Posted on 11/19/2012 11:24:08 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012?printable=true&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitte
Yep, I would have to agree on that.
Sadly, by choosing not defining the NBC clause, the SCOTUS thus defines it as it is today.
If it is good for Obama, then it is good for Rubio as well as Jindall, however, personally I don’t support any of those guys or Obama.
There is no point in attempting to hold a person to a standard that simply doesn’t exist though. That flaw in our law is exploited at this point IMO.
And you think it's a good idea to have the same government that spends every dollar of the Social Security surplus while still calling it a trust fund asset ... have the ability to declare the border secure when it will be nothing close to secure.
That is the problem now, as it was in 1987. Amnesty is granted but the border security and immigration enforcement never materialize.
According to whom? Doesn't the jurisidiction thereof in Amendment 14, Section 1 mean anything?
I don't know the status of his parents at his birth. Were they on visas? If so, Marc was under the jurisdiction thereof and is a NBC.
You’re wasting your time talking to the holier-than-thou crowd here. No one but they are pure enough.
The Founders did not want Naturalized Citizens to become President.
Natural Born Citizen is the opposite of Naturalized Citizen, in the subset of “US CITIZENS”
We have but two classes of Citizenship:
1.) Natural Born
2.) Naturalized
Your post is spot on. I don’t know who they want to run, but probably some boring, stutterer who wouldn’t excite a log. No one is perfect, but even if Jesus ran - they would call him a RINO. After all,he forgave sinners.
only a supreme court justice in minor v hapersett
but shhhh... let’s not talk about that
how about the founders? why did they PURPOSELY put the wording ‘natural born’ instead of ‘citizen’ unless to convey their stated intention... to avoid, at least by birth, any foreign allegiances?
i’d guess you were born in the US of 2 citizen parents and are ignorant of the difference
myself, i was born in the US.. of a American father but a British mother who later became a citizen. I am a US citizen, but i can also claim British citizenship... which is why, like rubio and 0bama, i am not a natural born citizen
let me boil it down for you:
a natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
Fortunately for Marco Rubio, nobody's buying this birther bullcrap.
Like Woodrow Wilson?
The Founders only intended that no NATURALIZED Citizen could become President.
Arnold Schwarzenegger for instance, can not be POTUS, as he is a Naturalized Citizen.
As for your definition of Natural Born Citizen? It is bogus hogwash which has no support in the legal or political or academic world.
You are pushing crack pot theories from idiots who do not understand the law or legal history.
The Founders only intended that no NATURALIZED Citizen could become President.
Arnold Schwarzenegger for instance, can not be POTUS, as he is a Naturalized Citizen.
As for your definition of Natural Born Citizen? It is bogus hogwash which has no support in the legal or political or academic world.
You are pushing crack pot theories from idiots who do not understand the law or legal history.
Forget about Cruz, he was born in Canada.
the ‘crackpot’ is you
the other intention was to insure the king of france could not become president of the US. if being born in the country is the only requirement, and assuming french royalty still existed, then a child born in NY of 2 french citizens could become president. obviously not as intended.
but hey, you keep pushing your little belief. repeat it enough and maybe you can convince some people the obvious is not what they think. you’ll find better traction for your repeated memes in the DU forums
You are delusional.
You have not one single living expert authority on the subject who can back you up, yet you presume superior knowledge?
How would you know since none of them dare touch the issue?
They don’t touch it because they don’t want to look like idiots.
Those who think as you do are laughing stock, not to be taken seriously.
You are a stain on the conservative cause, you are pushing bogus legal theory without any real understanding of the law.
“Are you being deliberately obtuse?”
I don’t know about deliberately, but I do know how to be obtuse.
“The Founders did not want Naturalized Citizens to become President.”
Why wouldn’t they want naturalized citizens to be president? Doesn’t seem fair since naturalized citizens have the same rights as those born here.
And, if there are only two types of citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized, what is a “citizen at birth”?
It sounds like you’re saying that someone born in the US to foreigners who are just visiting or here illegally is a natural born citizen, the same as someone born in the US to two US Citizens?
If that’s the case, seems like they could have used “citizen” and “naturalized citizen”. Why confuse us with the “natural born”?
I just don’t get all the different names people nowadays and the courts and those foolish old Founding Fathers used, I guess.
Somebody did.
What about when his mother sent the little Indonesian Citizen Barry on a flight alone to grandma in Hawaii. When did he become a US Citizen again?
The Founders spelled out the qualifications for President, in positive language rather than negative language.
Any President is required to be a Natural Born Citizen, which means that Naturalized Citizens do not qualify to be POTUS.
And in answer to your question, I think “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can handle man of these other issues. For instance, I think the illegal alien “anchor baby” issue can be resolved by Congressional notice of the fact that no United States divorce court would have jurisdiction over custody of a couple's children, if the husband and wife were not citizens of the United States. Therefore, the child even if born here would not be fully “under the jurisdiction thereof” -— a few conservative members of Congress happen to agree with me on that point as well.
It does you no good to argue with the birthers. I’ve repeatedly asked them to identify any official document of any kind that differentiates beween a citizen by birth and a “Natural Born Citizen”. Of course they can’s point to anything.
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.