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 ...
Here’s another textbook. This time from the 1920s, but printed by the federal government *itself* in the “Federal Citizenship Textbook.”
“Any citizen of the United States may be elected President: If he was born in the United States; if he is thirty-five...”
I just find it obvious from the evidence of the record that “born in country to two citizen parents” was NOT the well known standard upon everyone’s lips until AFTER the election in 2008.
The “less crazy” ACTUAL course of events was that the pre-Election birthers were fixated upon the birth certificate and if 0bama was really born in Hawaii. It was not until AFTER the election that the “axiomatic” standard that everybody supposedly always knew became “born in country of two citizen parents”.
So I am not at all proposing a well orchestrated and organized and well thought out (birthers are far from that) CONSPIRACY - I am proposing that anyone who suggest that this was always well known is engaged in revisionist history - and anyone HERE during the 2008 election was “holding out on us” if they supposedly knew but said nothing.
You were here, you said nothing about that being the standard until AFTER the election.
Why not?
It's also the opinion of the House of Representatives during the debates on the issues of citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
Hmmmm. Why come you don’t put a date on that case so everybody can see what year it was???
Hmmmm. Why come you don’t put a date on that case so everybody can see what year it was???
In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court did not say that persons born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents were not natural born citizens, nor did the court say that they were natural born citizens. It merely acknowledged that some authorities believed that they were and also noted that other authorities had doubts about it. And the court explicitly stated that it was not their purpose to resolve those doubts one way or the other.
I did do my homework. You just didn’t like the answers I got so you whine and cry about it.
You were here in 2008 but didn’t raise the standard that you said you learned in High School civics class until AFTER the election.
Only you can answer why not, so.....
Why didn’t you?
I bet the Vattle Birther already knew this, plus when this came out a few months ago, I asked my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. about it and she pointed out this case was BEFORE the Chinese guy case whenever it was, plus some other cases, sooo what this is - is that the Vattle Birthers are just lying to everybody and trying to confuse them which makes them about the same as the Obots. This is why I don’t waste much time arguing with Vattle Birthers because either they are just big liars or pretty stupid, sooo why waste any major time on them???
>> “The Constitution only mentions two subdivisions of U.S. citizens - those that are natural born and those that must be naturalized.” <<
.
No, the only class of citizen mentioned in the constitution is natural born. Naturalization is not a class of citizen.
>> “For almost two years, Obama was running for President — and it occurred to nobody to question his eligibility?” <<
.
You keep on repeating this lie, so you must have a dog in this fight; care to tell us what?
.
Nobody is insinuating that. I'm not saying they all got together, but they were being fed the same arguments by people like Leo Donofrio around the end of 2008, and that changed the tone of birther threads pretty suddenly.
Then why does Article I, Section 8 give Congress the power to establish "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" if naturalized is not a class of citizenship?
I think they're betting on gullible people not actually reading the text of the case.
>> “I asked my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. about it and she pointed out this case was BEFORE the Chinese guy case whenever it was, plus some other cases” <<
.
Wow, what a learned comment!
Did either you or your “BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq” finish the fourth grade?
You obviously have a computer, and it is obviously connected to the internet, so you could have looked up all the cases that are pertinent, and found out that you were full of Sh!t before posting this rubbish.
>> “Then why does Article I, Section 8 give Congress the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” if naturalized is not a class of citizenship?” <<
.
Another one!
What is your native language?
Is sombody dumping you turkeys here by the truckload?
Naturalization is a PROCESS, not a class of citizenship.
All of you will do anything to defeat the clear purpose of the Natural Born restriction in the constitution; what is your angle? Do you have any moral compunction whatsoever?
.
Again...great find!
‘What were birthers, so_real specifically, saying about 0bama’s eligibility BEFORE the 2008 election - and how common was the idea that to be a natural born citizen you had to be born in country of two citizen parents - and did so_real ever say so BEFORE the election?’
The answer to that question that has you all in a tizzy is that the idea that the standard for a natural born citizen being “born in country of two citizen parents” was EXTREMELY rare before the election in 2008 - and you, so_real, didn't once say that this was the standard before the 2008 election.
So why didn't you ever say that this was the standard before the 2008 election?
What was your agenda behind not saying what you supposedly learned in High School?
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.