorum, would all be great.

"OK, let me get this straight, I quoted from Liberty & Tyranny, you came back & quote from Men in Black..."

WRONG!
Again, you intentionally get it wrong.
But to distort the facts is your S.O.P.
Did you find the subjects I mentioned in "Liberty & Tyranny" on the pages I referenced?
You certainly didn't find them in "Men In Black" on the pages I referenced.
Lets take a look again at what I posted:

intentionally misrepresent

Post #126

"If you are going to respond, at least respond with the correct book."

post#124

"Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America"

And about the credentials ...

"And about that credentials thing again...I am taking this as you saying that only lawyers can write & thus interpret the laws."

I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that.
It's a simply question, so I can understand your background and your logic.

"Mark's obfuscation of citizenship laws for his personal political leanings, US Constitution be damned as long as the lies he proffers support his political agenda."

Lie? Says who?
Mark knows of what he speaks, and he speaks it well.
Political leanings? We all have leanings, we're human.
I say again, maybe the Supreme Court DOES need to address this issue, or maybe the Congress needs to clarify it.

But me, with leftists leanings? I've never been accused of that before, and I've been around here a while.
Now I'm NOT young, not by a long shot. And I presume you're not young, maybe old and in constant pain.
But I'm not the one trying to intentionally twist things into something they're not.
So, go deceive someone else with your H. Michael Sweeney's tactics.
You've exposed yourself.

There you go FIBBING again. You have falsely combined two things to mislead conservatives about Rubio. The Minor case was quoted by the Wong Kim Ark judges about the need to go elsewhere for what natural born citizen meant, not to back up your silly Vattle stuff about what a natural born citizen is. Which is why you don’t put a link to what Judge Waite said, and tell what case it is in, and what the basic facts of the case were.

Plus, like the other fibber Vattle Birther here, you quote the Venus stuff which was 1830 something and not even about natural born citizen stuff. Which is also why you don’t tell the people here what the Venus case was about, give them the date, and give them a link, which is because you know if you do you will just bust your own self out.

Plus, yes I have shown you where the 14th and natural born citizen are the same thing, but you just want to pretend that I haven’t because it proves you are wrong. It is up above here, and was a case before Wong Kim Ark, in Wong Kim Ark, and in a case after Wong kim Ark. You did not dispute any of that because you can’t. It’s in English and is easy to read.

Which all of this is why REAL conservative lawyers like Mark Levin say about Vattle Birther PRETEND lawyers on the Internet:

I want you to listen to me on my social sites. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . .this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. . .got it? I’m not into all that crap. You can go somewhere else for that.

Mark Levin
Sept. 28, 2011

Get that??? He said there’s NO DEBATE. Your inability or refusal to read and understand something does not make a worthwhile theory. Sooo, why don’t you stop being a Vattle Birther and quit misleading and giving false and bad legal advice about conservatives like Mark RubiO???

The Minor case was quoted by the Wong Kim Ark judges about the need to go elsewhere for what natural born citizen meant, not to back up your silly Vattle stuff about what a natural born citizen is.

The "elsewhere" is a verbatim match of Vattel's definition of NBC. There's no English common law. Minor didn't cite any. It's why I put Minor's definition side by side with Vattel's. They match so much that Waite should have been sued for plagiarism (since he failed to cite Vattel). All the citations of common law used in Wong Kim Ark were ONLY used to bolster the 14th amendment, which the SCOTUS, as Gray acknowledged, UNANIMOUSLY said EXCLUDED NBCs.

Plus, like the other fibber Vattle Birther here, you quote the Venus stuff which was 1830 something and not even about natural born citizen stuff.

I already explained that it was quoted to show that the Court had previously cited Vattel by name. The definition that Marshall cited is the same one used by Waite with only minor (pun intended) variation.

Plus, yes I have shown you where the 14th and natural born citizen are the same thing, but you just want to pretend that I haven’t because it proves you are wrong.

Nothing you posted overrides Minor's definition. Wong Kim Ark cited and legally AFFIRMED that definition. Gray used as guidance for making him UNABLE to declare Ark to be a natural born citizen. The words speak for themselves. It IS an exclusive, self-limiting definition:

... all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives, or natural-born citizens ...

Which all of this is why REAL conservative lawyers like Mark Levin say about Vattle Birther PRETEND lawyers on the Internet:

Levin is just shutting out the inconvenient truth. The Supreme Court is clear. NBC = born in the country to citizen parents.

Liberty & Tyranny, pg 154: “But does the 14th Amendment grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? The relevant part of the amendment reads that “all person, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of the United States.” This language requires more than birth within the United States. The amendment’s purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born in the United States and owed sole allegiance to it. Native Americans who were subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship. There is no legislative history supporting the absurd proposition that the 14th Amendment was intended to empower (illegal) aliens to confer American citizenship on their own babies as a result of their birth in the United States.”

I highlighted what the actually law says. We're not talking judges, we”re talking the about Mark Levin's credibility when he interjects the word “illegal” into a Constitutional issue wherein the actual law only says “alien” as in all aliens. But instead, you want to divert the debate away from Mark and onto the judges because in your blind eyes, he is infallible. Sad, truly sad & the reason this nation is such a mess...Ignorant people who would rather follow blindly than lead with the truth.

Speak to the point or move

Now you are back to mis-leading people about the Minor case, which does not even have the word VATTEL in in nowhere. And you still don't give the basic stuff cases are about and links and when.Here is what the Supreme Court said about the Minor people, in 1898, and I quote:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

Here is a linky thingy:

Wong Kim Ark

Plus, if you will notice, you just said there is no such thing as English common law which the Supreme Court just said there was and then starts to review it, and I quote the same Supreme Court 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, how come if there is NO English common law like you say, the Supreme Court is quoting it and NOT some Swiss guy named Emerich de Vattel???

Plus, I don't think lawyers are always right on stuff, but I would sure rather take Mark Levin's word on something, and Ann Coulter then some PRETEND lawyer on the Internet.

Plus when you take a few minutes to read the Minor case, which was a woman's voting rights case, here what else what Judge Waite said:

"From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth." Sooo, women and minors who were born here were already citizens because they were born here. Not because of who their parents were. And no mention of Vattle. And citizens of aliens??? Judge Waite said "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts" which is just the opposite of what you are saying which is that this case solved in favor of Vattel, who is not even mentioned in the case. What you are doing is misleading people.

Sooo, you need to quit being a Vattle Birther, and quit misleading people about Mark Rubio not being eligible.