Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Rubio Eligible?
Fred Thmpson America ^ | 07.31.12 | Sen Fred Thompson

Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by Perdogg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 321 next last
To: Red Steel; All

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?


In all cases, stated above, my proposed Resolution would pass by nearly unanimous numbers.

Do any of you doubt this prediction?


201 posted on 08/01/2012 11:38:46 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

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.


202 posted on 08/01/2012 11:41:32 AM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You could not fill a football stadium with everyone in the country who agrees with you.

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.

203 posted on 08/01/2012 11:41:49 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Agree.

It is clear from Article 2 itself, that citizen and natural born citizen are not equivalent with respect to presidential eligibility.


204 posted on 08/01/2012 11:43:33 AM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
To: Kansas58

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.

205 posted on 08/01/2012 11:47:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: NOVACPA
You do not know how to read legal opinions.

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.

206 posted on 08/01/2012 11:51:24 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
“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.”

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.

See here - "Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:..."

All attempts by these Congress Critters became losers.

207 posted on 08/01/2012 11:54:48 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Correct, in the case Rubio, his parents were legal residents therefore he is natural born in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

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?

208 posted on 08/01/2012 12:00:35 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Your opinion is part of a very slim minority.

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.

209 posted on 08/01/2012 12:05:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This is all moot, though, in that the law, as previously stated, has ruled that born citizens are natural born citizens.

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.

210 posted on 08/01/2012 12:10:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You do not understand how legal rulings work. That something is mentioned does not mean it is controlling, or necessary for the case at hand.

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.

211 posted on 08/01/2012 12:13:13 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Someone born in the USA of alien parents can run for President because they are natural born citizens.

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.

212 posted on 08/01/2012 12:20:06 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
A Naturalized Citizen can never be President. This is the ONLY prohibition found in the Constitution.

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.

213 posted on 08/01/2012 12:23:09 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; P-Marlowe

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.


214 posted on 08/01/2012 12:26:02 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You're on a roll Diogenes. You make some excellent cogent points above.



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.


:-)

215 posted on 08/01/2012 12:27:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

” 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.


216 posted on 08/01/2012 1:07:56 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; DiogenesLamp
"You're on a roll Diogenes. You make some excellent cogent points above."

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.

217 posted on 08/01/2012 1:11:43 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If America were a car, the "Check President" light would be on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Kansas58

“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.


218 posted on 08/01/2012 1:12:18 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Someone born a US citizen is neither a foreigner or an alien.

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".

219 posted on 08/01/2012 1:16:15 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

LOL


220 posted on 08/01/2012 1:16:15 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 321 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson