1. I assure you that I have read the Constitution VERY carefully, as well as related case law, founders’ papers and statutes, on the question under discussion.
I have also read volumes on this and consulted with with real experts, such as Herb Titus, Mario Apuzzo and others, who specialize in eligibility.
They are far more knowledgeable on the subject than Neocon media commentators for media companies dependent upon government goodwill and even Dr. John Eastman (who once told me that he doesn’t believe in the Tenth Amendment, which indicates that he is selective about the Constitution). Our experts have a very different version to tell.
2. Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the applicable passage, specifies 35+ years old, not 36 as you said.
It says natural born citizen, NOT born in the U.S., NOT citizen. Do you know the difference?
It does NOT say “the person should be over 36 years old and born in the U.S.,” or anything like it, as you stated.
By the way, John McCain was not born in the USA, was not even born in the Canal Zone- he was born in Colon, Panama.
So, using your definition, he was/is not eligible. So why did you endorse him, then? Because of S 511, co-sponsored by “Barack Hussein Obama” and carrying no legal weight, according to its own verbiage?
It’s probably good that we gave him a pass, since his father was serving his country abroad on John’s birth date. However, it does muddy the waters a bit.
It seems that Marco’s dad didn’t bother to become a citizen before Marco was born, even though he had ample opportunity and a red carpet rolled out by the US, to do so.
While the Constitution never got around to defining just what a natural born citizen is, it is crystal clear to objective legal experts that there is a definite difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”
As a matter of fact, “natural born citizen” is only mentioned once in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. “Citizen” is mentioned multiple times elsewhere.
3. Here is some clarification from a real expert, who has researched it extensively and actually knows what he is talking about:
Lots more backup in reserve. I assure you that I do not mouth off without checking these things first.
4. The Minor vs. Happersett ruling is the applicable case law precedent for natural born citizenship.
It has been upheld continuously, notwithstanding Justia.com’s disgraceful scrubbing of references to it (detected, publicized and subsequently restored), or the fraudulent CRS memo on the subject, which misled unschooled Congress-critters, such as McClintock.
Several of us have corresponded with Tom on the subject. He made himself look pretty foolish by parroting falsehoods fed to him, while ignoring educational materials we sent him. “Constitutional expert?” Maybe on some aspects of it, but not eligibility. You wouldn’t know he was an expert, from what I read of his words. 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. One would be wrong, evidently.
If CRA should be so foolish as to attempt to endorse such an ineligible candidate, I and others will oppose it. If it should go ahead and do it, I will leave CRA.
If the Republican party should nominate an ineligible candidate. ditto.
I will be far from the only one. Both organizations seem to have a penchant for endorsing/nominating ineligible candidates, as we saw in CA last year.
Marco Rubio is far more eligible to be president or vice president that Barack Obama. As long as Rubio was born in the US he’s a citizen regardless of his father’s citizenship. That’s the current interpretation of the law (not one that I agree with but one that is in force).
That’s far more than Obama can prove. Rubio has a legitimate birth certificate.
I’ve got my issues with Rubio (and his support for Amnesty), but this is just plain stupid.
The sole body that can determine Presidential eligibility is the Congress of the United States. It alone counts the votes and entertains challenges under the Constitution. Neither the United States Supeme Court or any Article III federal court have any jurisdiction in this matter. Their opinions and precidents do not apply.
f***ing retards, the lot of them. No-one has a clue about natural law these days. But then such ignorance is no excuse for trying to shoe-horn facts that don’t fit their case. Marco Rubio’s Dad was hardly rejecting citizenship that he might have gotten; citizenship should be granted slowly, and only after strong ties are developed. But that in no way lessens the fact that Rubio’s Dad had chosen to dwell in America.
This abominable definition of “natural-born” would create a category of second-class citizens, of qualified citizenship which is an affront to the very notion of “natural” citizenship.
What does “natural-born” mean? Look to the word “naturalize.” It is “natural” that a man’s citizenship is to the land he has chosen as his home. He may be born with such citizenship, and thus be “natural-born,” or such citizenship may be conferred on him, as he is “naturalized.”
The only qualification included in the concept of “natural-born” is that one is not “naturally born” a citizen of another land if he is there in the service of another nation; hence, McCain is naturally born of the United States, and not of Panama, even though he was born in Panama.
The opinions of tyrants in France, notwithstanding.
Nope, not in the case of someone born of non-citizen parents.
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.
You can't draw a legal conclusion from a precedent that goes well out of its way to say that it isn't addressing the issue about which you want the conclusion.
“By the way, John McCain was not born in the USA, was not even born in the Canal Zone- he was born in Colon, Panama.”
FYI: He was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, which was within the Canal Zone. It was near Colon not in Colon. Note boundary map below:
http://americahurrah.com/images/CZaColon.jpg
I’ll go with McClintock! I know his lawyers would throughly check this out before letting him speak to the issue.
Another clever hammer-use of words that hits nails on heads.
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.
ineligibility bump
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.
Have you been following the last 6 presidential elections?
This is getting ridiculous!
Mitt Romney’s father, former Michigan Governor George Romney, ran fir POTUS and he was born in Mexico! Mitt’s mother was born in Wales. Is he ineligible too?
