Posted on 02/20/2016 8:52:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Now Donald Trump is questioning Marco Rubio' eligibility for the presidency.
In a tweet Saturday, Trump shared a video of what appears to be an attorney making a bizarre case that not only Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, but Rubio, whose parents immigranted from Cuba, is not eligible to become president.
In the tweet to his 6.3 million followers, Trump quoted a message sent to him by another Twitter user, who at the time appeared to have five followers: "@realDonaldTrump Mr. Trump...BOTH Cruz AND Rubio are ineligible to be POTUS! It's a SLAM DUNK CASE!! Check it!"
The tweet links to a video on the website of the Powdered Whig Society, a group that says it is dedicated "to the restoration and strict obedience to the United States Constitution."
The 12-minute video shows an unidentified woman who is purported to be a litigation attorney describe what it means to be a natural born citizen. She argues that both Rubio and Cruz are citizens, but not "natural born citizens" according to the Constitution, which says only natural born citizens may become president.
Rubio was born in Miami. That makes him a natural born U.S. citizen under the Constitution. But the unnamed woman in the video Trump posted says he is not a "naturalized citizen," because his citizenship is defined under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. If not for this "man-made law," she says Rubio would have been born a "resident alien," the same status of his parents, both of whom were Cuban nationals.
The supposed attorney later goes on to call Congress using laws to change the original text of the Constitution as "ridiculous."
"In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definition the framer's use, otherwise texts become like Play-Doh. They mean whatever you want them to mean to get the outcome you want," she says.
Cruz, who was born in Canada to father who was a Cuban national and an American mother. Some legal scholars says that leaves his eligibility to run for president in question. But the supposed attorney makes a far more questionable case. She argues that when the Constitution was written, a woman's legal identity was subsumed into her husband's. That would also disqualify Cruz, she says, because it is necessary that he be born of a father who is a citizen.
When the Constitution was written in the 1780s, the purported attorney says all the framers knew what a natural born citizen was, using a definition provided in Swiss philosopher and legal expert Emerich de Vattel's book on political philosophy The Law of Nations. In it, she says, a child's status as a citizen is defined as being inherited from the father, and that it does not matter where the child is born.
Like his eye color, citizenship is "inherited by his parents, it's in his blood," she says. "Not an act of Congress."
Scroll down for video
What am I misleading upon? The rules of citizenship, whether natural or naturalized, have been clear from the founding of this nation. There are actions a natural or naturalized person may do that causes them to renounce their US citizenship, either tacitly or by consent.
The topic of the original discussion was the use of Vattel, to which some say the US Supreme Court has never used in determining citizenship. It is clear by the Supreme Court’s use of Vattel for this very purpose in the Venus case of 1814 that they are wrong in that assumption they make.
Maybe nothing. That's why I asked if you had a legal education or experience. I'm not arguing the rules of citizenship. All I've done in this discussion is point out that The Venus is not a citizenship case, and that the chunk of Vattel presented was presented by the dissent, and that how the merchant (who wanted to keep his property) acquired his US citizenship was not an issue AT ALL.
The reference to Vattel is fine, but "The Venus" didn't apply Vattel's observations for assigning citizenship. Plus, if you read Vattel carefully, you see that he is an observer of law, and says 9as to acquisition of citizenship) that not all countries have the same law.
I expect neophytes to make mistakes when they read and "apply" cases; and even experienced jurists do too. But it is quite common for lawyers to take up a case an misrepresent it ON PURPOSE, TO MISLEAD. The only way to tell, with the lawyers, is to have approximately the same skill level, and "argue the case, and the law," and see if/how they make corrections or concessions within their argument.
I understand that and that is why I no longer apply Vattel as I did nine years ago, out of ignorance from lack of education in the subject of law. What we must apply is the text of the laws passed by the legislatures of the states after they declared their independence from Great Britain. Virginia is the easiest available example for this, especially since it was the work of Thomas Jefferson, the then Governor of Virginia, whom St. George Tucker's Commentaries on Blackstone covers quite extensively. It was the states who determined the natural born, not the federal government:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Pretty soon The Trump Law Suit Machine will be questioning whether he is eligible to run.
That worked until the 14th amendment was ratified, and I'm of a mind that the term of art "natural born citizen" stands independently of the VA statute, and likely of the constitutions and statutes of the several states. Your blockquote of VA law describes citizens, and does not necessarily define NBC even for purposes of VA law. Note that the blockquote allows a person to become a citizen by immigrating from another state, for example, or by a process that we would call naturalization (oath of residence and allegiance).
I do appreciate your letting me know that you are approximately a layman on the law, and it appears to me that you are making an earnest and honest effort.
Blackstone and Tucker on Blackstone are excellent resources. So is Vattel. All of them are "scholars," and make few errors in observation and statement of the law. it is important to note that none of them MAKE the law, they merely observe it.
As far as I remember Florida is part of the United States.
Actually, because of trump supporters idiocy I no longer support him, as well as his unstable mental state.
There is that little thing called the Constitution. It specifies that a candidate must be natural born. The Naturalization Act of 1790 defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.
Also, at that time, and it is locked into the Constitution, citizenship descended from the father only.
Naturalization laws do not change the Constitution. It can only be changed through amendment process.
Rubio’s parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his birth. He is barely a citizen, much less a natural born citizen.
It’s only trump supporters that say Rubio is barley a citzen and call Cruz Canadian, it is disgusting.
I think the country deserves a leader with a heart connection to the country. Obviously, they don’t, especially Rubio.
We need that after 8 years of Obama. Obama shows the wisdom of the Founders when they inserted the natural born clause into the Constitution.
If that had been enforced, Obama would never have been president.
You can become a citizen by birth or by naturalization. I don’t believe there is a third “preferred “ level of citizenship given to those who are born here of parents who are US citizens.>>>
you are probably correct as it seem the simplest reasoning
Sort of reminds me of Tiger Woods father’s attitude...
You are a sick twisted individual, probably why you support trump.
“There is no support for this.”
There is...
The Supreme Court is not of your mind in that they ruled that the Constitution does indeed define NBC.
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Justice Gray delivering the opinion of the court,
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
"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," and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized.
Prior to the 13th & 14th Amendments, not all black persons born in & living in the United States were subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States, in that they did not have the right to vote or hold public office. Though they had always been completely subject to the United States for civil purposes, they lacked the political & that is the key. Only by citizenship does one become subject to the political jurisdiction, thereby, making them completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
And this is where most fail, they fail to understand that there are different jurisdictions and in law, jurisdiction matters as to whether a court has authority to receive & hear a case.
I am of the opinion that the many cases that have been brought challenging eligibility, although they do begin in the proper courts who have jurisdictional authority over controversies that might arise from the ballots, it is the lack of standing of those bringing the lawsuits, because how can a voter be injured if they have several choices on a ballot to choose from, many of whom are constitutionally qualified. I am of the opinion that it is the qualified candidates who would be injured by the unqualified candidates taking votes away from them. Now whether the courts see it that way is up to them to decide.
As far as Blackstone, I believe he is a good source for learning the anatomy of the judicial system & how it works, however, he was a jurist of British feudal law and we must never presume to use feudal law, especially that of Great Britain, when interpreting United States law where the sovereignty does not reside with a king or monarch, but with the states & citizens of those states. The natural increase of a nation's population comes from the citizenry of that nation, it does not come from the increase of aliens residing in the nation who are not subject to the political jurisdiction of the states & the federal government that represents the states as a whole in the powers given to the federal government by the states as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.(Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol 2, Ch. 11, pg 431-443)
Have you studied The Work's of Justice James Wilson?
OK, for the grammatically challenged, let's take it step at a time:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States,
It says or which means both qualifiers need not be true. The person can be "natural born" or just a "Citizen of the United States." Let's continue:
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;
Is the US Constitution now in force? Is it currently the adopted law of the land? It was the last time I looked. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? I ask again. What's not to understand about Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution?
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.