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 ...
“I’ll tell you what *I* remember. Obama had been telling everyone for years that he was from Kenya.”
Really? “For years”?
Where, then, are all these examples of Obama saying he was born in Kenya? Old newspaper interviews? Television appearances? Public speeches?
But I say if being born on US soil makes one a citizen, then DRAFT each and every one of these people and subject them to high taxes. Too many people see US citizenship as a kind of lifetime “gift certificate” or something. Make them have responsibilities too.
This case was before the 14th Amendment. Apparently the Supreme court was a bunch of "Vattel Birthers" in 1847.
BARRY v. MERCEIN, 46 U.S. 103 (1847)
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during its father's temporary residence therein,-twenty-two months and twenty days,-notwithstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States.
Oh! and LOOK! It was BEFORE the election! :)
Here is the TRUTH:
1. This case wasn't even HEARD by SCOTUS! It was DISMISSED!
2. "The excerpt you're quoting isn't a ruling. It's the opinion of one Justice who was DISSENTING with the decision to dismiss! You want to know how much legal weight the opinions of one dissenting judge holds? None. Zip. Nada. "
3. This was 51 years BEFORE the Chinese guy case.
OH, I think your "lamp" needs a little cleaning, now doesn't it. But not your "clock", because I just cleaned it real good for you!!!
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
:)
"The Platt amendment of the 1901 Army Appropriations Act determined that Cuba was to be considered a “self-governing colony” of the US. This amendment stayed in effect until 1934, with the passage of a formal Treaty of Relations between Cuba and the US.
Since both Rubio’s parents were born in Cuba during the time when the Platt amendment was in effect, they were born in a “self-governing colony”. A US “self-governing colony”...
With the Treaty of Relations an agreement was made to continue GITMO.
I would not be surprised if evidence that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s real father were released, and the MSM version of the rule changed, to prevent a Rubio candidacy.
It sounds crazy - how would Obama not be damaged by this? but he's shameless, he's got the media at his back, and many Republicans would fall all over themselves saying it was not a big deal. John McCain would be slobbering about “healing” and “racism” and everything else.
I could be crazy! But look at how Clinton got off in the court of (liberal) public opinion, for felonies. (pun intended)
And has anyone ever though about what obama would do as a TRUE lame duck, at the end of a term? Pardons for every illegal? I shudder to think about it.
On the part of the plaintiff? Who knows? John Barry, the plaintiff in error, did contend that his daughter was not a citizen of the U.S. But the court did not rule that, nor did Chief Justice Taney make reference to the citizenship matter when he ruled against Mr. Barry and dismissed the case. So if there were doubts on the part of the court they didn't say so. In fact, since part of Mr. Barry's unsuccessful appeal was the claim his daughter was not a citizen, it might be said that the court disagreed with him in that as well as the other points of his case.
Could you clarefy your definition of Natural Born Citizen? From previous discussions I have concluded that you believe that if during WWII, Eva Braun and Adolph Hitler could prove that she had snuck into the United States to have their baby... that Adolph Jr. would be constitutionally eligable to be president when he turned 35 if he had been residing in the United States for the previous 14 years. And divided loyalties were no concern of the founding fathers... correct? Is that a fair characterization of your position? I honestly am confused by your position.
I saw that too - the concern being that if a sailor were born in the US to a British parent the Brits would say he’s a British subject and take him back!
I’ll repeat my tongue-in-cheek suggestion: maybe we should draft anyone born in the US, even of foreign parents. then US citizenship would caerry responsibilities not rights.
As for the sailors story, i saw uit too. I don’t have a cite and i don’t know if I have all the facts right.
I’m trying not to argue with anyone - I have other things on my mind. Maybe I should read some of the FR threads on evolution or the Civil War to calm down. (sacrasm)
I will not comment on what I think the law is, or what we can do to get a definitive decision now.
But looking at this question in reverse leads me to a clear conclusion of what the law should be. I would say born of two citizen parents, wherever born.
By “looking in reverse” I mean this: could Barack Obama have been a British subject for life? I would say, and I believe his own web side acknowledges, that he was born a British subject, and could have requested that status on a permanent basis upon reaching the age of majority. Again, I believe that’s the gist of what was on the BObama “fight the smears” site about his citizenship.
I was born in the US of citizen parents. It would take more than just filling out a form or making an application to allow me to become a British subject, or to become a dual citizen. And there is no guarantee that it would be granted. Nor should it be. Nor do I want it. I WAS BORN TO TWO CITIZEN PARENTS!
I have sometimes asked people a question: who was the last president born a British subject? I get all kinds of answers, usually going back to William Henry Harrison. But isn’t the answer Obama?
No, I do not think someone born with a dual citizenship or citizenship of another country should be eligible to be president, no matter who it is. Are there countries whose laws state that any offspring of their citizens born on foreign soil are citizens of that foreign land, and not citizens of the parents’ nation? If any country would have a special exception it would be Mexico for offspring of their citizens born in the US! Usually, nations - and certainly the British crown - wanted to make people subjects for purposes of the draft, among other reasons. Now it seems like US citizenship is just a meal ticket. And we don’t enforce our immigration laws. So other nations seem happy to “dump” the children of their citizens on us.
Thanks in advance for any responses (flames included) to this rambling rant. i think people born to foreigners in the US should not be deemed citizens of any kind, and I believe the 14th Amendment can be read that way. In any event, I would not say that the child of two foreign vacationers that happened to be born here is eligible to be president, but the child of a US service family who happens to be born in a hospital off the base in a foreign land is not.
That’s my wish. I realize reality will be different . . .
After re-reading more at length, I think you are correct about this. Therefore it is relatively of little value. The court did not even address this issue in dismissing the case.
It does beg the question though. Why would JOHN A. BARRY's Attorney make the argument if it was widely known to have no merit? It also begs the further question, why was John A Barry permitted to keep his son from this same marriage, but not the daughter? Presumably, as far as the law is concerned, what should apply to the one, ought also apply to the other.
Dig through my posts. I've left examples of several of them before 2008. The latest was Chris Matthews from Hardball saying on December 18, 2007 that Obama was born in Indonesia. If I thought you were an objective person, I would hunt them up for you, but as I recognize you for being otherwise, I am not going to spend any time on you. Look them up yourself.
Here is the TRUTH:
1. This case wasn't even HEARD by SCOTUS! It was DISMISSED!
2. "The excerpt you're quoting isn't a ruling. It's the opinion of one Justice who was DISSENTING with the decision to dismiss! You want to know how much legal weight the opinions of one dissenting judge holds? None. Zip. Nada. "
You really should keep up with the latest talking points making it around Fogbow and Obamaconspiracy. Kleon managed to get the latest info, too bad for you.
You are wrong. If I use YOUR standard (above) I would be calling you a liar, just as you did me. As pointed out by Kleon, the quote was not that of a dissenting judge, (but i've seen that argument all across the internet where obots gather) it was the argument of the plaintiff's attorney. Since you got it wrong, does that make you a liar? If you want me to be one, then you have to be another.
3. This was 51 years BEFORE the Chinese guy case.
Yeah, Article II is a lot older than that. You have a point?
OH, I think your "lamp" needs a little cleaning, now doesn't it. But not your "clock", because I just cleaned it real good for you!!!
Misses don't count. I have at least the good grace to admit when I am wrong and it is pointed out to me, we shall see if you do as well.
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Must be a little girl or something. Now go away sweety, the adults are discussing grown up stuff.
This argument I just do not know about. It would be nice for our side if it is correct.
You are correct. What was cited turned out to be the plaintiff's argument, not the ruling of the court. The court did not address that issue, but instead claimed they had no jurisdiction. (A lot like the "Standing" argument.)
But as I mentioned to Kleon, if Plaintiff's attorney did not think the argument had merit, why would he have presented it to the court? Likewise, why was John Barry's son (of the same marriage and circumstance) permitted to remain with him in England, while the Daughter was not?
He has to go back make sure they didn't renounce it. He can then show their birth certificates showing the year they are born during the time Cuba was a self governing US Colony...which proves their US Citizenship. Being a senator he has the means to even go back through the papers from this time...supporting Cuba as a US Colony...
You make a better point than you know. The British applied both "jus soli" (by right of birth on the soil) and "jus sanguinus" (by right of blood) in English Common law. As I have pointed out many times, they did this for a reason. They WANTED to claim anybody and everybody they could for any reason that they could.
British "subjects" is another way of saying British "Servants." That they wanted to claim you as a citizen was not for your benefit, but for the benefit of having cannon fodder for the orders of the crown.
People do not understand that the common law of England forced subjectude on people whether they wanted it or not, and now they argue that the law which imposed subjectude to the servants of the crown (being born on English territory) grants desirable AMERICAN citizenship to anyone who happens to be born inside it's borders. From a logical and practical sense, this is a ridiculous argument. The only reason that some in history argued for it is because most of common law was adopted, and they were apparently unaware that this aspect was specifically rejected.
Were we to be like England, we would lay any claim of citizenship on anyone we could, just for the purpose of exploiting them to our needs and wants. Your tongue in cheek idea in a nutshell! :)
But MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU have admitted openly lying to people here by quoting the lawyer for the side that lost and trying to pretend it was the Supreme Court that said it.
Why would you do such a thing??? What is motivation to lie??? Why would YOU quote a footnote in a case and try to pretend it was the court that said it??? Lying is a sin and it is wrong!!! Plus, YOU make it worse by calling yourself "Diogenes" who went around looking for a honest man. Well KEEP LOOKING because YOU are NOT a honest man.
So There!!!
If you are correct about this being under US jurisdiction during the time his parents were born, then i’ll give him a pass. (Like one vote is gonna help or something. :) ) But I have read rebuttals to this argument that seemed pretty persuasive to me at the time. I thought American jurisdiction ended around 1910 or so?
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.