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 ...
That definition of “Natural Born” could be interpreted to exclude anyone born by Cesarean section.
“There is no debate about where Marco was born (Miami in 1071”—— wow he looks good for 940 years old :-p
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.
So true. Just because we let one cat get through the door does not mean that now we are going to repeat the mistake. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal both good guys are just not eligible. I am hoping both have the integrity not to try to run.
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.”
You have it exactly backwards.
And not by accident either ...
” Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship.”
As usual you are spot on Satin Doll. There are forces out there that actively spread the disinformation that “Natural Born Citizen” is, and was an undefined term used Founders, who didn’t know what it meant. Oh....uh huh. Can I buy your bridge?/s
I think it's amusing that this is the sort of thing that keeps birthers up at night.
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.
Are you what is passing for useful idiot from david axelfraud’s cadre now? You really do need to consider where you’re spewing that vomitous deceit, ax. Arthur’s father had not naturalized by the time Chester was born, and your other lies are why the founders wrote an exception clause into the Constitution. You stealth liars are disgusting.
This argument has no credibility and is just a left wing paper trying to push the meme that all conservatives/republicans are members of the tin foil hat club.
Was there something I said that you found funny?
There are actually people, even on this very thread, who think that “natural born” simply means not born by Caesarian section! I’ll try to be polite and call them “uninformed”.
Waahhhh someone cited precedent I don’t like. Booohooo... I know! I’ll refer to him as a “useful idiot... spewing... vomitous deceit” and a “stealth liar.”
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.
Don’t get your battletank all turned around. Your quick matter of fact response was funny. Loosen up, I agree 100%.
Don’t call me good sir, you quisiling asshat liar. You are here to spew and dissemble, you know it, I know it, and the readership know it. You hope to create confusion, but are too stupid to realize you’re on Freerepublic where these issues have been discussed at length. Twisitng the terms around and playing alinskyesque word games exposes your agenda immediately, asshat.
OK. Sorry, just asking. It’s pretty unreal to me the BS that is getting spread around here. Just didn’t know how to interpret your laughing. Thanks.
No, I have it right:
A natural born citizen is: “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” This is what was commonly referred to as jus soli.
A native born citizen requires jus sanguinis, both birth in that land and parentage by citizens of that nation.
The Constitution clearly states it is natural born citizenship that is required.
That still doesn’t change the fact that the constitution requires Natural Born Citizenship (not Native Born)
Yes. And I’ll repeat that your definition of these two terms are 100 percent bas-ackward. You really do need to get your facts straight.
“quisiling asshat liar”— again why the namecalling?
“You are here to spew and dissemble, you know it, I know it, and the readership know it. You hope to create confusion, but are too stupid to realize you’re on Freerepublic where these issues have been discussed at length.”- I don’t really understand who you are accusing me of being but read through some of my other posts. While I disagree with some people on here I am generally conservative.
“Twisitng the terms around and playing alinskyesque word games exposes your agenda immediately, asshat.”-— so wait citing history is now “twisting terms” to you? Or is it citing legal definitions that you have a problem with? I still have yet to see an actual rebuttal of either from you. I’m sorry facts seem to stand in the way of your view of the world. I agree with the other posts I’ve read here that we have to uphold the constitution from Progressive assault but that doesn’t mean we have to also uphold misunderstandings of the text’s terms as you are currently exhibiting.
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.