Is Marco Rubio eligible to be president?

The Miami Herald ^ | 04/18/2012 | Alex Leary

[TexasVoter]

[B]irthers are focusing on 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 the alleged 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.”

[Tublecane]

“If the thought of an Anchor Baby President doesn’t inspire horror in you...I posit that you are on the wrong forum. And by forum, I mean FR”

Posit noted. Let me posit that anyone who thinks the decision whether or not to elect an anchor baby should be taken out of the hands of the populace probably doesn’t believe in our form of government, and certainly doesn’t like the Constitution as written.

[Tublecane]

“No, it was ‘over’ being a smokescreen for Obama, who cosponsored the bill.”

Okay, whatever. Superficially, at least, it was came about because he was born outside U.S. territory.

“Well they didn’t have to do anything, but they did, through a resolution which has no real value.”

Yes, and most everything they do is of of similar value. Even the bills that vastly expand government power do so largely by passing the real power on to the executive branch.

“It wasn’t real controversial at any time since his parents were serving in the US military at the time of his birth. Otherwise they probably would have been in the US”

Of course that only explains the politics of it, not the law. It shouldn’t make any difference why he was born outside the U.S.; his status rises or falls on the basis of whether or not two citizen parents is enough, regardless of place of birth.

[Brown Deer]

Birther /börthör/ n.  1. A person who exhibits the audacity to read the U.S. Constitution, and then demands that his/her government actually obeys it.  2. A derogatory term developed and used by Leftists and Neo-Cons in a lame attempt to marginalize those who harbor the silly notions that Truth matters, and that Republics perish who refuse to uphold the Rule of Law.

[edge919]

What you don’t seem to notice is that neither of those cases said native borns aren’t natural borns.

What YOU don't seem to notice is that BOTH of those cases cited a definition that said BOTH native born and natural born required birth to citizen parents. The later case redefined native-born to include the children of resident aliens. It did NOT redefine natural born.

Because they weren’t about presidential eligibility, and weren’t compelled to exhaust all the different ways you could be naturally born a citizen.

The first case specifically cited the term natural-born citizen from the eligibility clause in Art. II of the Constitution and then defined it. In effect, they allowed that Virginia Minor, while not having a right to vote, would be qualified to run for president. Such was not the case for Wong Kim Ark ... and thus not for Barack H. Obama II. What YOU don

[Red Steel]

This is my favorite birther non-argument. The Framers sought to forestall presidents with foreign loyalties, therefore “natural born citizens” can’t be born dual citizens. I could just as easily argue that because of the same intentions natural born citizens can’t have foreign grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.

Except that asserts too much. We cannot infer from the fact that they intended the president not to be a foreigner that the phrase contains all the anti-foreign safeguards you can think up. Same goes for all the extra language birthers want to tack onto the 14th amendment. You don’t like “anchor babies,” so you pretend the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause excludes them. But it doesn’t, as should be obvious by how many illegal immigrants are daily subjected to the jurisdiction of local police, INS, ICE, etc."

A pretty dang good "non-argument." The NBC clause is a safeguard but no one is saying it is infallible. Obama would be a poster child for what the Founders were trying to prevent as a president. It is you who is being implausible which "asserts too much" and counter to the known historical facts.

The preponderance of evidence is crushing to after-birthers. Not only did the Framers insert the grandfather clause so they were exempt from the natural born citizen clause, but Alexander Hamilton who in his Constitutional draft that he submitted to the convention on June 18, 1787, which was ultimately rejected:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Born a citizen? Now, where have I read this recently? Hmmmm...

Yes yes... you said it in post 105.

You to Flotsam_Jetsome. "That’s not true just because you want it to be. The truth is much simpler: Born. A. Citizen."

It's obviously apparent that Alexander Hamilton's draft for being "born a citizen" was not adopted in the US Constitution to the qualifications of future presidents.

The story does not end here since "born a citizen" was not instituted.

In comes John Jay's letter from New York City dated 25 July 1787 to George Washington with his proposition.

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

It was only a few days after Jay's correspondence with the President of the Constitutional convention that the "natural born citizen" clause found its way into James Madison's prestigious and copious convention notes dated Sept 4th, 1787:

Madison notes: "Mr. BREARLY from the Committee of eleven made a further partial Report as follows...

(5) 'Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President;...."

http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt

It's crushing evidence to you naysayers and much much more that I've left out here.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"It's crushing evidence to you naysayers and much much more that I've left out here."

You rock. :)

[philman_36]

Don't be deceptive. Place the whole thing and not just the snippet that supports after-birthers. The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

Context is everything.

[philman_36]

See above. An intentional snippet taken completely out of context.

[philman_36]

Look at the whole passage above. Rawle was right. Context.

[philman_36]

See fuller quote above. Yet again I admonish another poster to look at what Rawle said in context.
Entirely too many people are being led by the nose instead of doing their own due diligence and looking at what was said in context.

[philman_36]

That Rawle quote was taken so far out of context it isn’t even funny.

[DiogenesLamp]

By the way, I’ve never checked, what is the birther answer to why we call citizens created by law post-birth “naturalized.” To me that term means “made natural.”

You have a misunderstanding. It doesn't mean "Made Natural" it means "made LIKE natural." How is it possible for something to be "made natural" when it was not in fact, natural?

"Naturalization" is exactly like adoption. It is a case where someone is not originally part of a family or society, but are officially accepted as though they were.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s not true just because you want it to be. The truth is much simpler: Born. A. Citizen.

That is not simpler, it is simplistic. Aldo Mario Bellei (Rogers v Bellei) was "born a citizen" but lost his citizenship for failure to meet residency requirements.

As I have pointed out numerous times, a "natural born citizen" does not have to meet any residency requirements.

One can be "born a citizen" by operation of a statute, but that does not make one a "natural born citizen". A "natural born citizen" is not a citizen based on the operation of a statute, but is a citizen on the basis of their nature.

A person born to two citizen parents on their nation's soil can be a citizen of no other land. They are a "natural" citizen. One born with another nation's claim upon them, is NOT a "natural" citizen. Birth in a foreign country or birth to a foreign parent allows another nation to express a recognized claim on such individuals.

A person born to two citizen parents on their own nation's soil cannot be claimed by any other nation for any reason whatsoever. They cannot be compelled to serve another nation's army in accordance with ANY recognized law.

[philman_36]

The preponderance of evidence is crushing to after-birthers.
Hear, hear!

[DiogenesLamp]

You do realize that terrm, “anchor baby,” does not inspire sudden horror in regular people like it does birthers.

"Birthers" are regular people, just better informed. If horror is not inspired in the more ignorant people, then it is just another example of where fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I dare say there are those who would not worry if they were deprived of their right to freedom of speech or the freedom to keep and bear arms.

We should regard these people as what they are. People who are ignorant of the dire consequences which their lack of concern will eventually cause.

[DiogenesLamp]

And so on. Yeah, I know, of course it never was supposed to be about every single individual playing a significant role. In fact, it was the very opposite of that. We need not go over the subtleties of the electoral process, though. Suffice to say that if the people are too lazy, ignorant, duped, or whatever, not to elect people with foreign allegiances, the answer may be to take decisions out of their hands. But then we wouldn’t be a republic, as designed.

Not at all. The Answer is to inform them better. Truth is power. Once apprised of what is correct, only a fool chooses to follow folly.

The Framers took some decisions out of our hands, but not all of them. Just because they didn’t want us electing presidents with foreign allegiances does not mean it is unconstitutional for citizens bron with the ability to be citizens of other countries to be president.

Till changed by Amendment, that is exactly what it means. We do not get to pick and chose which constitutional requirements we wish to obey, we obey them all until they are repealed.

[DiogenesLamp]

Posit noted. Let me posit that anyone who thinks the decision whether or not to elect an anchor baby should be taken out of the hands of the populace probably doesn’t believe in our form of government, and certainly doesn’t like the Constitution as written.

They like it very well, they just don't believe it should be ignored when people disagree with it, and followed when they don't. That "living Constitution" crap is the realm of our enemies. In Conservative circles, We believe it means what it says until it is changed by amendment.

The meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as understood by our founders in regards to federal citizenship within this nation, is that of being born with exclusive loyalty to this and only this nation.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the distinction our founders drew between federal and state citizenship. Here is a portion of a newspaper article purportedly written by James Madison in 1811.

And here is a link to the entire page of that Newspaper, if you want to read the whole thing in context.

By the standards in place in 1787 when Article II was created, only the Children of citizens can be regarded as "natural born citizens." The Children of British loyalists of that time period were explicitly excluded from Citizenship after the War of Independence, even though they were born here.