Vattel writes:
- "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
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.
... In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;
- for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Rubio's parents were naturalized, and because Marco Rubio was under the age of 21, he was naturalized with them.
As James Madison said:
- It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage,
- but in general place is the most certain criterion;
- it is what applies in the United States;
Court rulings are NOT based on what is NOT said.
In Dean C. Haskins' video titled Natural Born Citizen for Dummies he talks about "Liberals" and their "The Disimination of Dis-Information" or "Propaganda".
Here as a pretty good transcript of that video, starting at what I think is relevant, starting around 5 munites and 45 seconds into it.
...So Won Kim Ark did not change the definition of "natural born citizen".
The Supreme Court set the precedent for the definition of "natural born citizen" in the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett.
Unlike the Won Kim Ark case which construed the 14th Amendment as the applicable law, and did not construe Article II section 1,
Minor established that "one who is born in this country to citizen parents is a "natural born citizen"
and therefore, does not need to rely upon the 14th Amendment.
Yes, the Supreme Court stopped short of even considering the 14th Amendment in their decision.
For they understood that the amendment didn't need to confer citizenship onto someone who already possessed it
by virtue of being a natural born citizen or born in this country to citizen parents.
Since Won Kim Ark construed only the 14th Amendment, and not Article II section 1, it did not supersede the ruling in Minor v. Happersett,
which did not construe the 14th Amendment, but only Article II Section 1.
Won Kim Ark was ruled to be a citizen by virtue of the fact, he was born in this country.
While Virginia Minor was ruled to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the fact that she was born in this country to citizen parents.
In so doing the Supreme Court directly construed Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
And to this day, it is the only Supreme Court Case to do so, which established the unaltered, binding precedent in 1875.
Any lower court in this country that would ever state otherwise would be in grave error, according to the Supreme Court precedent.
Not surprisingly, Barack Obama's supporters try to twist the clearly understandable decision in Minor v. Happersett by asserting an illogical argument.
They falsely claim that Supreme Court ruled that Mrs Minor was a "natural born Citizen" because she was born in this country to citizen parents.
BUT that the Court DIDN'T STATE that someone who was born in the country to parents who were NOT citizens were not also natural born citizens.
In this case the court did not also say that the moon isn't made of cheese.
So are we to believe that in Minor v. Happersett the court affirmed that the moon is made of cheese?
Actually, as Mario Apuzzo points out,
- while all trees are plants, all plants are not trees,
or while all "natural born citizen", not all citizens are "natural born citizens".
they would have stopped there in what they wrote. But they didn't.
Supreme Court Justices are known to choose their words very carefully.
And they stated precisely that she was a "natural born citizen", because she was born in this country to citizen parents.
That is the historic definition of "natural born citizen".
The Supreme Court affirmed that definition in 1875 and they have never construed it differently.
Therefore, it is the "Legally Confirmed Definition" and a binding precedent on every court across this land.
But why would Obama's supporters be deceptive and lie about this president?
Is it just because they don't understand it?
No. It is because Obams's father was never a citizen of the United States
- and according to this binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1875,
he is NOT a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires,
and therefore he is ineligible to be our President.
Additionally, the Supreme Court isn't evading this issue
- because they think it might just be too difficult to determine what the law is concerning Obama's elgibility.
and they fear the consequences of ruling according to that law.
Barack Obama and his camp have continued to fuel the surface surrounding his birth documents by releasing two known forgeries,
precisely because they do not want the truth of this legal precedent to be at the forefront of public discourse.
It's far easier to make his fake birth certificates the center of a national circus,
than it would be to approach this Supreme Court precedent.
And our national leaders willingly continue to staff Obama's three ring national nightmare.
Never before in the history of America, have our leaders been so afraid of the rule of law.
But the rule of law is what has made this country.
If we allow they to shirk their duties in this matter, then the rule of law will be rendered of no effect.
And our country will soon go the way of every other country that succumb to fear.
Look ... I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired Air Traffic Controller.
This is complex, so I defer to the people I trust, and they say Rubio's eligible, ..., and I believe them.