Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by Perdogg
I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredthompsonsamerica.com ...
Consider this “Resolution”:
“There are but two forms of Citizenship in the United States: you are either Natural Born or Naturalized, if you at any time become a United States Citizen. There are no other forms of Citizenship, for any purpose under the United States Constitution.”
What would the Senate vote be on such?
What would the House vote be on such?
What would be the vote of all of the Governors of the United States?
What would be the vote of the “Electors” from each state?
What would the vote be of the Attorneys General from each State?
What would be the vote of the United States Supreme Court?
Do any of you doubt this prediction?
Yes, they do serve a useful purpose.
So do the 9 folks who wear the black robes and interpret the Constitution.
A number of those groups of 9 have repeatedly made it known that natural born requires two citizen parents.
No doubt you will feel the same way about homosexual marriage. Obviously if most of the people in the country believe in it, that's all it takes for it to be good enough for you. I suppose that you would have accepted Slavery had you simply lived during a time when most people agreed with it.
As for me, I don't care how many people believe in something, if they are wrong, getting more people to say the same thing won't make them correct. A majority can be wrong and often are. Look how Obama got into the White House.
Agree.
It is clear from Article 2 itself, that citizen and natural born citizen are not equivalent with respect to presidential eligibility.
I have no idea WTF you are talking about. Are we relitigating McCain or discussing Rubio.
You are addressing an Idiot. *HE* doesn't know what he is talking about. Speaking in his direction is only worthwhile if you are trying to shoo him away.
Never has such an opinion RESTED on the “two citizen parents” requirement if the person in question was born in the United States.
That facts are mentioned in a ruling does NOT make those facts controlling in the decision.
Basic law, but that is over the heads of most birthers.
Yes, but what you don't seem to realize, and they don't bother to tell you, that naturalization happens at birth because of passed statute or amendment as of 1868.
In all cases, stated above, my proposed Resolution would pass by nearly unanimous numbers.
In all cases? LoL.
Congs have tried to change the natural born citizen clause multiple time from 1977 to 2007, but they failed to do so.
All attempts by these Congress Critters became losers.
The 14th amendment does not create "natural citizens." The condition of being a "natural citizen" is not based on manmade laws, else it wouldn't be "natural." It is a condition that is inherent, much the same as a genetic child versus an adopted child.
The 14th amendment was created for the purpose of granting Citizenship to the children of Slaves, who could not claim citizenship through the lineage of their parents. It would seem obvious to me that if being born here was all that was necessary to make one a "natural citizen" no such amendment would be needed because all of the slaves born here would already be "natural citizens."
In any case, the Court said in it's ruling of "Minor v Happersett, (1875. Seven years after the 14th amendment was passed.) specifically said the 14th amendment does not create "natural citizens."
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment DOES say who shall be "citizens" but it does NOT say who shall be "natural-born citizens." The court was simply acknowledging the obvious fact that the 14th amendment does not create or define "natural citizens."
As "natural citizens" existed prior to the 14th, what are we supposed to believe? That the 14th amendment somehow created "Extra-Natural" citizens?
So was Galileo's opinion of Geocentricity. Guess who turned out to be right in the end?
Idiot. You are radioactively stupid. Just looking at what you write makes me feel dumber.
The law once ruled that slaves were property and still rules that unborn children are.
Let us not rely on some ruling of law or other as being the equivalent to what is the truth. Any such ruling by any legal bodies is incorrect, and we should not put much stock in it just because it comes from some legal body.
Right! Roe v Wade is justified by the 14th amendment because the court SAYS SO!
I wonder if you will ever shift out of Idiot gear.
Again, here is the list of people born here that were not " citizens."
1. British Loyalists after the war.
2. Slaves.
3. Indians.
4. Children of Women married to Foreigners prior to the Cable act.
5. The Children of Foreign Diplomats.
Your theory has a list of exceptions so large you can drive a truck through it! But yeah, I know you are going to come back with your drivel about how THIS exception or THAT exception doesn't disprove the rule.
But do you know what? If you look at citizenship through the Jus Sanguinus principle, NONE of those are exceptions!
H3ll, even the British use the Jus Sanguinus principle of law to chose their chief executive. Born in England but not a member of the Royal Family? Sorry, you aren't qualified to lead that nation.
Now back to you for a nonsensical rebuttal.
Any citizen created by action of the 14th amendment is a "naturalized" citizen. They are simply "naturalized" at birth.
"Natural citizens" don't need the 14th amendment to be citizens. They are citizens by nature.
Spout more crap. We find it amusing.
Since it will be ruled legal, it will be moot. If he runs, there will be no recourse in the courts, because the law is what it is, and he’ll not be obstructed. There will be a few complaints, but no legal challenge will be able to get off the ground based on what someone thinks the constitution originally meant.
The 14th amendment does not create "natural citizens." The condition of being a "natural citizen" is not based on manmade laws, else it wouldn't be "natural." It is a condition that is inherent, much the same as a genetic child versus an adopted child.
As "natural citizens" existed prior to the 14th, what are we supposed to believe? That the 14th amendment somehow created "Extra-Natural" citizens?
The law once ruled that slaves were property and still rules that unborn children are.
:-)
” Again, here is the list of people born here that were not “ citizens.”
1. British Loyalists after the war.
2. Slaves.
3. Indians.
4. Children of Women married to Foreigners prior to the Cable act.
5. The Children of Foreign Diplomats.”
British loyalists were not born in the USA. If they were born here after the Revolution, then they were citizens. This no longer exists, since such folks are all dead.
Slaves were considered property, and property cannot be a citizen. There are no more slaves in the USA.
Indians, as the Supreme Court noted in WKA, were members of a foreign nation existing within the geographical boundaries of the USA. The law was changed and Indians are now born US citizens and can run for President.
Children of Women married to Foreigners: If the children were born in the USA, they were citizens. A woman who married a foreigner prior to the Cable Act was assumed to have abandoned her US citizenship and taken on the citizenship of her husband. If she gave birth overseas, then her children would not be US citizens.
Children of Foreign Diplomats, as the WKA decision noted, had always been considered foreigners, as had the children of an invading army.
No doubt. Thanks for dropping in on this thread, DL.
Any logical discussion of what the Founders meant by Natural Born Citizen should start with the simple question: "What is the purpose of the NBC language in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution?"
If the answer is "To ensure, to the greatest degree possible, the presumed undivided loyalty of one entrusted with the awesome power of the Executive" then the conclusion becomes as simple as it is inevitable: A NBC is a citizen born of parents who are also citizens.
Naturally.
“Any citizen created by action of the 14th amendment is a “naturalized” citizen.”
There is not a court in the US that agrees with you.
Of course, birthers are USED to having every court in the country disagreeing with them...
The US Supreme Court has already said that the wording of the 14th was to repeat the same conditions as the NBC clause. There is no difference, according the the US Supreme Court. But then, birthers ignore the pertinent court rulings so they can live in fantasy land.
You have not read the article which addresses these issues. The article discusses the differences between natural-born and naturalized. Just because there are provisions in law to grant citizenship to those born here whose parents are both not citizens, does not make them "natural-born".
LOL
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.