Posted on 01/14/2016 11:29:42 AM PST by GIdget2004
Marco Rubio's lawyers are defending his eligibility to run for president in a quixotic legal challenge that alleges he isn't a natural-born citizen.
A Florida voter filed the suit, which claims that the senator isn't a true "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution because his parents were not both U.S. citizens at his birth in Miami.
The challenge occurs as 2016 rival Ted Cruz has been thrust into the spotlight by repeated "birther" challenges by party front-runner Donald Trump and other critics because the Texas senator was born in Canada.
So far, only Cruz has faced significant questions from those challenging his natural-born status. But the legal brief shows Rubio's lawyers trying to cut down the accusations at an early level.
The 34-page document, first disclosed by the Tampa Bay Times, casts aside the claim, noting that under the voter's logic "at least six other Presidents of the United States were not natural born citizens and were therefore ineligible for that office."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Good news for Rubio and for Cruz as well.
This sounds like it was written by an idiot.
No, there was only one, (prior to Obama) and he did everything he could to keep people from finding out about it, including lying about his year of birth.
No, all but one President were natural born citizens, except for the very first ones who were grandfathered in under article II.
If both situations are okay, then a person could be born outside the USA with no parents that are US citizens and that would be okay.
How crazy is that? We could end up with a president for a multiple of countries and the end of sovereignty.
George Washington’s parents weren’t US citizens, either.
“Good news for Rubio and for Cruz as well.”
Explain how it’s good news for either one of them.
”A Florida voter filed the suit, . . .”
The idea of an ordinary voter filing suit is a sharp contrast to the ”no standing” that many people got from the courts when Obama was likewise challenged.
Asking for the case to be thrown out on “standing” does the U.S. no favors.
Pointing to prior Presidents does not necessarily prove anything, unless courts ruled on the matter. How many kept the facts of their births and parentage secret until they had served or were at least seated.
No court ever ruled on the merits of Obama’s elibility.
Irrelevant and you know it.
That said, would George Washington want a Duke born in the 19th century to run for POTUS?
Btw, for those that don’t know - a Duke outranks Earl, Baron, Viscount and Marquess on the chain of nobility.
Chester Arthur was not eligible, because his father was British and did not naturalize as a U.S. citizen until long after the birth of Chester Arthur.
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? Why is the word “natural” inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. That is, there is no natural allegiance of the offspring to one or the other parent’s country. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. [footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throught much of the world and the Founders wished to forstall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
Rubio is a “Dreamer”....born here of two foreign born parents...this explains his support for Dreamer legislation and amnesty! My God, at least Cruz had one US citizen parent!
Why are we just hearing about this now? Hmmmm!
The constitution specifically grandfathers in everyone who was a citizen (of any type) when the constitution was enacted:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
Funny how they differentiated between every type of citizen AND a natural born citizen.
Excellent analysis. Technically Obama was disqualified as well since his father was a British citizen at his birth.
“George Washington’s parents weren’t US citizens, either.”
Duh! Thats why the Constituion says words to the effect that only a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution can be President. They grandfathered themselves in.
After that it was supposed to be natural born meaning born in the US of two US citizen parents.
No they couldn’t. Your straw man arguement is incorrect.
I know. It is irrelevant. Especially with the precedent of an Indonesian-Kenyan in the White Hut.
What a mess. For sanity’s sake, BOTH Cruz and Rubio should get out of the race. This is not going to go away; the Dems and their toadies in the press will make this the ONLY issue if either gets the nomination.
How can Republicans make a case for either when it has been eight years of questioning the half breed’s eligibility? And now the GOP wants to nominate someone who is going to reignite the controversy.
Unless it is the Uniparty’s intent to destroy another piece of the Constitution, paving the way for a President Mohammed from Iran!
“If both situations are okay, then a person could be born outside the USA with no parents that are US citizens and that would be okay.”
I have to disagree with you there. Both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz should be eligible to be president. Under your logic, children of diplomats, military families, missionaries and others would become second class citizens, even though their parents are American citizens.
I agree that US-born children of illegal immigrants shouldn’t be citizens but I don’t think Rubio’s parents were illegals. As for Cruz, his mother was a native-born American so he should be covered. Allowing them to run for president by no means allows a foreigner to become president. That’s why Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be allowed to run.
Citizenship descends through the mother. The Jews figured that a few thousand years ago.
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.