RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
September 29, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's Emmy in Loveland, Colorado. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's great to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Hey, I'm no fan of the establishment.
They irritate me most of the time, but what if they want Christie to run for the same reason I want him to run?
Because he's the best at articulating conservatism, besides you and maybe Marco Rubio,
but there's no one else out there.

RUSH: That's an interesting question.
Let me ask you, why do you think they're not begging Rubio to run?
Rubio has been just as adamant as Christie that he doesn't want to run.
In a contest of conservatism, Rubio wins versus Christie.
So why are they not asking Rubio to run?

CALLER: You know, I don't know. Maybe it's --

RUSH: Well, part of it is -- (crosstalk)

CALLER: He'd be my second choice.

RUSH: Part of it is, I think,
that they genuinely believe that whoever the other nominees are can't win.
That's another thing that frosts me.
I think Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this election coming up because I think this is going to largely be about Obama.
It's going to be a referendum on his outright destruction of the wealth-creating genius of this country.
I think Elmer Fudd could win, but I'm more concerned than that.
I don't want to just get rid of Obama,
I want to take advantage of the opportunity we have to finally get a genuine, full-fledged, unapologetic conservative
because this is going to be a major task, Emmy, rolling this stuff back.
It's going to take more than one election, and it's going to take somebody fearless.
And we're not going to roll this stuff back having compromise and bipartisanship as our primary objectives.

CALLER: I agree.

RUSH: I think as far as the establishment's concerned, there are two things.
They don't want a conservative to win for that reason,
plus they do want to win.
And I think they probably think
Christie has a better chance than anybody else up there of beating Obama.
That's my guess. But I think what will happen is this:
Whoever gets the nomination, if it is somebody outside the approval of the establishment,
what then will happen is
that all these establishment types will then start trying to buddy up to the winner,
want to be part of his administration,
and then spend the rest of their lives saying
they were there at the right hand of this great, terrific president.
That's what happened to Reagan.
Half the people that opposed Reagan did end up, especially in the second term, doing things in his administration,
and they made the rest of their life career out of it.

To this day, some of these people still guest on television shows as Ronald Reagan's X, or Ronald Reagan's Y.
Even the during the era of Reagan is over period, which Mitch Daniels also uttered,
I should say, even when they were saying the era of Reagan was over,
still some of these marginal characters in the Reagan Administration's second term are still out there, claiming
they were there, they were in the inner circle, they were making all these decisions. (interruption)
I know it's a serious question, Snerdley.
Why aren't people telling Rubio it's not up to him?
You've got Chris Christie saying,
"It's got to be in me.
It isn't in me."
"Well, it's not up to you."
Why aren't they saying it to Rubio?
Because Rubio would win in a walkover.
Rubio would win in a landslide over Obama.

I'm hearing Bob McDonnell, Virginia, is the preferred veep candidate.
I wouldn't waste that on Rubio.
Emmy, thanks for the call.

Folks, it's not true that other conservatives are not well articulating our beliefs.
What's happening is
that they're all competing with each other for time during these debates.
That's a crowded stage up there
and they are having to actually face each other and contrast and compare themselves to each other.
Christie doesn't have to do this.
And this could be a well-planned strategery.
Look at it this way:
You've got the people that have announced and they're on the stage of these debates.
They have 30 seconds here, a minute there, but some of them get an unfair amount of time.
Some of them don't get very many questions asked of them.
Some, the questions that are asked are gotcha types.

They don't have clearly an unfettered opportunity to explain themselves on such a crowded stage.
They actually having to face each other, contrast and compare themselves to each other.
But Governor Christie isn't having to do any of that.
He can go give a speech at the Reagan Library or release a YouTube video,
and there's no challenge on the issues and there's nobody out there disagreeing or contrasting or harping on it.
He can say what he says about global warming or gun control, immigration, what have you,
and he's not getting dirty in the process. Nobody's opposing him.
Nobody is disagreeing with what he's saying.
He has a free ride, so to speak.

Perry, same thing.
Perry had a free ride before he jumped in.
Look at what happened to Perry when he got in.
He announces, he gets in, automatically jumps to the top of the list, becomes the target of everybody on stage.
He's not an accomplished debater and wasn't prepped for it.
Look what has happened to Perry.
Christie is not running that risk. Could be a good strategy.
Christie is out there making these speeches and YouTube videos and they stand all alone.
No disagreement, no challenging to any of it.
But Perry jumped in, very little was said about the specifics of his record.
I'm not attacking his record. I'm just saying it was not as carefully scrutinized.
Christie would go through that, too, if he got in.

So as far as Christie is concerned, there's an understandably good strategy in not getting in now.
Now, at some point he's going to have to.
But he gets a free ride all the way down the road where he's not in.
Once he gets in, everything changes.
Everybody on that stage will be gunning for him,
and things about his record that some of you may not know will surface.
And then you'll be scratching your heads going,
"Gee, can't we all get along?
Why are we tearing each other up?"
Nature of the beast.

But Rubio, Rubio would win in a walkover.
He's conservative. He's articulate. He's great-looking.
He's Hispanic and sounds very smart.
How can he possibly lose?
If this were the Democrat Party,
the party father would probably tell Obama to step aside and let Rubio run,
if Rubio were a Democrat.
There are more Hispanic voters now than there are blacks,
and Rubio's got more experience than Obama had when he decided to run.
I don't know how many times Rubio has voted "present" versus Obama.

Here's Richard, El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, great speaking with you.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: Great to have you, sir.

CALLER: Your theme this morning has been Republican enthusiasm. Of course that equates to the voter turnout.
I understand that one of the major factors in us losing in '08 was that
Republicans were, quote, mad at Bush and many stayed home.
To me, that's ridiculous and childish.
We can't afford another four years of anything close to this socialist agenda.

RUSH: That happened in '06, by the way, too.

CALLER: I'm sure it's happened a number of times.

RUSH: Republicans stayed home because
they were mad at Republicans in Congress spending all the money.

CALLER: Yeah. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where it wasn't a choice of the lesser of the evils.
We've got to make some intelligent choices here
and it's absolutely essential that we must turn out in droves in order to overcome this obstacle.

RUSH: Frankly -- it's still 14 months out -- but I don't think that's a problem here.

CALLER: I hope you're correct.
We have to all do whatever we can to gin up the enthusiasm level and get these people to the polls.
They've got to understand what's at stake.

RUSH: I think they do. I think you'd be surprised.
I think you're going to be stunned. The voter enthusiasm...
The Gallup poll that's out today finds a 27 percentage point lead in voter enthusiasm, Republican over Democrat. (interruption)
Well, frankly, I'm not hearing people saying if it's X, they're not going to vote.
If I start hearing that, I'll talk to them about it. I'll fix it.
I'm not going to put up with that this time.
I'm not going to put up with that, "If it's X I'm not going to vote." (interruption)
Who? (interruption)
No. Shoot them at me!
If you've got some people who say
if Romney is the nominee they're not voting,
shoot them at me.

Let me just say, I haven't actually heard that specifically.
It doesn't surprise me. Some people think that.
I do know that there's a lot of passion for the proposition that Romney can't win,
and that if he does it's not enough to actually start rolling back what's going on.
Anyway, look, the reason why they're not pushing Rubio...
I'm going to answer my own question.
That's what I do.
I ask myself the best questions I'm ever asked and, therefore, I give the best answers.
They're not pushing Rubio because while they praise him, they don't think he has had enough experience yet.

And Rubio is --
sorry to say this, folks -- another example of the RINOs being wrong.
In case you have forgotten, Rubio was not initially supported by the Republican establishment.
Charlie Crist was.
I have not forgotten this.
Crist was supported by the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican millionaires and billionaires.
Crist was supported by McCain and Graham, and on and on.
Rubio was the Tea Party candidate.
Rubio was the conservative candidate, the candidate supported by conservative talk radio.
Rubio was the outsider. But look what's happened.
Now that Rubio has won,
"Oh, yeah, everybody was involved in the campaign!
Everybody had a role in electing Rubio!"

You people have forgotten:
Charlie Crist was the guy,
and Rubio kept coming on and on and on, and the conservative energy behind him and his conservatism triumphed
-- and Crist started talking to Democrats about a role in the party.
The RINOs had nothing to do with Rubio triumphing.
The RINOs weren't even in his camp to start with.
Another reason why they're not pushing Rubio is he's too conservative for them.
With Obama on any ballot, this whole notion of "lesser of two evils," I don't think exists.
Nobody's in that camp on our side.
There is no "almost an Obama" on our side, even Romney.
I think this "lesser of two evils" business gets thrown out, too.
There's a whole lot of conventional wisdom here that's going to be stood on its head before this is all over.
Don't doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Rubio/Crist election is almost a great microcosm of what we are talking about:
The Republican establishment versus an insurgent conservative Tea Party.
If you go back and try to remember that, Rubio came from nowhere.
He was seen as unelectable.
"Way too extreme. Too much of a risk.
Charlie Crist, he's the elected governor. He's the sure bet.
Charlie Crist will give us the majority in the Senate.
Charlie Crist is the way we need to go.
Who cares that Crist may as well have been a Democrat?
We need another (R), somebody who has an (R) beside their name.
We don't care whether they're conservative or not.
We just need the numbers here because we want to be in charge of the money.
We want the committee chairmanships."

You remember who the first prominent politician to support Rubio was?
It was Jim DeMint, South Carolina Senator.
Jim DeMint was the first prominent politician to come out and support Rubio.
Rubio, the outsider, fighting his way in.
Now, after he wins, the RINOs, the establishment come to his side (after Charlie Crist imploded) and they talk him up for vice president.
But don't forget:
There wouldn't be any Marco Rubio in the Senate today
except for the conservative movement and Tea Party movement
and a conservative effort to beat back the establishment.
Rubio, I'm not saying he had no role. Don't misunderstand.
He was, of course, key, but he had the Republican establishment against him.
It's almost, as I say, a microcosm of what we are talking about and facing today as we choose a nominee.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

Weekly Standard: It’s Not About You - William Kristol

New York Post: Christie Seriously Considering Presidential Bid after GOP Prodding

AP: Tea Party Darling Sen. Marco Rubio Writing Memoir



RUSH:

[MamaTexan]

You're as sharp as the leading edge of a basketball.

Oh...how clever. Did you come up with that on your own?

-----

Read the LAW again

Yes, lets!

...and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

Children under 21 years become naturalized citizens at the point in which their parents themselves become naturalized citizens by completing the naturalization process and taking the Oath of citizenship.

A naturalized citizen is not the same as a natural born one.

Had Rubio been born AFTER his parents completed the naturalization process, it might have been a different story, but he wasn't so it isn't.

[La Enchiladita]

Do a keyword search on ‘rubio’ on FR and you will find some reasons to wonder about Marco. He is especially clueless on foreign policy.

[Yosemitest]

How cute that you leave OUT the part of the LAW that applies to Rubio.

I refer you

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790). :
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Well, it's pretty plain that

Rubio IS eligible ... and IS a natural born Citizen.

Mark Levin has a message for you. You can receive it here.

[Yosemitest]

Here's one more straw to put in that pipe you're smoking.

The Fort Myers News-Press rang up some professors this week to bounce the Rubio problem off them.

"There's no serious question because he was born in the USA. Any contrary argument is birther-like silliness," Daniel Takaji, a law professor at Ohio State University, tells the paper. "His parents' immigration status is irrelevant to his U.S. citizenship under the 14th [Amendment]."

Rubio certainly has a better argument to be president than Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate who wasn't even born on U.S. soil. Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became an American state.

A few scholars do want to see the Supreme Court hear arguments over someone like Rubio's candidacy, just to stop these kinds of arguments from erupting from the birth-iest corners of the Interwebs.

Rubio, to his credit, never gave the birthers much credence when Obama was in their crosshairs. When Donald Trump was stirring the birther masses, Rubio told the L.A. Times that he was "more concerned with issues that are happening back here on planet Earth." Either way, the hubbub might be a nonissue for now. His spokesman tells the News-Press that birthers or not, Rubio is not interested in leaving the Senate. "He's not going to be vice president," spokesman Alex Burgos says.

What does all this prove? The "birther" movement can just as easily direct its racism at Republicans as at Dems.

[byteback]

Nixon was the bigger RINO than Ford or Rockerfeller. He gave us wage and price controls, 55 MPH national speed limit and the EPA.

[RobbyS]

No, Nixon was simply pandering to the RINOs or outbidding them. Somewhere along the way, he decided, if you can’t beat them, better join them. But they never quite accepted him.

[MamaTexan]

How cute that you leave OUT the part of the LAW that applies to Rubio.

No, I did not. That part concerns children of naturalized citizens born outside the US. How does that apply to Rubio?

--------

Your quite the cut & paste artist, but what part of DULY NATURALIZED do you not understand?

[Pelham]

Rubio is the poster boy for something called ‘The Hispanic Leadership Network’ co-chaired by Jeb Bush and Carlos Gutierrez.

http://hispanicleadershipnetwork.org/issues/

This is very much a GOP establishment creation. It’s for the sort of “immigration reform” promoted by Jeb and Dubya. Those who believe that Rubio isn’t backed by the GOP establishment are fooling themselves.

The Republicans have been whoring after the latino vote for years now, and Marco Rubio is their golden boy to give it to them. Or so they think. The GOP is called the Stupid Party for a reason.

Having lived through the transformation of California from American suburbia into the capital of the Third World I’ve had all the latino culture I ever care to see. Friends who have left the state over the years feel more strongly about it, it’s one reason they are glad that they left.

I won’t vote for any ticket with Rubio on it because I greatly dislike replacing the historic American people with the latino culture and people, and that’s what his rise to political influence means to me. The GOP, as usual, manages to pick up every bad leftwing idea a generation after the Democrats do.

[lwoodham]

“...but I thought Rubio wasn’t eligible in terms of having both parents being Americans at the time he was born?”

Thanks to the precedent set by our illegal alien president, the only requirement now is that you be born on Earth.

[Yosemitest]

You need to get back on your meds.

Regardless of what may be purported, the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement has never been constitutionally amended

How Liberals Cloud the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen


- Dean C. Haskins Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Bio: Dean Haskins is a freelance writer, professional musician/producer,
and the former chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic, one of the original “birther” organizations.


I don’t know how many times I’ve had this dialogue over the past couple of years,
but it seems those who make it often pride themselves on their ability to type, regardless of the content of their thoughts.
I participate in many discussions in which the Natural Born Citizen requirement of Article II is deceptively convoluted to the point that it is, supposedly, rendered meaningless.
However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem is, if one is not armed with the facts, it might prove difficult for these flawed arguments to be refuted.
The first thing to realize is that when one’s premise is a lie, his conclusion will not be the truth.
Let me give an example.
In some of these dialogues, it is proffered that in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
the Supreme Court ruled that Ark was a citizen “because he was a natural born citizen” at birth.
This premise is easily shown to be a lie,
since what the court actually decided was that Ark was a citizen because he was a NATIVE-BORN citizen at birth.
Nothing at all about the Article II Natural Born Citizen mandate was determined in this case,
but by cunningly substituting one term (native) for another (natural), liberals attempt to undermine the truth.

In another case, Elk v. Wilkins,
liberals try to make the case that the ruling states there are only two types of citizens:
natural born and naturalized.
However, that conjecture is not part of the ruling, but merely part of a justice’s opinion that was published along with the ruling.
Opinions are not laws, and are sometimes erroneous (additionally, even laws are occasionally erroneous—see: Roe v. Wade).

Often, the 14th Amendment is cited as the law that defines the Article II requirement.
This is probably one of the most widespread uses of deception in this arena, as liberals exchange the term “Natural Born Citizen” with “Citizen.”
There are many citizens in this country who cannot be president because they were not natural born citizens
(a determination that is made at the moment of one’s birth).
Moreover, if “citizen,” or even “native born citizen,” were the constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility,
the framers, most of whom were born here, would have had no reason to grandfather themselves into eligibility.

Undoubtedly, until this issue is properly resolved, there will be endless theories fabricated in an attempt to shroud the criminal fraud that has been perpetrated upon the American people;
however, theories about the truth will never stand up against the simple truth itself.
Let me see if I can make this simple enough for even the staunchest of Obots to understand (even if they won’t admit it).

Regardless of what may be purported, the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement has never been constitutionally amended,
so it still remains the law as it pertains to presidential eligibility.
Moreover, the historic definition of the term has never been formally altered.
Accordingly, the only proper way to approach the issue honestly
is to consider it, first, at face value,
and then determine if the issue even merits any further positing.
For the purposes of this discussion, the issue of “why” the requirement was put forth will not be considered—only that it was put forth, and remains the law.

First, the Natural Born Citizen requirement is not mentioned in conjunction with any other constitutionally derived position,
so the framers obviously meant SOMETHING when they included the phrase.
It was a special status of citizen that was reserved for the highest office in the land.
Irrespective of their reasons for doing so,
it must be understood that they perceived it to mean something other than simply “citizen,” or it would not have been included in the presidential requirements.

But, can we know exactly what they understood the term to mean? We absolutely can.
Even though the liberals who make these convoluted arguments try to proclaim Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to be “obscure” and “irrelevant,”
it is far more conspiratorial to believe that Vattel’s definition is not what the framers intended.
Law of Nations defines Natural Born Citizens to be “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Since the framers used Law of Nations as the blueprint for our Constitution,
and they used a term that is found in Law of Nations as part of the law they were penning,
and there is no evidence that any other definition for that term existed at the time of the framing,
is it not just simple logic to understand that,
if they had meant anything other than Vattel’s definition,
they would have clearly specified those variances within the mandate?
They didn’t; so the only honest conclusion is that Vattel’s definition is precisely what the framers penned into law.

Simplified, this is what liberals would have us believe:


• The framers drew heavily from Vattel in writing the Constitution
• The framers stated A (without any caveats)
• Vattel’s was the only definition of A that existed at the time
• A and B are not equivalent
• Liberals claim the framers meant B


Can you see how ludicrous their argument really is?

Clearly, if Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen is obscure and irrelevant,
then so is much of our Constitution—and that is a cogent thought here,
for liberals would actually love for much of our Constitution to be obscure and irrelevant.
In light of the ease with which the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement is clearly understood,
maybe it should be those who fight against the historic definition of the term who should be wearing the tin foil hats.

As Campion pointed out to you in post #50,

This would make Rubio a native born citizen, not a natural born one.

That's a distinction that doesn't exist in the law. Whether it existed in the framer's minds, or in their intentions, or whether it ought to exist, etc., is fine to argue about, but Rubio's eligibility or lack thereof is determined by the law.

The law says that a person born in U.S. territory of parents who are not "under foreign jurisdiction" (not diplomats, foreign military at war with the U.S., etc.) are citizens by birth, and the law does not distinguish between "citizen by birth" and "natural-born".

But your mind is closed, and you won't accept the truth.

[patlin]

The only problem with your scenerio is that Rubio’s parents did not initially APPLY for US citizenship until 4 years AFTER Rubio was born, not before.

[patlin]

That 1790 Act was repealed in 1795 and the words “natural born” were removed, never again to appear, thus it is a moot.

In 1802 Congress revisited the naturalization laws in order to correct abuses that had taken place under the previous administration. The Act of 1802 repealed all previous naturalization Acts and in their place, stated:

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

So, let’s break this down for those that are blinded easily by the chaff that hides the meat of the grain.

parents…united under one allegiance, upon marriage, international law & US state & national law recognized that the wife automatically became a citizen of the husbands country and the husband was the legal representative for the entire family.

the children…those born to alien/foreign parents on American soil

who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject(naturalized citizenship) by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof(laws of the state under the Articles of Confederation) … this refers to the feudal law of subjectship which at birth, naturalized the child of a foreigner and makes that child a subject slave of the state from the moment of birth, regardless of the parents wishes

being under the age of 21 at the time of their parents being naturalized…still a minor and under the authority & protection of the parents

admitted to the rights of citizenship if dwelling in the United States…they could only claim US citizenship if living in the US proper under the authority & protection of their parents who were living in the US & who had become US citizens

In other words, what we have here is the federal government stating in 1802, in no uncertain terms, that birth in this country is not the prerequisite to citizenship. It is the allegiance of the parents, the adults who are the guardians & protectors of the child, and unless the adult parents become citizens, the child has no other option than to try to obtain it at the age of 21. For those whose parents never did obtain US citizenship, the process was made easier and the waiting period was waved as long as the child had lived in and was educated in the US consistently for a certain period of time prior to their coming to the age of 21.

I have found no better voice to this than that of a Mr Saunders of the 28th Congress during debate on naturalization that finally ended with the above law being upheld:

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

[SatinDoll]

Barak Obama has never claimed that he’s a “natural born citizen”.

He has NEVER once claimed to be one - saying only that he was born in Hawaii.

BHO2 is a constitutional scholar. He knows being born in the USA doesn’t equal “natural born citizen”. It only equals being a native born citizen.

[SatinDoll]

You’re wrong. Here’s why.

The following information comes from our government, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, and describes the three statutory types of citizenship - native born (jus solis), derived citizenship (jus sanguinis), and naturalized citizenship.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

CITIZENSHIP

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements.

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents.

Apply for naturalization

*****************************************

Note: all three types of the above are U.S. citizens. All may serve in the U.S.Congress, as either Representatives in the House, or as Senators in the Senate.

Per Article I, Section 2 and 3 of the United State Constitution, Representatives and Senators shall be Citizens of the United States.

The ONLY place “natural born citizen” appears in our national laws is as an eligibility requirement to be President of the United States.

Per Article II, Section 1, clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The eligibility requirement to be President is not the same as that for Congress. Simply being a “citizen” is not enough.

Our founders understood the difference. Here is where the definition exists in national law:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/

ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.

The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor [Minor vs. Happersett] is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.

Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that [Virginia] Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.

The other sources are not necessary. Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor. There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.

On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:

“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism. I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s. I don’t enforce natural law. I suppose God enforces natural law. I enforce United States law. United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ” (Emphasis added.)

Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:

“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”

Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources. We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition. Neither are eligible to be President.

While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor. To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.

Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible. I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility. I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people. And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

*****************************************

I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party seriously considered amending the U.S. Constitution eligibility requirement so that Henry Kissinger (born in Germany) or Arnold Schwarznegger (born in Austria) could run for President. Thank God they didn’t do that and reason prevailed.

As recently as 2006 there was a paper written by Sarah Herlihy claiming that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirment was stupid and prevented the U.S. from being part of the Globalism movement. THAT gave away the real intent of so-called Progressives; that United States sovereignty was a constraint on the establishment of a socialist Global government.

If enough states have in their state constitutions the definition of natural born citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents - it will effectively block the New World Order / Globalist government operatives.

Understand now?

[edge919]

The Supreme Court told us in Wong Kim Ark that NBC is defined outside of the law ... outside of the Constitution. The concept of “citizenship by birth” is defined by the Constitution per the 14th amendment, so there is a legally recognized difference between these terms.

[Yosemitest]

Obama?
We're talking about Marco Antonio Rubio.

How did you get the idea that we were discussing Obama?

[SatinDoll]

Marco Rubio isn’t eligible to be Vice President or President.

He is no more eligible than BHO2.

Both may be native born, but neither is a natural born citizen.

[Squeeky]

OMG, could you all just knock all this Vattle Birther stuff off for the weekend???

[SatinDoll]

OMG, would you just take your Metamucil and sit on the pot!

[Squeeky]

LOL!!! Oh, I have been doing Birther stuff for like two days and writing Internet Articles, and so busy fighting Vattle Birthers I have not had much time to fight the Obotski. Could you maybe just say it about Obama for a few days until I rest up??? Then you can go back to saying it about Rubio and Jindle. Plus, that will give me time to read the funny record cover thread, for which I will promise to use the Jonny Gerts image for the Obotski, and not the Vattle Birthers. Oh Tee Hee!!!