Coming soon: Rubio ‘birthers’

The Daily Caller ^ | August 24, 2011 | Matt Lewis

[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.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is why it is in Marco Rubio's lap. Instead of these wrong interpretation people keep making how he is qualified even though both parents were Cuban born...a person as you know born to non citizen parents are NOT qualified to be VP or President. This is the avenue Marco Rubio needs to go...like I said who better than him to prove this. As a senator and the son...could easily obtain all the info to prove this. Now that is unless they'd renounced their US Citizenship.

I have NO answer to your other question...this isn't something I've ever look into.

I do not ask this question to be difficult, but I see it coming up if this argument is put forth. It tends to make the Cuban/American citizens seem to be in a sort of limbo.

[DiogenesLamp]

So I think I’ll pass on digging through your old posts if that’s the best you can do.

I don't care what you do. Putting evidence before you is a waste of time. It's like defending a Jew in front of a Jury of Nazis.

[SoJoCo]

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.)

So the case really does nothing to support your position. The opinions of individuals are not the same as judicial rulings. And the court in this case did nothing to clarify the matter.

[DiogenesLamp]

“But children born in the United States to foreign consuls or to other foreign citizens or subjects residing or temporarily sojourning here are held to be natural-born citizens”

Is that last one specific enough?

Yeah, but it strangely contradicts what this guy is reported to have said:

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Funny that it exactly contradicts what A Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said in 1866. I would think he ought to know what the 1868 14th amendment did.

So What? You may say? 1868 was two years later! Yeah, well it passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days). I guess that means the Same Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee presided over the 14th Amendment, which means he ought to know what it was intended to means. And what it means according to him is that YOU are WRONG!

[DiogenesLamp]

Sooo, I did some asking around, and I read some of the arguments about 10 times and it became obvious to me that all the Vattle stuff was just stupid. There is the Chinese guy case and one from somewhere in 2009 that just nailed it. Ever since then, I have not had any use for the Vattle foolishness. That was about a year ago.

The only problem is that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. In addition to that, it did not apply to "natural born citizenship", only basic citizenship. It is also superceded as precedent by Minor v Happersett which does cite the Vattel definition as the salient qualification of Miss Minor.

I have quotes from four prominent congressmen declaring that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT grant citizenship to the children of "temporary sojourners." The Children of Foreign citizens are NOT citizens, according to Two Senators and Two congressmen who wrote and sponsored the 14th Amendment. They said these things while EXPLAINING the 14th Amendment to the REST of the congress.

If you know anything about the Legislative process, it is the intent of the legislature that defines the law. The Intent of the US Congress was that the act would not cover the children of Aliens.

That the Supreme court got it wrong in Wong Kim Ark is just an unavoidable fact. They got it right in Minor v Happersett.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the case really does nothing to support your position. The opinions of individuals are not the same as judicial rulings. And the court in this case did nothing to clarify the matter.

It does one thing. The fact that it was cited indicates that it was regarded as a viable argument by the Attorney, which implies that it was likely widespread. It is further bolstered by the quote in that Yale law book I mentioned above.

[Squeeky]

Well, you are entitled to believe any fringe legal thing you want to. There are some people who think drug laws are unconstitutional too and you could probably accept their $4.00 per minute telephone calls from prison and discuss the issue with them for fun. In the meantime most lawyers, conservative and liberal and green and whatever, disagree with your interpretation. Since we are pretty much still a nation of laws, you are spinning your wheels in Goofy Land.

But go on and tell people that you have quotes from four prominent Congressmen from 1800 whatever that show Obama is illegal. Don’t be surprised if you don’t get invited to many parties.

Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

(PS: You might want to replace the bulb in your lamp-— :)

[okie01]

He admitted in his book that his father was from Kenya.

Anybody who had any interest in his candidacy -- pro or anti -- knew that his father was not an American.

Personally, I don't recall his ever claiming to have been born in Kenya. I do recall Michelle claiming him to be a Kenyan in one interview, however -- which was easy to dismiss as a "misspeak".

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, you are entitled to believe any fringe legal thing you want to. There are some people who think drug laws are unconstitutional too and you could probably accept their $4.00 per minute telephone calls from prison and discuss the issue with them for fun. In the meantime most lawyers, conservative and liberal and green and whatever, disagree with your interpretation. Since we are pretty much still a nation of laws, you are spinning your wheels in Goofy Land.

You don't sound like a person with the necessary background knowledge to discuss this sort of stuff. Legislative intent is the foundation of law. If you don't think the Supreme Court gets things wrong, then how do you explain Plessey v Ferguson, or the claim that the 14th amendment justifies Abortion? Why did it take them over two hundred years to figure out that the Second Amendment refers to an Individual right? They aren't gods, they make mistakes. The evidence indicates their Wong Kim Ark decision was completely contrary to the intent of the Congress which created the 14th Amendment.

If you aren't familiar with the basics of constitutional government, I seriously cannot explain a d@mned thing to you, and it is not worth any effort for anyone to attempt it.

[okie01]

Most Americans have grown up stupidly believing that being born in a country makes you a citizen. It is a firmly held, but wrong, belief.

Actually, that belief is quite accurate.

John McCain was born in Panama. If he brought up the issue of Article II Qualifications, most people would ignorantly assume HE is not qualified, and that Obama IS!

I know of nobody who would be so obtuse as to deny citizenship and qualification to a child born of the military on overseas assignment. There are a few, perhaps, but not so many as to determine a course of action.

I believe the RNC thought they could win without the issue, and that bringing it up would be thought of as a dirty trick, especially by black Americans, and so they chose to let it go.

My guess is that the thought never so much as occurred to the RNC. McCain was obviously qualified, despite his Panamanian birth. Obama was obviously qualified, based on his U.S. birth. No conspiracy theory required.

[Squeeky]

“You don’t sound like a person with the necessary background knowledge to discuss this sort of stuff.”

And you are??? You didn’t even read the case you were quoting and mistook an argument by the person suing as what the case said. There is one of those case I mentioned where the court says in just one sentence that you are wrong about this natural born stuff.

I also have enough sense to realize that not one single judge or court anywhere backs you up which is why you are having to quote 4 prominent Congressmen from 1800. Sorry, but you should just change your name to DiogenesBagOfHammers when it comes to legal stuff.

Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

[Kleon]

The fact that it was cited indicates that it was regarded as a viable argument by the Attorney, which implies that it was likely widespread.

You seem desperate to make something out of this, but you're grasping at straws. Just because an individual makes as argument in court (in a dismissed case, no less) doesn't mean that it's a widespread belief. Would you apply the same logic to any argument made by a lawyer?

[Pilsner]

So the case really does nothing to support your position

Which has been pointed out to him before.

Along with the fact that you have to be particularly dim witted to cite as authority a quote that directly undermines the point you are failing to make.

If (when?) I finally post something that gets me banned by Jim Rob, I plan to come back as Diogenes Lamp's Missing Wick. It must be missing, because they guy's posts are so dim.

[DiogenesLamp]

He admitted in his book that his father was from Kenya.

Anybody who had any interest in his candidacy -- pro or anti -- knew that his father was not an American.

Personally, I don't recall his ever claiming to have been born in Kenya. I do recall Michelle claiming him to be a Kenyan in one interview, however -- which was easy to dismiss as a "misspeak".

Michelle did it twice. Then there is this:

And this:

And this:

And this:

and this:

And this quote of Obama By Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times on September 3, 2006 8:40 AM :

"where ironically I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya."

Link:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/09/obama_africa_lessons_look_ahea.html

And here is a video of Obama saying it's good to be back home. (He is in Kenya.August 26, 2007)

http://youtu.be/87pXa2pK6sg

Here is a quote from Chris Matthews of "Hardball" December 18, 2007 claiming Barack was born in Indonesia: (Yeah, you would think Super Democrat Asshole Chris Matthews would KNOW where Barry was born.)

"But didn‘t Hillary dump on Obama a few days ago for playing up his Indonesian roots? So, what is she up to here? Is she pushing how great he is for having been born in Indonesia, or what, or simply reminding everybody about his background, his Islamic background?

Notice that Chris Mathews doesn't mind a bit that a Presidential candidate was born in Indonesia, as far as Chris Matthews knew at the time. Link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22326842/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-dec/#.Tlg6Zl2_jnU

And that is all I feel like looking up for you at the moment. There are others, but it's getting harder and harder to find them. Too many links are going dead, or being edited.

And there is more, but that is all I feel like looking up for you right now.

[DiogenesLamp]

You seem desperate to make something out of this, but you're grasping at straws. Just because an individual makes as argument in court (in a dismissed case, no less) doesn't mean that it's a widespread belief. Would you apply the same logic to any argument made by a lawyer?

Not nowadays, but I believe they were held to higher standards in 1847. Notwithstanding that, i've read so many quotes that reinforces that lawyer's argument I am tired of looking at them. (At least for now.)

I have decided to compile a chronology of quotes regarding this issue.( plus the links where I found them.) There are a LOT of quotes supporting the Citizen parent argument, and I just don't see how so many people in History who ought to know what this stuff means could get it wrong. I know of only two quotes that I would regard as supporting the jus soli argument, (one of which I just have the word of a poster is an accurate quote) and even one of those invokes jus sanguinus.

I think the problem many people have in understanding this issue is the inability to see the big picture in context. A series of Historical quotes, in sequence, and referenced to who said them and of what importance they were, might make the big picture easier to understand for those that simply can't seem to get it.

This piecemeal stuff just doesn't seem to be getting the point across.

[DiogenesLamp]

If (when?) I finally post something that gets me banned by Jim Rob, I plan to come back as Diogenes Lamp's Missing Wick. It must be missing, because they guy's posts are so dim.

You posting as someone who is missing a wick sounds about right to me.

[okie01]

All of that should serve as proof why the birth certificate is vastly more important than some obscure (and almost certainly incorrect) interpretation of the phrase “natural-born citizen”.

[Squeeky]

AMEN!!!

[Pilsner]

vastly more important than some obscure (and almost certainly incorrect) interpretation of the phrase “natural-born citizen”,

I'll even give the Birthers this: their Vatel theory might have held some water, as an explanation of an unclear Constitutional issue, before we had 125 years of actual practice, including electing (Republican) men to the Presidency once, and Vice Presidency three times, who aren't natural born citizens under their theory. The idea that we can ignore all of that, and now advance a different interpretation, all for political expediency, is delusional.

Look at another example. Does the Constitution allow members of the House to resign? It doesn't say. It does specifically allow Senators to resign, but not Representatives. Was that an oversight? Maybe. But some State/Colonial constitutions/charters did not allow House members to resign. Back then and even to this day, British law does not allow Members of Parliament to resign. The thought was that if a man could be compelled to enter military service against his will, he could also be compelled to serve in the legislature.

Now we know that as a matter of practice, several House members resign each term. That unclear issue in the Constitution has been interpreted as allowing resignation.

Suppose Republicans had won the early by-elections, to fill vacancies, in 2009-2010. Then suppose that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, needing votes to pass Obamacare, had said: "Hey, you can't resign from the House, Constitution doesn't allow it, so the Democrats who thought they resigned to take Obama Administration jobs are still members, and they get to vote, not the Republicans who won the by-elections, because there was never a vacancy to fill."

That is exactly what the Birthers are trying to do. Pelosi's resolution of an unclear issue might have been valid in 1790, but not in 2010.

[Gene Eric]

According to what LVR quoted, why was your post #14 kicked?