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.
Fuhgett bout it.
He ain’t NBC....
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9 in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
John A. Bingham - March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866), page 1291
[Sorry for the cut & paste, but the Library of Congress disables active links]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
The founders recognized that congress may define at any time who can become a citizen and how they become a citizen;
The Founders never gave Congress the ability to define who can become a citizen, and the only ability it was given to determine HOW they became a citizen was by making a regular rule for immigration that the States were required to follow.
The federal government has no direct authority concerning citizenship.....period.
MT, thanks for the post in 62.You are a seeker of truth, not a nitpicker.
In 63, i went back and saw that you were highlighting what the author of the article I referenced highlighted.
What I like is that after that sentence he said that the definition of who was eligible for President was never in doubt as it had been documented in the Constitution.
But the way you harp on it, you think it actually is important. It is an interesting side note to the discussion, but is meaningless otherwise. It doesn't support your argument one bit.
Amen, AM.
Could you imagine the firestorm that would erupt over that statement.
The pressure would build on Hussein to release documents and prove his fabricated life story.
The water bottle incident would be completely forgotten.
Wow. We have been here about the same amount of time. Reread FR's homepage and see if I got off at the wrong exit.
Benghazi - no problem for Obama
Glass of water - end of Rubio’s career
Yep, the press has great perspective.
Yes, Bingham's definition is the most concise one I've found in all my wanderings through historical records. Apparently the definition was such common knowledge during the time of the Founders they saw little reason to remark upon it.
-----
As one truth seeker to another - keep fighting the good fight, and when you get discouraged by all the nay-sayers, remember:
All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
“You show me where the Constitution defines the term “Natural Born Citizen.” “
Since there are only two way to become citizens: natural born and naturalized, it is evident.
Ok. If Rubio is elected President you can flail away aimlessly at your delusions of expertise.
You will still claim your are right, but you will be proven wrong.
That's a swift condemnation from someone who has provided no 'proof'.
If you felt you were right about something, do you truly believe you should remain silent about it, or would you find that you could not, in all good conscience, go along with what you believed to be a lie?
That’s like saying I need to prove that water is wet.
Natural born....is self-defined and it’s also supported by historical precedent of Fremont being supported as the Republican nominee many years ago.
The difference with Obama is simple.
There has never been a Birth Cert. that was valid, showing he was born in Hawaii. All put forward have been forgeries or fake.
The likely reason his college records haven’t been put in public is that he likely had a foreign student ID card.
A historical precedent is just something that happens, and a 'historical precedent' is not a legal one.
Nor does a 'nomination' have anything to do with it since the question of Constitutional qualification is supplied via affidavit by the parties, but the affidavits aren't certified until AFTER the election and at the meeting of the Electoral College.
Basically, Fremont started the race really well, but since he never crossed the finish line your conclusion his situation has any bearing on the Original definition of natural-born is flawed.
-----
Posts including Supreme Court decisions as well as Congressional Records documenting the FACT that the definition of natural born required citizenship of the parents have been sourced for your convenience.
You may continue to declare yourself the sole arbitrator of the truth, but the FACT is you have yet to provide any substantiation for your assertions.
On that conclusion, I'll heartily agree. From what few records of his life I have seen, US citizenship was never claimed, and the 'birth certificate' provided is a joke!
“You may continue to declare yourself the sole arbitrator of the truth, but the FACT is you have yet to provide any substantiation for your assertions.”
Sure, I have. You simply disagree.
“Fremont started the race really well, but since he never crossed the finish line your conclusion his situation has any bearing on the Original definition of natural-born is flawed.”
By that logic, applying your argument to Rubio is invalid and irrelevant, since he is not President.
LOL! Then by you logic, your defense of his eligibility is 'irrelevant' as well.
STILL waiting for you to provide a historical source for your conclusion, BTW.
Pardon my bluntness, but I've had enough 'You're wrong because I say so' arguments to last me a lifetime. It's like trying to have a rational debate with a 2 year old.
Apparently, you haven’t followed the entire thread.
My evidence is the Constitution, Section II, Article I, I believe.
Section I, Article II.........my bad.
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.