Posted on 02/14/2013 5:50:35 PM PST by Vendome
Freepers!
Marco Rubio is just great and what a sense of humor. This is exactly how to respond to liberal hubris and their synthetic, hibrow, intellect.
You need this water bottle if only to get Marco notice from now on.
He is going to be Yuge and you need to support him.
The left has no interest in slighting Rubio’s pro-amnesty message one bit.
It’s not about the 14th...read post 16, it’s about how you become a citizen.
If you have evidence that there is an extra Constitutional requirement to have parents who are also citizens, I’d like to see your evidence.
Laugh all you want.
Answer the question posed.
If you can.
Qualifications for the Office of President
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a ***natural born citizen***, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Your answer is not sufficient to the question posed.
My evidence is historical. Look up the Constitutional Convention discussions on why the natural born requirement was put in the eligibility requirements for President.
There were at least two copies of Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” referenced in the Convention, courtesy of both Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, and possibly a third from Mr. Franklin.The folks in that Convention knew the meaning of the term. It was not a secret.
Natural born does not mean naturally born.
Do your own research.
Before you ask me for more evidence, please provide your own for the questions posed to you.
No thanks. Rubio’s a mole. Don’t say you weren’t warned when he sells conservatives out.
So, the Constitution is not evidence enough for you.
What a joke.
This class of citizens is deceased and no longer eligible.
Thus the only class left is "natural born".
The definition at the time was "born in the country of parents(plural) who were also citizens". This definition was quoted in Supreme Court cases, including Minor.
Guess those Justices didn't know what they were talking about either.
I have given you my evidence from the Constitution. Kindly give me yours.
Here! Here!
Hmmm...to hear guys like you, if the guy could walk on water you proclaim to the world “See? He can’t swim!”
I think a lot of us are looking a romanticized ideal politician and there just isn’t one.
We have to work toward our principles and we won’t get 100% of anyone for idealism.
Your definition is incorrect.
If it were the case, Obama would not be President.
I respectfully disagree, in part.
It's the parental citizenship that matters. The place of birth is immaterial.
The phrase 'natural-born comes from Natural Law...a.k.a. the Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel. In a nutshell, natural born citizenship is hereditary...you get it from your parents. If they are either a natural-born or naturalized citizen at the time of the birth of the child, the child is natural born - and it doesn't matter where the birth occurs.
I do how ever, agree the 14th does not convey natural-born citizenship.
By it's current interpretation, it splits the Original meaning of natural born into a separate type of citizenship: native born, or a naturalization-at-birth on children of aliens and foreigners.
And it is blatantly unconstitutional.
There is also historical precedent that Natural Born Citizen means being born, and not naturalized, in the US.
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in Georgia to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont.
So, we have strong historical precedent.
Now that there’s funny.
Tail wags the dog, eh?
The definition is correct, and Obama should not be the President.
But hey, who is going to argue with a rock star, first black (actually half-black) President?
This is why definitions and the Constitution are so important. It is not my fault or yours that our entire government made a deliberate choice to deceive the American public.
Historical precedent was established with Fremont by the Republicans...long ago, as stated in my previous post.
Well, Fremont never became President.
The only precedent we have is Chester Arthur, who lied about his father’s citizenship status at the time of Arthur’s birth.
His father was a Canadian citizen. The lie was the father had become a citizen of the Us prior to Arthur’s birth.
Quite a big deal was made of it at the time, and records were not like they are today, so he got away with it. Later on, the lie became known.
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.