Posted on 04/27/2012 8:24:47 AM PDT by vadum
According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nation’s chief executive.
How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.
For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.
Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot. Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!
Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.
Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.
Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.
John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
I wonder if this thread will get any posts.
/s
Ah, so this is why the feckless republicans have allowed little barry bastard to negate the founders’ declarations and defy the Constitution: the treacherous Republicans planned to do the same thing when it suited them to do so. And which of the two socialist/commie parties are you working for, vadumb?
Well, that pretty much captures the simple-minded view.
..but, but, but... we’ve been told that some Frenchman at the time of the founding defined Natural Born as both Citizen parents and Domestic birth and that French law should apply here.
Actually, Rubio has another technicality that could help him above even that argument. Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war. There is a case to be made that they did have protectorate citizenship.
I am curious about another issue though. The big argument on NBC is regarding ‘dual allegiance’. How does this apply to Native Americans. ‘Tribes’ (they are called Nations) have a special place under US law in which they have their own governments and can establish their own laws, etc. I’m both a Natural Born US Citizen as well as a ‘citizen’ of the Citizen Band Pottawatomie Nation. Would someone consider this ‘dual allegiance’?
To get more to the point of what the founder’s intended in the Constitution, I would do a simple test. At the age of 18, could the person in question have chosen to become a citizen of a country other than the United States? As a matter of law that person could have divided loyalties.
I may be wrong, but I believe that Rubio could not have become a citizen of Cuba at the age of majority.
But all that aside, the Dems have trumped the citizenship issue for any candidate until 0bama is declared an unlawful President. Because he clearly had the right to citizenship in another country by right of birth. Hell, me may still have the right to do so.
If Rubio would be a citizen were there no laws making him one, then and only then would he be a natural born citizen. That's what 'natural' means.
"Natural born" as in "vaginal born" not Cesarean Section, right?
Stupid me.
I didn’t know Human Events was so uninformed and a bunch of liars.
I need not spend my short life reading anything from them again.
And if Zak is monitoring this thread, how about these two individuals, both my sons, and both quite clear in their understanding that while they might be citizens-by-birth, they are NOT NBCs.
1. Born in Jakarta, Indonesia, US Citizen father, non-US Citizen mother, 1977
2. Born in Boulder, Colorado, US Citizen father, non-US CItizen mother, 1979
But since both were granted citizenship at the moment of their births due to the circumstances of their births, they are NBCs - according to Zak.
My question to Zak is, therefore, by what mechanism, other than by statute, would US citizenship have devolved upon them?
Really? And what "French law" exactly?
“Who is this IGNORANT idiot. Maybe he should read a book, or just google NBC before he embarrasses himself with this article.”
He already did.
If Barack Hussein is considered NBC, and serving, and not deposed by congress or SCOTUS, with Kenyan citizenship of his father, then Rubio is also NBC.
My problem with Rubio is not his NBC status in 2012, it is NEE. (not enough experience)
“Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war.”
If that isn’t a strech!!!!!
No evidence that he comprehended any of it, though.
Neither Obama, Rubio, nor Romney are eligible.
Now THAT is a very interesting question. It seems to me that tribal “sovereignty” is superseded whenever something important (e.g. tax revenue etc.) is at stake.
For example, in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (SCOTUS, 2005) the court looked at a case in which the tribe imposed its own tax on gasoline sales and had sued to block collection of the state tax.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court held that the Kansas tax is “nondiscriminatory” and “poses no affront to the [Potawatomi] nation’s sovereignty.”
Guy was referencing Vattel, who wrote about civil law, which was based on old Roman law.
The US Constitution and US laws in general are based rather in common law, an almost entirely separate code based on centuries of English judicial decisions.
The common law definition of how one becomes a citizen is quite different from the civil law definition.
IMO the Founders intended the normal, common law definition of legal terms unless they explicitly state otherwise.
Rubio the globalist ?
He sounds polished and smooth, but...
Rubio Praises U.N., World Bank, IMF for Not Asserting ‘Narrow American Interests’
Search the web for the above story...
I’ll make a post of it.
I would not vote for him for any office he ran for.
He’s simply building his “Senate career” in his personal pursuit of the Presidency.
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.