To: JustaDumbBlonde
Neither Jindall nor Rubio are Natural Born Citizens.
They cannot run for POTUS or Veep.
Minor v. Happersett in 1875 (Supreme Court of the Untied States) Defined Natural Born as someone being born in the United States to two parents who were it’s citizens. Jindall and Rubio were born to parents who were immigrants and not yet naturalized. They were not yet citizens. These two men may be citizens, but they are NOT NBC’s qualified for POTUS. Do NOT make the Obama Blunder again on OUR side!!!!
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. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”
Minor has NEVER been overturned, it has been cited literally dozens of times over 136 years.
STOP floating constitutionally unqualified candidates!!!!!!
27 posted on
01/19/2012 10:45:32 AM PST by
Danae
(Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
To: Danae
"STOP floating constitutionally unqualified candidates!!!!!!"You stated yourself that the Constitution does not define natural born citizens. If you want to look at legal precedent, look no further than who is sitting in the oval office, untouched by the SCOTUS.
Sorry, I don't get baited into birther arguments any longer. Birthers hold up Orly Taitz as some kind of great American heroine, and I can't go anywhere near that lying, crazy woman.
49 posted on
01/19/2012 11:19:11 AM PST by
JustaDumbBlonde
(Don't wish doom on your enemies ... plan it.)
To: Danae
Minor v. Happersett did not define natural-born citizen as ONLY someone being born in the United States to two parents who were its citizens. IN fact, they specifically dodged the question of whether others might also be considered natural-born citizens. You left out an important part of the Minor v. Happersett opinion: "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."
57 posted on
01/19/2012 11:51:02 AM PST by
WayneS
(Comments now include 25% MORE sarcasm for no additional charge...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson