Posted on 03/25/2012 4:24:33 PM PDT by no dems
Another FReeper, on another thread, made a great observation regarding a possibility of Marco Rubio being on the GOP Ticket in 2012. And, I quote:
“Public speculation about his potential for Veep consideration would, in a sane world, bring attention to Obummer’s lack of natural-born citizenship. And if he was not qualified four years ago...”
Wow....that is a great observation. If Rubio is on the Ticket, and his “Natural Born Citizenship” status is questioned, that would open up a demand for a show of proof that Obama is a N-B-C. His fake “record of live birth” that he produced is not sufficient. Talk about a “catch-22” situation for Obama and Co. Oh yeah; that’s what I’m talking about. And, I know that this will not set well with the “birthers” but as for me, I want to see Rubio get the VP nod, now, more than ever. Not to mention the fact that he could help the GOP with their Hispanic vote deficit, he’d also carry Florida; and whoever carries Florida, wins the White House.
I’m not even going to read this thread before responding: You have it exactly backwards. Any controversy about Rubio’s eligibility would undercut those who find Obama not to be a natural-born citizen and undermine our vp candidate. Why would we want this in our presidential race? Only idiots go looking for trouble.
That is one definition of citizen.
But the discussion is about eligibility. Not citizenship.
"under the jurisdiction" means those who are responsible and liable to U.S. laws. Diplomats have protected immunity from U.S. laws that apply to U.S. Citizens. That's why they have the exclusion for those born in this country of foreign Diplomat or authorized foreign government representatives. Those individuals are not "under the jurisdiction" of the United States.
You may not like that. I may not like that. However, the law is clear, a person BORN in this country is a "U.S. Citizen by Birth" with the exception of those born of foreign diplomats.
“.........the laws of the country are clear as they stand now, and as they have stood since the “14th Amendment” was enacted.
There is NO ‘third class’ of LEGAL citizenship presently. There are only TWO!”
************************************************************
Perhaps if we take this one baby step at a time we might get somewhere.
Baby Step 1: Does your wording above indicate that, based upon your vast knowledge of the Constitution and the law, you believe that up until the “14th Amendment” there WERE three “classes” of citizenship with “natural born citizen” being one of them?
Please let me know if you think I am getting, as you put it, “emotional” by disagreeing with you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that "eligibility" to anything is determined by enacted laws and regulations to define your eligibility. Therefore, if you want to talk about "eligibility" to a position that requires one to be a U.S. "citizen", you have to talk about what are the 'laws and regulations' in being a United States "citizen".
The Constitution refers to an individual having to be a "citizen". What kind of citizen? A "natural born Citizen".
You can only become a U.S. "citizen" by either 1 of 2 ways. By "birth" and by "naturalization", which currently provides for the 2 legal citizenship status in this country.
Show me any law or regulation with respect to being a "U.S. Citizen" where you have 3 classes of U.S. Citizenship where you don't fit into the first 2?
Those who want to 'define' a separate distinction for those being BORN HERE as being a "Natural Born Citizen", versus those being BORN HERE but not being a "Natural Born Citizen", are creating a third type of citizenship status that is not defined currently under any legal protection.
I am not aware of any evidence (regulatory or judicial) that there has ever been three classes of U.S. citizenship, with "natural born" being a distinct class of citizenship. What the courts have done over the years is rule on whether or how an individual fell into either one of the two classes of citizenship.
Maybe you should read the thread before responding, or not respond at all, then people wouldn’t know just how ignorant you really are.
I see......then according to you the 14th Amendment changed the qualification requirements for obtaining the office of the presidency? It's strange that this information is no where to be found in the Amendment itself.
Precedent in many Supreme Court rulings has indicated that "Any clause in the Constitution is intended to have effect". Chief Justice Marshall (Marbury v. Madison 1803) said, "We cannot interpret the Constitution in a manner that renders a portion of the Constitution to be without effect".
The "Natural Born Clause" was inserted into the document for a precise reason and the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with it. The Constitution does not specify the precise meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" so we must resort to other documents to ascertain the meaning (Minor v Happersett 1874). This ruling occurred after the 14th amendment.....so obviously the Supreme Court is still seeking the precise explanation. Wouldn't this indicate to you that the Court itself considered the "Clause" to still be Constitutional?
Here is the ruling from (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 1898):
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." ... The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
Again......years after the 14th Amendment was ratified......the Court is still dealing with the issue. The 14th Amendment did not have anything to do with the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of Article II Section I of the Constitution.
No. The 14th didn't "change" anything other than re-enforce and acknowledged that one could become a United States "citizen" by either being "born" or "naturalized" in the United States.
From the Congressional Research Service: (Page 2)
"There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President."
That's correct. It acknowledged that one could become a citizen by being "born" in the U.S. or "Naturalized" by the U.S. We are in agreement. It says nothing about folks who are "Natural Born Citizens". You can be born in this country..... but yet not be a "Natural Born Citizen".....but still be considered a citizen. You just cannot run for the presidency.
The Constitution no where defines the term "Natural Born Citizen" so we must look elsewhere for a definition. Because it no where defines the term.... the 14th Amendment does not affect it. The 14th Amendment addresses the problem of freed slaves and their citizenship distinctions. Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment each individual state had the right to determine who and what were citizens within their own borders. States varied in their requirements but usually free "White" children born within that particular state (except children of foreign ambassadors and nomads) were considered citizens of that state.
The 14th Amendment defined a particular group of people who were born or naturalized in the U.S. and were subject to the jurisdiction thereof at the time of their birth. The 14th Amendment required each state to recognize the citizenship of these folks. The Amendment does not say anything about the meaning of "Natural Born Citizens". The notion that it implies folks born on U.S. soil are "Natural Born Citizens" is not consistent with the clause which states: "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Now.....did the Supreme Court of the land know the meaning behind the words "Natural Born Citizen". Of course they did! In 1856 the infamous Dred Scott decision was rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taney rendered the opinion of the Court which was echoed by Justice Daniel in his own opinion which included these words:
"By this same writer it is also said: 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.' (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)
From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow, that with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact; that one thus situated could be no party to, or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave."
Definition of Unexceptionable: incapable of being criticized: good enough to provide no reason for criticism or objection
There are.....and always have been three classifications of Citizens. "Natural Born Citizen"....born to Citizen Parents. "Citizen"....born in U.S. to Alien Parents. And "Naturalized Citizens"....born abroad and fulfilled the Constitutional requirements for Citizenship.
The reason these things are not readily understood by many 21st century Americans (perhaps by you as well) is the simple fact that the Constitution has not been taught in our public Schools for perhaps 50 years or so. When I was in grade school we were taught (circa 1950/55) what "Natural Born Citizens" were and we indeed had one young girl in our class whose parents had been displaced persons from Eastern Europe who were immigrant Aliens in this country when their daughter had been born in 1942. I can remember our teacher telling us that, "Yes....she is a citizen..... but since mom and dad were not yet citizens she was not considered Natural Born".
I since have not heard of her attempting a run for the presidency.
Diego,
I was ok with your first two paragraphs, then you took a bad turn (into extreme ‘Birther’ territory), by pulling out the entirely destroyed Dred Scott decision and the slave proponents Taney and Daniel, who in their majority opinions for attempting to justify their demented rationale in support of slavery, went completely out of their way to pull quotes from a foreigner’s writings (Vatel) to justify why blacks/slaves could not possibly be citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
Taney and Daniel were not loyal to the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution, they perverted it’s interpretation (along with their twisted logic and rationale expressed in their opinions) to fit their political agenda of supporting the South and slavery.
The 14th amendment was ultimately a MOAB meant to destroy the entire foundation and rationale that went into that “infamous” Dred Scott decision.
I find it disgusting and reprehensible that those now claiming to be “true patriots” and “defenders of the Constitution”, would resort to rationale and opinion wordings used to pervert the meaning of the U.S. Constitution for the purposes of supporting slavery. Taney could have just declared Dred Scott not have “standing” due to not be a citizen, but Taney/Daniels at the end decided to go further to say that blacks were not meant to be part of the U.S. Constitution and used the Vatel quotes to further their demented claim.
To be clear, I don’t find the folks “reprehensible”, I find the ‘methodology/rationale’ reprehensible.
Although the headline of the FR link claims otherwise, there is a legitimate dispute about the phrase “natural-born citizen”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2785458/posts
The Federalist Society has had at least one debate on the subject.
Files of case law for the side Obama doesn’t like have disappeared from the Justia records.
Whichever side is right, is does not make sense for Republicans and others to bring this dispute into a very important election—to their detriment.
The point is......the Supreme Court (itself) has validated the source of the term "Natural Born Citizen". The fact they did it 70 years after the framers included the term in the Constitution should be proof enough for even diehard believers like yourself (who insist it means the same as "Citizen")......to see your error!
Calling me a "Birther" is actually laughable. If it's one thing I'm not......it's a "Birther". I don't care where the dummy was born.....he's not a "Natural Born Citizen". It's a moot point whether he was born in Hawaii.....or Timbuctu! His father was a British subject.....which according to British law made him one also. This point alone disqualifies him from ascending to the Presidency! He is not and was not a "Natural Born Citizen". He may have been born in Hawaii. Who cares! He was still born to a non Citizen which then (according to U.S. law) just makes him a citizen.......and not eligible for the Presidency. Why you folks cannot understand this simple concept is totally beyond me.
The fact that I mentioned the "Infamous" Dred Scott decision evidently went right over your head. Sure they were segregationists! Sure they were racists! So what! They identified the source of the term "Natural Born Citizen" and why it was entered into the wording of the Constitution........and they did it under the auspices of the Supreme Court! Would you not believe if they knew the origination of the term......most likely the framers of the Constitution (70 years earlier) probably knew it as well.
Taney and Daniel were not loyal to the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution, they perverted it’s interpretation (along with their twisted logic and rationale expressed in their opinions) to fit their political agenda of supporting the South and slavery.
Why? If Vattel....and his mid 18th century tome did not spell it out......where do you think the framers came up with the phrase? Did they just pluck it out of the air?
The 14th amendment was ultimately a MOAB meant to destroy the entire foundation and rationale that went into that “infamous” Dred Scott decision.
The 14th Amendment does not (for the umpteenth time) mention "Natural Born Citizen" and has nothing to do with the qualifications of Presidential aspirants.
I find it disgusting and reprehensible that those now claiming to be “true patriots” and “defenders of the Constitution”, would resort to rationale and opinion wordings used to pervert the meaning of the U.S. Constitution for the purposes of supporting slavery. Taney could have just declared Dred Scott not have “standing” due to not be a citizen, but Taney/Daniels at the end decided to go further to say that blacks were not meant to be part of the U.S. Constitution and used the Vatel quotes to further their demented claim.
Cry me a river! It was not an opinion. It was spelled out in Vattel's work! You are the one perverting the obvious meaning of those words and attempting to appear "High and Mighty" in your phoney disgust of a Supreme Court ruling which substantiates the very thing I have been saying. "Natural Born" means born of two citizen parents. Elementary!
To be clear, I don’t find the folks “reprehensible”, I find the ‘methodology/rationale’ reprehensible.
I just had no idea you were such a perfect person.
I can appreciate the antipathy towards Obama (which I share) and the need to remove him from office (which I also share), but the only forceful case against him is whether he was BORN HERE or not. A legitimate BC would prove that. Venturing into the “Natural Born” definition and how many parents were citizens, will get you nowhere. A complete distraction, waste of time, and providing more fodder for the ‘kook fringe’ narrative. You can talk all you want about “Constitution” “Patriots”, whatever, if you have to pull out ‘majority opinions’ from “infamous” Dred Scott decision to support your point, you are doing a disservice to the Constitution.
I wasn’t referring to Dred Scott.
I would like to have the question settled by SCOTUS, but that is not my main concern. I would just like to avoid dragging this dispute into our presidential race this year.
I keep saying that but no one seems to listen.
I agree with you. And sorry about the last sentence. I copied/pasted in my response to you incorrectly.
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.