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 ...
I see , so you can attack freepers that believe that there is something very rotten about Obama’s whole birth story,college records and social security number by calling them an embarrassment and kooks and nuts , but no one can respond back to you. Typical liberal tactic. I have now read many of your posts around here and have to wonder about your own commitment to conservatism quite frankly. Don’t bother to respond because I really don’t care to talk with you either. I just did not like the way you were putting others down and then acting all innocent. Have a nice evening. I’ll be watching Cruz crush Dewhurst and the Tea Party victory here in Texas!
“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Minor vs. Happersett, United States Supreme Court
“JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.”
(gee...I wonder why?)
I guess they don’t care that Alvin Onaka, according to the laws of the State of Hawaii, could not confirm even that Barack Obama was born a male, that he was born on Aug 4, 1961, that he was born in Honolulu, that his mother was Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, or that his father was Barack Hussein Obama. The only legal reason for him to not verify those things upon request by a qualified requester.... is if he CAN’T verify it because it is not legally-established fact.
I guess the people that I respect from Texas aren’t so much associated with the GOP-e. They’re more interested in the rule of law.
Unlike you, who totally ignored the legal fact that was brought to your attention. Nice dodge, but I’m tired of the establishment dodging the rule of law.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. Senator Thompson's interpretation is that one that has prevailed in every courtroom challenge so far. It is this birther nonsense that nobody is buying.
I have no idea WTF you are talking about. Are we relitigating McCain or discussing Rubio.
Butter..you are right in so much as ..No...they do not care. I know I am not telling you anything you do not already know. You read and listen to the news as much as I do. I know alot of Republicans as friends. Not one is a birther and all want this dropped before the election. Butter, it does not bother me that you disagree with me. As I said, I truly admiire the fact that you have the courage of your convictions. We simply disagree. I hope that does not bother you. We can disagree and still respect each other’s opinions. And Texans? We come in all kinds of stripes and polka dots. No mob rule here. And we like it that way. We are just a mish mash of opinions and love to debate then we go vote for whomever we want and go to the Riverwalk after together. Have a good evening, Butter.
I agree with Adams, which is why I don’t agree with you.
Which one is Fred Thompson? A lib or an 0bot?
Loren ?
Let me address your crackpot remark:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.
Now to subtance. Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. understands. Minor vs Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The pertinent passage:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“
(I paraphrase Donofrio:) In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt. By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship, and in so doing, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
Supreme Court precedence looks like authority to me. But, I'm just a "crackpot", as so elegantly stated by yourself.
Thank you !!!!! You are my hero of the day!!
If Rubio is eligible as you believe, then so are Ahmed and Shaimaa Morsi.
Who are Ahmed and Shaimaa Morsi?
Why they are the children of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/children-of-egypts-muslim-brotherhood-president-wont-give-up-u-s-citizenship-despite-demands/
There is a reason the Founders specifically included a requirement for the president to be “natural born” — two American citizen parents and born in the USA.
And being a Birther is far preferable to being a GUllible.
http://theobamafile.com/_opinion/Gullibles.htm
You mean like his parents?
At the time of some of the decisions the crackpot birthers cite, Congress had NOT entered the picture on the issue, directly.
Once Congress did act, Congress became the “elsewhere” -—
And James Madison, Father of the Constitution, clearly stated that Congress had the authority to act on Citizenship matters.
I also have the facts, but that apparently makes no difference to the R establishment in the great state of Texas, which is a reflection on them, not me - made all the more clear by the childish names they may call me while they ignore the legal facts. When the registrar who has seen the record admits that it’s not legally valid, and the R establishment threatens to wave their private parts at my auntie rather than simply hear the facts, it’s a sad, sad day.
Of course, they are BOTH eligible.
The US has feld that view for a long time
Right.
You don’t get it - these crappy people with families in terrorist countries can be born here, leave a week later, be brought up in terrorist foreign country, and then, according to you, have the legal right to run for president.
That’s why we have the rule of NBC, so that and Obama can’t happen.
You don’t get it - these crappy people with families in terrorist countries can be born here, leave a week later, be brought up in terrorist foreign country, and then, according to you, have the legal right to run for president.
That’s why we have the rule of NBC, so that and Obama can’t happen.
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.