Trump 'slam dunk' tweet questions Rubio's eligibility to run

Washington Examiner ^ | February 20, 2016 | Daniel Chaitin

[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

[patlin]

I would like to revisit the term of art ‘domicil(e)’ as it matters much in determining the national character (citizenship) of a person and the reason it was used in the Venus case.

Joseph Story, The Conflict of Laws

First, the place of birth of a person is considered as his domicil, if it is at the time of his birth the domicil of his parents. Patris originem unusquisque sequatur*. This is usually denominated the domicil of birth or nativity, domicilium originis. But, if the parents are then on a visit, or on a journey, (in itinere), the home of the parents (at least if it is in the same country) will be deemed the domicil of birth or nativity.

Secondly, the domicil of birth of minors continues, until they have obtained a new domicil. Thirdly, minors are generally deemed incapable, proprio marte, of changing their domicil during their minority; and, therefore, they retain the domicil of their parents; and if the parents change their domicil, that of the infant children follows it; and if the father dies, his last domicil is that of the infant children.

Dig. Lib. 50, tit 1,1. 27, §2; Pothier Pand. Lib. 50, tit. 1, n. 18; Somerville v. Somerville, 5 Vesey, 750, 786, 790; 2 Domat, Public Law, B. 1, tit 16, § 3, p. 462; Id. art 6; Post, $ 47.

a Cod. Lib. 10, tit 31,1. 36; 2 Domat, Public Law, B. I, tit. 16, § 3, art. 10; 1 Boullenois, Observ. 4, p. 53; Voet, ad Pand. Lib. 5, tit 1, n. 91, 92, 100. See Scrimshire r. Scrimshire, 2 Hagg. Eccl. R. 405, 406; Cochin, (Euvres, Tom. 5, p. 5, 6; Id. 698, 4to. edit.

3 Dr. Laeber's Encyc. Amer. art Domicil; Pothier, Cout'd Orleans, ch. 1, art 10.12; Somerville e. Somerville, 5 Vesey, 750, 787; 1 Boullenois, Observ. 4, p. 53.

4 Dig. Lib. 50, tit 1,1.9; Pothier, Pand. Lib. 50, tit 1, n. 3.

(for definitions of domicil refer to page 1052 of the commentary)

* Fifthly; Children born upon the sea are deemed to belong, and to have their domicil in the country, to which their parents belong.6

^ 49. From these considerations and rules the general conclusion may be deduced, that domicil is of three sorts; domicil by birth, domicil by choice, and domicil by operation of law.

Vattel.Lib. l,ch. 19, § 213.

a The Venua, 8 Cranch, 278, 281; The Frances, 8 Cranch, 335; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 12; Bempde t>. Johnstone, 3 Ves. 198, 202; The Friendschaft, 3 Wheaton, R. 14; Ommany .••. Bingham, cited 5 Ves. jr. 756, 757, 765.

Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19, § 217; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 13, 27; The Josephine, 4 Rob. 26.

s Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19, § 216; Dr. Leibert Encyc. Araer. art Domicil.

The term of art ‘domicil(e)’ as used in the law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution meant the permanent residence of the parents in the country of which their political allegiance was tied to. A child born without the ‘domicil(e) of the parents was held to have been born in & to the allegiance of the ‘domicil(e)’ of the parents. Not until modern times has the definition of the term been dumbed down), thereby changing the nature of the meaning of the word to refer to soil only rather than that of political allegiance. And make note, that it is the father's ‘domicil(e)’ that determines that of the child, as the wife's ‘domicil(e)’ is also that of her husband. Thus it wasat the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Resident aliens, not being members of the ‘political society’, can not confer to their children that which they do not possess themselves.

But even Blackstone agrees that it is the father who confers nationality at birth,

Blackstone's Commentaries (1765) ... To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]

"Jus Sanguinis" ... Nationality of children is that of their fathers

[little jeremiah]

Placemark.

[eastexsteve]

Don’t leave out the context, “or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution” which covered our first 8 President’s. Nice attempt to twist the facts to your situation. Are you really that ignorant or just a disruptor? We’ve been having eligibility arguments in these threads for years and you quote “a citizen of the United States as your argument?”

LOL! You're leaving out the comma before the phrase "or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution.." Sorry, but punctuation has a purpose. Stop changing the context to suit yourself and read it for what it says.

[Cboldt]

You may notice that these fellows are describing certain statutes. The statutes in fact say what they say, and there is a history of them. Just read the cites for what they are, academic/clinical review of law that exists somewhere, at some point in time. Those observations DO NOT CREATE the law that operates in the US. If you want to know the law in the US, you need to look at the US law. By the constitution, and by SCOTUS precedents, 100% of people born abroad, if they are citizens, they are naturalized. Vattel and Blackstone would agree that the constitution, statutes, and case law establish that. It's a clinical observation of what the law is.

Noticing the born abroad case does not dispose of the born in the US case. IF you apply the rule you highlighted, Rubio is a Cuban, period.

[Cboldt]

I also notice you cherry picked out of Blackstone ... just saying, if you had legal training, and did that, and tried to blow smoke up my ass that you'd made an accurate presentation of Blackstone, we'd be done talking. I'd know you were dishonest, and life is too short to argue with liars in chatrooms.

[theoilpainter]

I don’t know your academic/professional background; you don’t know mine. I will tell you that I have a JD and “evaluate” legal arguments for a living.

I respect the fact that you think your position is the correct one, just as I understand that there are law professors that claim that the 2nd Amendment only refers to militias. I think both are wrong.

Constitutional arguments are rarely “simple”. I see no support for the proposition that there are three levels of citizenship: naturalized, born here, and born here of parents who are citizens. I do not believe that an appellate court who so rule, absent a desire to skew an election for partisan reasons. Your claim that Cruz and Rubio are not eligible seems to be an attempt to introduce an element of doubt in the race in an attempt to attract voters to Trump. This is not a principled legal analysis, but a political one. I will accept it as such.

[Republican Wildcat]

Bizarre?? She’s 100% correct. The only bizarre ppl are the ones controrting the Constitution to somehow claim Cruz and Rubio are eligible.

She is 100% wrong - as are you. It is very easy to look up what the teams "Natural Born Citizen" means and what it meant at the time the Framers wrote it into the Constitution. Likewise, it is very easy to look up the multiple court cases where this has been adjudicated to prove this notion to be false as false can be.

[theoilpainter]

I have replied to another post, and stated my position therein. If you have a case to cite for the proposition that there are three levels of citizenship (naturalized, born in the USA, and born in the USA of parents who are USA citizens), please pass it along, as I would very much like to read it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There was language in the statutes of the time that used the term “Natural born citizen.”

Well, time passed and the statutes got revised, and the term never reappeared!

Most people went on the assumption that this restricted it to birth in American territory of a child of citizen parents.

I continue to dig in to the position “At best, not so all-fired clear.”

[Republican Wildcat]

False as false can be. His parents were legally in the United States and he was born in the United States. That is a Natural Born Citizen - that is what the term meant at the time the Constitution was written. This matter has been adjudicated in multiple court cases as well. Long ago settled law. You “honestly” can’t understand it, but haven’t bothered to inform yourself on the issue and then impugn those who actually took the time to research it and know what they are talking about. Then you say it is the same as illegal immigrants having children, which Rubio’s parents were not. It’s fine not to support Cruz or Rubio, but nonsensical attacks against their citizenship is nothing short of outrageous and shameful behavior.

[Sun]

“He’ll probably sue Robio too. /s”

LOL

I was going to post that now that Rubio is getting too close, Trump will probalby “suggest” that Rubio is ineligible, but before I did, Trump already did it.

NEXT STEP, Trump will call Rubio names and tell more LIES about him.

[Forty-Niner]

NBC is a restrictive term used by the Framers to prevent anyone that is not 100% American from holding the Office of the President. It requires that the parents of a prospective Presidential office holder have an American pedigree.

A puppy born of two Poodles in a Poodle kennel is a Poodle.

A puppy born of a Poodle mom and a Great Dane dad in a Labrador Kennel is a canine.....and a mutt.

A puppy born in a Poodle kennel to 2 Labradors is a Labrador.

When writing the Constitution I don’t think that the Framers wanted to include a man born in Canada to a Cuban father as eligible for the Presidency. Nor would they have considered a US born child of two Cubans as meeting their goal of an American pedigree. Both may be US citizens either born or naturalized, but neither is a Natural Born Citizen whose citizenship flowed naturally from the citizenship of his parents.

How can either Cruz or Rubio claim to be Conservatives/Constitutionalists while ignoring Article II?

[Forty-Niner]

To hide the fact that his father was a Kenyan National and therefore he (Jr) was ineligible to become President. Note that Obama NEVER says he is a NBC. He always just says I was born here I am a citizen.....Obama never lies here....he just doesn't tell the whole truth....,.

[Cboldt]

Elk v, Wilkins take on "subject to the jurisdiction" part of the 14th amendment (which I find to be the correct one), was reconstrued by SCOTUS in the WKA case.

Further, Elk v. Wilkins is probing plain citizenship, and if the rule of Elk v. Wilkins is applied, would find that Rubio is not even a citizen because his parents were not completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the US.

WKA doesn't necessarily make children born to illegal aliens into citizens, but that is how it has been applied. I note that just to plant the seed that the spectrum from alien to citizen to NBC, for persons born on US soil, in one of the several states, varies as the parents range from armed invader belligerents, to illegal aliens, to sojourners, to legal permanent residents, to citizens.

Back to the Elk v. Wilkins case and NBC ... you will find writings from the time the 14th amendment was passed that express that the 14th amendment does not change or affect NBC. If that is taken as true, a case that applies the 14th amendment is not going to be defining NBC. Such a case might EXCLUDE a person from NBC, as Rogers v. Bellei and WKA do, in their analysis of Bellei in light of the 14th amendment (Bellei, not born in the US, must be naturalized to become a citizen, under the terms of the constitution, therefore Bellei was never not NBC).

-- Have you studied The Work's of Justice James Wilson? --

I have not. I have read parts of it, but haven't studied it carefully. Joseph Story also wrote of the constitution. See Section 1098. Naturalization figures prominently there.

[Cboldt]

So, counselor, how does the “two classes of citizehip” break out under the US constitution, and what is your source of authority for the proposition? Use Cruz as an example in your “two bucket” framework.

[highball]

“does a narcissistic, manipulative, pathological liar personality disqualify you from the Presidency?”

It ought to. Sad state of affairs for our movement that so many conservatives no longer think so.

[Bidimus1]

First thank you for using the enlarged version of the Blackstone quote which includes that subjects born in other nations 2 subjects of the crown are subjects at birth. And yes Blackstone is considered the authoritative work on English common law as stated by the US Supreme Court on several occasions. Regardless of how authoritative it may or may not be the issue of original intent is paramount over any previous law or holding of any previous government as the intent of the founders not those preceding them is original intent. In that the founders in the first Congress stated meaning natural born citizen was in the Naturalization Act of 1790 we are bound by it far more than any previous act or statute of a foreign nation. Many will claim that the statute was removed and replaced with others and they are correct what eludes them is that the statues that follow or firstly further from the founding and secondly make no reference to natural born citizen as legal status therefore on both counts the original intent is still provided by the 1790 law. I would also like to thank you for being polite and reasonable in this discussion. I would have responded earlier but I was at the rifle range putting small holes in paper very close to one another. Dictated where Google Voice

[theoilpainter]

I’m sorry - I don’t understand your question. I contend there is only one class, for all purposes except being elected POTUS. One must be a “natural born citizen” to hold that position. That is satisfied by being born in the USA, or being born of US citizens, regardless of where. I believe that Obama, Cruz, McCain and Rubio all qualify of the office.

There is no requirement for POTUS that a person born here be of both parents who are also US citizens.

Thanks

[Cboldt]

-- I'm sorry - I don't understand your question. I contend there is only one class, for all purposes except being elected POTUS. --

You said earlier, "I see no support for the proposition that there are three levels of citizenship: naturalized, born here, and born here of parents who are citizens." That usually correspnds with a "two buckets" approach.

-- One must be a "natural born citizen" to hold that position. That is satisfied by being born in the USA, or being born of US citizens, regardless of where. --

What is your legal authority for that proposition?

[AFret.]

That is satisfied by being born in the USA, or being born of US citizens, regardless of where. I believe that Obama, Cruz, McCain and Rubio all qualify of the office.

There is no requirement for POTUS that a person born here be of both parents who are also US citizens.

---

I’ve asked previously..not from you specifically,..but will ask of you.
Using your logic, that Rubio is NBC due to the fact that he was “born here”, (irregardless of the fact that his parents were Cuban Nationals)..legitimizes every anchor baby born in Laredo this morning to a mom who swam the Rio Grande last night. In other words, every “Dreamer” is qualified to be President. Have I got that right?