Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president
St. Petersburg Times ^ | October 20, 2011 | Alex Leary

Posted on 10/20/2011 1:47:23 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Unable to prevent Barack Obama from becoming president, rigid followers of the Constitution have turned their attention to another young, charismatic politician many think could one day occupy the White House.

The birthers are calling for U.S.Sen. Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida.

"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo.

Forget about allegedly Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The rub is that "natural born citizen" was never defined.

[snip]

"It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.," said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in immigration and citizenship.

Price said natural born was likely drawn from the concept that anyone born in what was once a colony was considered a subject and parental status was not a factor.

But there is sufficient muddiness to fuel the birthers, many still angry with the Republican establishment for not taking their case against Obama more seriously. Rubio was among them, saying he did not think it was an issue.

"The other shoe has dropped," conservative figure Alan Keyes said on a radio program last month. "Now you've got Republicans talking about Marco Rubio for president when it's obviously clear that he does not qualify. Regardless of party label, they don't care about Constitution. It's all just empty, lying lip service."

[snip]

(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: alankeyes; birther; chesterarthur; citizenship; florida; ineligibleromney; marcorubio; mexicanromney; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; romneynoteligble; rubio; rubio2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-169 next last
To: wrhssaxensemble

We have debated this issue ad nauseum here. It gets tiresome after a while. HOWEVER, NBC DOES require TWO citizen parents as well as an in-country birth. That’s the way the founders understood it (To them, Vatel’s definition was so well-known and obvious that they saw no need to define the term in the Constitution.)

If having US citizen parents were unimportant, please explain why Chester Arthur went to extreme lengths to conceal the fact that his Irish-born father failed to become naturalized until Chester was a young man. Arthur went so far as to burn his personal papers to stop investigators.

Be careful whom you call “full of it.” All but Arthur fit the “Laws of Nations” definition. The other parents had become naturalized in a timely fashion or the candidate was grandfathered in by the Constitution itself as were the Framers.

If you think I am wrong, produce some factual evidence to prove it and lay off the cheap ad hominem crap.

The gutless SCOTUS refuses to rule on eligibility-—they avoid “political” cases-—so we have to look at the times, the authoritative books the Founders used, as well as texts of congressional debates argued during the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

They took the question VERY seriously and would doubtless be appalled at the way our Constitution is regularly and cynically trampled under foot for nothing more than crass political reasons.

I can’t believe how many FReepers would bury constitutional principles just to enable success for this or that politician. People here can do what they want but I’ll stick to the Framers’ interpretation. Strict constructionism is for me because once we start to take liberties with the Constitution and use the liberal “living document” rationale, we head down the road to national doom.

Want some good, solid info on this? Go to Leo D’Onofrio’s Natural Born Citizen blog. Leo is a brilliant and very convincing teacher. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


101 posted on 10/20/2011 2:13:36 PM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Yes. Naturalization as a process takes a while.

Then, to serve in Congress, one must have been a citizen for seven years.

See the U.S.Constitution: Article I; Section 2; clause 2.

Unlike other nations, we do not bar naturalized citizens from participating in elective office.


102 posted on 10/20/2011 3:08:55 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble

“Native is a higher standard. If you qualify as native you also qualify as natural born.”

Yes, that’s what you keep saying, but you are wrong.

What you are expecting us to believe is that our Founding Fathers had a LESSER standard for President and Vice President than the general population of citizenry.

Are you really thinking what you are saying here?? Honestly. You could not be more wrong on this subject.


103 posted on 10/20/2011 3:47:56 PM PDT by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I think what confused me was when you wrote: "-naturalized - foreign national applies for citizenship."

I at first read that to mean that applying was enough to consider the child a natural-born citizen.

What I believe is that the parents must complete the naturalization process before their child is born for the child to be a natural-born citizen.

I do agree that any citizen is eligible for state and local offices, as well as for Congress, given the residency and age requirements. Citizenship of parents is not a factor for Congress.

-PJ

104 posted on 10/20/2011 6:24:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“... parents must complete the naturalization process before their child is born for the child to be a natural-born citizen.”

Correct.


105 posted on 10/20/2011 7:29:23 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

How do you get that??


106 posted on 10/21/2011 6:59:25 AM PDT by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12
However, in my case my mother was born in Canada; ergo, I am not a natural born citizen under Article II; Sec. I; U.S. Const. I am not eligible for the presidency along with The Messiah.

If your mother naturalized as an American citizen Prior to your birth, that makes you a "natural born citizen", assuming your father was an American.

The primary requirement is born to two citizen parents.

107 posted on 10/21/2011 8:33:28 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
FWIW, I agree with you 100% about the rest of your post. The people who define “natural born” as requiring American citizen parents are full of it- all it requires is that the candidate be born in the country. To hold otherwise would mean that Thomas Jefferson (English mother), Andrew Jackson (both his parents were Irish immigrants), James Buchanan (Irish father),Chester Arthur (Irish father), Woodrow Wilson (English mother) and Herbert Hoover (Canadian mother) would have been ineligible for the presidency, something I’ve NEVER heard seriously debated anywhere.

Where do you types come from? Why is it you will do research to find out who the parents of various Presidents were, but never bother to learn WHY it didn't matter?

The early Presidents were exempted specifically by article II,

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

and the later Presidents (except for Chester Arthur) had parents that naturalized PRIOR to their birth.

Now you have just been demonstrated to be incredibly ignorant on this subject, so You should just stop offering YOUR opinion until you LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! You ought to be horribly embarrassed about beclowning yourself, but my experience with you types is that you have no shame.

108 posted on 10/21/2011 8:45:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ydoucare
Chief Justice Roberts obviously disagrees with you since he swore Obama into office. Don't expect SCOTUS, Congress or any state to take any action against Obama or Rubio to prevent him from running or holding office.

You are certainly good at the non-sequitur. Your argument is that because A = B, then B must = C.

The notion that Chief Justice Roberts might have based his actions on false assumptions never occurs to such as you. Apart from that, he flubbed the oath of office, so perhaps he did have some misgivings.

109 posted on 10/21/2011 8:48:57 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
Based on what? Natural Born Citizen and Native Born Citizen are two different things. The former DOES NOT require citizen parentage while the latter does. Both Jindal and Rubio are Natural Born (born in the US) but not Native Born (born to US citizens in the US). It is only the former that matters per Art. 1 Sec. 2 as it unequivocally uses the term “Natural Born Citizen” NOT “Native Born Citizen.”

And here we find you again, popping off with the most ignorant blather. To be accurate, "native born" means to be born in a certain place. (your argument) "Natural born" means to be born a citizen inherently. You have the meanings EXACTLY backwards, and THAT notwithstanding the fact that in the early founding era of our country, the terms were used interchangeably. Perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States could explain it to you, though I doubt it.

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

110 posted on 10/21/2011 8:59:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Anyone hatching a plan to destroy the United States with their progeny 50 years down the line could just as easily become a citizen first, therefore making the child a natural born citizen under even the strictest definition.

And that "strictest definition" would be THIS ONE provided by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett:

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Do you not agree?

111 posted on 10/21/2011 9:07:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Click to Talk to the Hand

You have the right to chatter your little head off.
Anything you say will be laughed at hysterically.
Requests for an attorney will be ignored.
No one's paying for a dang thing for you.
I don't care whether you understand or not.


Prevent this kind of abuse
Abolish FReepathons!   Go Monthly

112 posted on 10/21/2011 9:11:36 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
Good sir, I never said WHY the founders did what they did, just what they did. So your anger over “your other lies are why the founders wrote an exception clause into the Constitution” must be confusing me with someone else. The basis for the provision was concern that someone could become President that was an enemy of the nation or had allegience to a foreign nation. That still doesn’t change the fact that the constitution requires Natural Born Citizenship (not Native Born) and following the logic you seem to support that a number of presidents would be ineligible for the post they served. Sorry to cite history and not merely relying on insulting accusations as seems to be your tactic.

You are the most laughable thing I have seen yet coming from the ranks of the opposition. A history lesson (or a good intellectual drubbing) would be wasted on you. You would have to start a cram course of research just to get up to squeeky's level of incompetence.

Should you decide to throw off your ignorance, a good place to start would be here.

113 posted on 10/21/2011 9:16:21 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Either way, if one is a U.S. citizen at birth, one is, by definition, a natural-born citizen, not a naturalized citizen.

You are wrong, and Jill Pryor is also wrong. Here is a rebuttal from 1916. Here is a rebuttal from 1884. Either is a more accurate essay than what Pryor wrote.

114 posted on 10/21/2011 9:24:54 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan
Does it not dawn on you that lawyers who face-plant in court every single time might not be your best source of legal analysis?

It occurs to me that lawyers who support a dishonest status quo are more of a problem. I'm sure that during the Jim Crow era, lawyers prosecuting the black codes won in court all the time.

115 posted on 10/21/2011 9:34:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
Jus Soli is of the soil; you are born there. Jus Sanguinis is of the blood; you have a blood line. Exactly as I said.

A further review of your comments demonstrates to me that you were just playing stupid. Well plaid sir!

So where did the principle of Jus Soli originate?

116 posted on 10/21/2011 9:36:37 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Neither one exists. “natural born” was a description, not a title.

I would argue that it is a "term of art" specifically know to the founders by their reading and familiarity with the writings of Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel, who's collective works and Vattel's specifically, are referred to as the Laws of Nations.

117 posted on 10/21/2011 9:40:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: wrhssaxensemble
It was also merely dictum in Wong Kim Ark.

Wong Kim Ark does not use the term of art "natural born citizen". Even though Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, it decided only that Wong Kim Ark was just a "citizen."

They did not declare him eligible for the Presidency, merely to the equal status of a naturalized citizen.

118 posted on 10/21/2011 9:44:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Or the Supreme court could just admit the 1898 Supreme court made a mistake. Yeah, that’s gonna happen. :)


119 posted on 10/21/2011 9:51:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It was simply a term used to describe someone that wa sa citizen by birth, nothing complex or complicated about it.


120 posted on 10/21/2011 10:05:43 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson