Citizen Tells California Republican Party: “Marco Rubio Is not Eligible”

The Post and E Mail ^ | 7 Nov 2011 | George Miller, Ventura Tea Party

[bushpilot1]

In a discussion about the eligibility of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to serve as President or Vice President, the following email was sent to the president of the California Republican Assembly after she stated in an email that the U.S. Constitution states that one must be “born in the U.S.A.” to qualify as a “natural born Citizen:

[jcsjcm]

He’s a citizen = Yes, a natural born citizen = NO

To be a natural born citizen you must be born on US Soil to citizen parents = plural.

Allegiance lies with the US not with any foreign influence!

Obama = not natural born by any definition!

[CAluvdubya]

I’ll go with McClintock! I know his lawyers would throughly check this out before letting him speak to the issue.

[edge919]

Minor v. Happersett asserts that someone born of citizen parents on U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen.
Is this "asserted" in the opinion or in the dissent?

There is no dissent in the Minor decision. The definition of natural-born citizen was used exclusivedly by this unanimous court to describe only those persons born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Those persons NOT born to citizen parents were characterized by the unanimous court as aliens or foreigners ... who MIGHT be citizens by some authorities ... but of which the citizenship would be in doubt that needed to be resolved. For those persons born to citizen parents ... natural-born citizens according to the unanimous court ... there is no doubt ... no nuances. Nuances = NOT natural-born.

[edge919]

Minor v. Happersett asserts that someone born of citizen parents on U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen. (Certainly true.) It makes no claim (and directly says that it makes no claim) regarding someone born of non-citizen parents on U.S. territory, because it wasn't relevant to the case at hand.

Sorry, but this is wrong. The Supreme Court, in the Minor decision, defined natural-born citizen to justify its rejection of the 14th amendment as creating citizenship for women as a class. This was affirmed more than 20 years later in the Wong Kim Ark decision that noted that the Supreme Court was committed to the view that persons born in the country of citizen parents were EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. Further, the NBC definition was specifically given to satisfy the meaning of the term as found in Art II Sec I of the Constitution.

Person born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents, the court said, are recognized by "some authorities" as citizens, but their citizenship is in doubt and needs to be resolved, either by statutory or Constitutional means. Natural-born means "without doubts" that need to be resolved.

[philman_36]

There is no dissent in the Minor decision.
I know. It was meant as a rhetorical question.

Is this "asserted" in the opinion or in the dissent?

My thing is...don't decisions declare and/or determine things? If they only "assert" something then what good are they, for they have no force.
It sounds like weasel words to me, though I could be wrong.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

There is a fresh killed deer hanging on a limb in my neighbor’s back yard. Its a lot closer to being alive than the frozen turkey in my freezer.

:-)

[edge919]

I agree that “assert” is not the correct term to use, and it’s also important to stress that there was NO dissent in the Minor decision, lest there be any Obot confusion. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a claim of 14th amendment citizenship by declaring that natural-born citizenship already defined the citizenship for all persons born in the country to citizen parents.

[urtax$@work]

....."One would think that with hundreds of millions of actual natural born citizens, that we would not need to go so far afield to source good candidates"....

Another clever hammer-use of words that hits nails on heads.

[edge919]

I have a problem with letters like this one to anyone in authority. There's too much pontificating and posturing. Get to the point quickly. Something like this:

To Celeste,

I recently saw where you expressed a common misunderstanding of the Constitutional requirement for the office of president. It is not sufficient according to this country's highest legal authority to simply be born on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court has noted in several landmark decisions that the term "natural-born citizen" is defined as a person born in the country to citizen parents. This definition is characterized as natural-born because it the only citizenship definition for which there are no legal or ethical doubts.

Our founders understood as well as we do today, that citizenship can be gained under a variety of circumstances, some which may be questionable. The Supreme Court said citizenship is in doubt when persons are not born to citizen parents and that the doubts must be resolved, such as through applicable statutes or constitutional provisions. Citizenship that depends on statutes or constitutional provisions does not meet the standard to be characterized as natural-born. This is why some babies born in this country are described as "anchor babies." Their citizenship, if it legally exists, is neither natural nor inherent. While we can respect the general idea that birth in the United States confers citizenship on most people, it is not equal to natural-born citizenship unless both parents are citizens. The standard for presidential office is natural-born citizenship and not just ANY type of citizenship at birth. As such, our current president and potential candidates such as Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal are Constitutionally deficient.

The clearest definition of natural-born citizen was presented in the unanimous Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett. That definition and the principle of exluding natural-born citizenship from the 14th amendment has been upheld and affirmed in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. The same definition is cited in other Supreme Court decisions. This is the perfect time to address this common misunderstanding that you expressed. Remember, "born in the country" only means natural-born if the parents are citizens. We need to insist that our voting public adheres to this proper and exclusive definition as stated by our nation's highest authority.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Key

Free Republic’s Key to Success
Is Monthly Donors

Donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

[HarleyD]

To be a natural born citizen you must be born on US Soil to citizen parents = plural.

You can't tout this as fact. This is one of many interpretations. There has be a host of different interpretations throughout our history but what constitutes a "natural-born" citizen was never decided legally. Please see Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

Rubio fits some of these definitions simply because there is proof that he was born in the US. Show me where the Supreme Court clearly defines natural-born citizen and then we can discuss if Rubio fits the category. Obama, try as they might, cannot make the same claim. Let's see his college records and see if he applied for foreign loans. Let's see the original birth certificate-not a photocopy.

[BladeBryan]

“If he runs for President, expect the Left’s birthers to dog his heels and make his life generally miserable.”

Sure, but not on eligibility. Remember that prospective Rubio-birthers will have the cautionary tail of the Obama-birthers. Who’d want to heap all that failure and defeat upon themselves?

The only Rubio-birthers we’re seeing are a fringe from the Right, boxed into their crank theory against Rubio because they so vehemently, albeit uselessly, asserted it against Obama.

[Dajjal]

ineligibility bump

[edge919]

You can't tout this as fact. This is one of many interpretations. There has be a host of different interpretations throughout our history but what constitutes a "natural-born" citizen was never decided legally. Please see Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. There's no legal authority higher than the Supreme Court that said persons born in the country to citizen parents (plural) were distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The court recognized that having a foreign parent meant there would be doubt about the citizenship of the child, which would have to be resolved by statutory or Constitutional means. Natural-born on the other hand has NO doubts that need to be resolved. That's why they applied this term EXCLUSIVELY to persons born in the country to citizen parents.

[Squeeky]

Why do you keep fibbing to people about this case??? I have explained it to you numerous times, and you just keep lying about it so that people here will think that Rubio and Jindal are not eligible. This is NOT hard to understand.

1. People born here to two citizen parents - no doubts.
2. People born here to two alien parents - doubts.
3. People born here to one citizen and one alien parent - doubts.

Minor v. Happersett - “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

23 years ater, Wong Kim Ark DOES solve the doubts:

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 [exceptions] 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.”

101 years later, Ankeny v. Governor Indiana Appeals court says the same thing:

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.”

Mark Rubio IS eligible. Bobby Jindal IS eligible.

YOU can blabber your trash all day long and give your opinion until you are blue in the face, but these words are in simple plain English and DO NOT need interpretation by YOU, a anonymous pretend legal expert on the Internet. A “expert” who can’t even figure out the Minor v. Happersett did not solve the doubts, when those same judges give you a really BIG HINT and tell you, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

I am NOT going to waste bandwidth and engage in another cut and paste war with you, because I do not think you have any desire to be honest with people here, and I think you just want someone to pay attention to you and argue with you about your nonsense, while you pretend not to understand the law.

If anybody else here has any questions about the law on this, just Freepmail me,and I will do the best I can.

[edge919]

I’ll make this simple for you. Read Minor and tell me which of your three options was specifically characterized as “natural-born citizens.” (Hint: There is only one.)

[PJ-Comix]

unless his parents are other than who he says he is NOT a “natural born citizen”.

Gee. And in the over 130 years since Chester A. Arthur (British citizen parents) was president, not a PEEP until now over this fantasy that your parents must be citizens for their children to be considered natural born despite being born in the USA. Not a PEEP. Which just demonstrates the IDIOCY of the birth bozos.

[PJ-Comix]

The ghost of Chester A. Arthur is laughing at the Birth Bozos. What makes their case really ridiculous is that Arthur had a lot of enemies in the Republican party who tried to prevent his VP selection by James Garfield on the basis that he wasn’t born in the USA. However, it was well known that his parents were British citizens at the time of his birth. So why wasn’t he disqualified on that basis? It was a slam dunk yet his enemies neglected to use the current bizarre definition of Natural Born Citizen. Why? Because Birth Bozoism did not come into being until about the last couple of years.

[RipSawyer]

That is your opinion which I do not share for many reasons.

[Eye of Unk]

There is a reason why they have certain classes of drivers licenses and the restrictions.

There should be a national political licensing agency, any person being elected to any office must have this license.

And with it the definitive restrictions if any.

Such as having one limited due to being not a natural Born Citizen due to parentage from another country.

Sorry to say fate can be cruel. Rubio, Jindal and who knows, they mean well but they are by technicality ineligible to hold the highest elected office, anything up to that is open.