Posted on 08/24/2011 12:34:43 PM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Despite my hopes, Sen. Marco Rubio will not run for president in 2012. But that doesn’t mean he won’t soon be within a heartbeat of the presidency. As the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza asked on Twitter: “Is it time to rename GOP primaries ‘the contest to become Marco Rubio’s running mate’?”
Indeed, despite his protestations, Rubio has to be on the short list of potential GOP running mates.
But the downside is that there is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That’s right — some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a “natural born citizen.”
Here’s how the logic works (according to World Net Daily’s Joe Kovacs): “While the Constitution does not define ‘natural-born citizen,’ there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.”
Kovacs (and he is not alone) goes on to reason that Rubio’s “eligibility is in doubt” because — though his parents were legal U.S. residents when he was born — they were not yet naturalized citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
ONE parent.
The intent of the law was to show that they didn't need naturalization - they were natural born.
Once again - binary. Natural born or naturalized.
Seems you were still holding out on us.
You were involved in lots of those threads - but you never stated that standard until after the election.
The position was not well known among Freepers discussing 0bamas ineligibility until AFTER the election.
Why not?
The naturalization law of 1790 was an act of congress, and thus incapable of redefining constitutional requirements.
You should have learned that (that congress cannot change the constitution) in the eigth grade.
1) If Rubio passes the NBC challenges GREAT! He’d be fantastic!
2) If Rubio flunks the NBC test, then Obama flunks too!
(and RATs will NEVER allow 2 to happen)
So its a win-win situation! Rubio, PLEASE DO RUN
Fortunately for Rubio, these folks are small, wrong and irrelevant.
Rubio will be sworn in as VP to the objections of no one, save for a handful of birthers stomping their feet in indignation.
“Vitter notwithstanding, the 21st century interpretation of natural born citizen, as evidenced by Barack Obama, is pretty straightforward. Were you born in America?”
No, remember John McCain was born in Panama. There’s now a reasonable consensus among legal scholars that the natural-born citizens are exactly those who obtained their citizenship upon birth.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court explained that the language of the Constitution comes from English Common Law, and they quoted British jurist A.V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”
You’d think that after three years, if people REALLY had learned in school that the President needs to have two citizen parents, they would have been able to produce a textbook or political science book that says ‘The President must be born to two citizen parents.’ Even a single one. It’s not like it’s a complicated concept, and if it was that simple and important, you think it’d be mentioned in EVERY book about Presidential qualifications.
The fact that they still can’t do that not only discredits their little pet legal theory, but it doesn’t say good things about their memories either.
Then again, it’s easier for birthers to explain it away the same way all conspiracy theorists do: the conspiracy destroyed all the evidence. Just like they replaced all the newspaper microfilm and brainwashed all the judges and law professors.
That does not apply. It was concerned with citizenship not NBC.
Much to my dismay. Bobby Jindal is in the same boat.
“There were questions about the place of birth (about McCain directly, and rumored about Obama) and IIRC Congress actually passed a resolution affirming that McCain was an NBC, although technically he had not been born on US soil. It was thought at the time that this was something done to protect Obama. I believe it was a Dem who sponsored it, so that seems pretty likely.”
S.Res 511 of 110’th Congress had joint sponsorship, and I challenge you to cite anything from the time, which was early April 2008, suggesting its purpose was to protect Obama. Protect him from what?
“The Democrats will burst into flames if they try to attack Rubio on this.”
Democrats have their cranks, same as Republicans. It won’t be “The Democrats”, just a fringe. Keep in mind that anyone who considers being a Rubio-birther has the cautionary tail of the Obama-birthers with their record of 100% failure and defeat.
We have had this discussion numerous times in the past. I have repeatedly challenged the guys who call us liars to find just one textbook from the 50s, 60s or 70s that would contradict those of us who can still remember what we were taught in civics during that time period. For some reason this challenge remains unanswered.
Both Rubio and Obama are NBCs, period, end of story.
So how do you feel about "climate change"? To me this sounds a lot like Al Gore talking about global warming. Alinsky tactics may be considered a valid form of debate over at DU but I am not sure that they fly around here.
And I have asked you and others repeatedly to find one book that contradicts us... just one! You are the one that has been calling us liars. You are the one who should put up or shut up. I went to high-school in the 70s; find me a civics or political science textbook from the 50s, 60s or 70s that contradicts what I remember! If you can't you are just a loud mouthed jerk!
It is totally illogical that the child of foreign citizens born abroad in a country where the parents do not hold citizenship, is considered a citizen of the land they were born in which is not the place the parents’ allegiance lay. It makes no sense. It is against all common sense and is not equally applied in that a child of American parents born abroad is still considered an American. We don’t terminate the American citizenship of children born abroad to American parents. Yet in imperialistic fashion the US bestows or claims citizenship of foreigners’ children born abroad in the USA. Totally illogical, especially when assimilation is discouraged and assimilation to the customs and ideologies of the land of the parents’ citizenship/allegiance is encouraged.
There had been questions about Obama’s eligibility, partly because some press reports (including in Kenya) referred to him as “Kenyan born.” I remember in the discussions at the time that it was perceived that approving McCain’s legitimacy was a sort of trade-off for not examining Obama’s, and in fact this did happen and the question was virtually never raised after that.
Yet is it natural aka normal for the child to be born abroad in a foreign land? No it is not. The majority of children are naturally or normally born in the land where parent(s) hold citizenship, therefor it it natural or normal for a child to be a citizen of the country that their parent(s) is a citizen of.
If where a person is born is more important then the citizenship of the parents, then children of Americans born abroad should not be considered American citizens, but be considered foreigner citizens as they were born abroad. And the rule is if you are born abroad you are a citizen of where you are born which is why children of non-Americans born in the US are considered US citizens and children of Americans born abroad should not be US citizens but citizens of the land where they were born. This would be logical, fair and equal. This is the flip side of logically and fairly allowing children to be considered citizens of the place their parents hold citizenship even when the child is unnaturally, abnormally, outside of the majority, born abroad. Yet discouraging dual citizenship so when the child reaches maturity the child either chooses or has chosen for them their citizenship.
I did not know Vattel, but I knew the correct definition of natural born citizen, ‘born in country of two citizen parents’. It appears that it is the false idol known as inclusiveness has muddled people’s minds into believing it is not fair that some are born to citizens of a country rather then born abroad to foreign citizens.
From some of the comments on this thread, evidently two wrongs make a right.
Rubio is nice guy with potential,but he is NOT a natural born citizen, therefore not eligible to be President, nor Vice President.
The arguments for Rubio are not based in fact nor law.
A “citizen” is not automatically “natural born”.
The 14th Amendment makes NO one a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court has never re-defined what a natural born citizen is.
Obama and his krew have turned the law on its head, and is defying anyone to stop them.
Far be it from Freepers to aid and abet them.
So this was common knowledge, but everyone decided to keep it bottled up during the crucial time after Obama won his party's nomination? And they only came out in the open with it when it was too late for it to do anything? I find that hard to believe considering many of these same people waste no time promoting theories far crazier than this.
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.