Posted on 02/21/2016 10:58:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
After a second place finish in South Carolina's Republican primary, Marco Rubio laughed off a suggestion by Donald Trump that the Florida senator may not be eligible to run for president.
"I'm gonna spend zero time on his interpretation of the Constitution with regards to eligibility and I'm gonna spend all my time talking about what this campaign should be about," Rubio said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
On Saturday Trump retweeted a Twitter user's claim that Rubio is ineligible to be president. When asked about the retweet, Trump said in a separate interview on "This Week" he had never looked into Rubio's eligibility and was only starting a dialogue.
"This is a pattern, this is a game he plays," said Rubio. "He says something that's edgy and outrageous, and then the media flocks and covers that and then no one else can get any coverage on anything else."
Rubio argued that Trump was able to dominate media coverage while there were still 15 people running for the nomination, but as the race narrows, "that's not gonna work anymore."
"We need to remember that over 70 percent of Republicans nationally have basically said, 'We're not voting for Donald Trump,'" he said.
Rubio also knocked Trump for not exhibiting much knowledge of foreign policy.
"To say, 'I'm just gonna surround myself with really smart people,' you know, that's not enough," Rubio said. "You yourself have to make judgments, you have to understand these things."
Rubio added the world would not wait until the new president "catches up" before it starts testing the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Nice that you mentioned Arthur. Natural born citizenship was a issue with him. It was a bogus charge (born in Ireland, and then Canada). He was born in Vermont.
The others were born in the United States.
Right...
Guess I’ll just post this again...not that it seems to matter to some people - it appears many around here have now adopted the liberal philosophy when it comes to fact and truth - it is whatever you “feel” should be true, not what is actually true
If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Chester Arthur. The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen†could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellorâ€) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.†In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.†This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***†Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
Nice dodge. So was Rubio. I was talking about parents.
Florida lost the best man elected in the past several years. That man would be Allen B. West. He is one to stand and fight, never back down and states the truth as he views it. The action of the GOP-e towards him was so disgraceful. For this, alone, they should be ripped apart and salted. Allen West, sir, keep the faith there are still fans out here who wish to see your star rise as high as the rube’s has been rising recently. A far better man IMHO. Rubble is nothing but another obomba w/o the Islamic connections.
Love to see Trump appoint West as Secretary of Defense.
The North would not let them be counted as full citizens because that would have given the Southern States more Representatives. No ifs ands or butts.
Indians were not counted at all and they couldn't vote either.
“Nice dodge. So was Rubio. I was talking about parents.”
Dodge?
I thought you knew. They were citizens of the United States at the time of the questioned births.
I didn't know he did that. See.....he's smarmy!
Chester Arthur father William was naturalized in 1843, which appears to be about 14 years after Chet's birth. But I thought you knew that.
I'm sure you meant to add "...children born on our soil, born to parents who were citizens at the time of birth".
It is very encouraging to see how many, even here at FR where several naturalized candidates have claimed to be conservatives and originalists with pomp and full Alinsky ridicule to those who question them. Even those who don't quote Constitutional articles and SC decisions seem clear about what it means to be naturally a citizen.
It would be on point to refer to Wong Kim Rubio after the famous case so misconstrued by Obots eight years ago. Wong Kim Ark, like Rubio, Jindal, and Haley, was born in the U.S., San Francisco, to parents who were "domiciled" - they appear to have wished to naturalize but Chinese law did not allow it. Wong Kim was naturalized at birth. He was rendered a citizen because he, like Rubio, Jindal, and Haley, was born on our soil, and under our jurisdiction, like the slaves who were the principal objective of the 14th Amendment.
Some states naturalized people forcibly transported to the U.S. The 14th Amendment. Before the 14th Amendment their were no federal citizens other than natural born citizens. That is why Virginia Minor in Minor v. Happersett required confirmation of Vattel's U.S. common law, usually attributed to Vattel, of the definition for who were "Natives or natural born citizes". All others, according to Minor v. Happersett, were "aliens or foreigners". The 14th Amendment made naturalization uniform, as article 1 requires. The 14th Amendment got its authority from Article 1 Section 8, the mandate that Congress...shall... create an uniform rule for naturalization.
“Chester Arthur father William was naturalized in 1843, which appears to be about 14 years after Chet’s birth. But I thought you knew that.”
No. He was not a naturalized citizen. If that had been the case, there would never have been a controversy over whether or not he was a natural born citizen. There would have been legal documentation that he was not.
You can do your own Google search since you obviously saved so much time by Posting about something that you have not researched.
If Chester Arthur's father wasn't naturalized even though he was born outside this country, what is your problem with Rubio's NBC status?
No Odawg. Chester, with one alien parent, his father was a British subject who naturalized when Chester was 14 years old, was the first man to hold the office who was not a natural born citizen. Arthur was apparently not a citizen. If he naturalized no documents were found. He knew, and had his personal documents burned days before he passed away. Somehow, thanks to Leo Donofrio, his father’s naturalization documents were discovered among family effects collected by contemporary biographer.
Chester was born before the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which would have rendered him, like Cruz, a naturalized citizen.
“Arthur was apparently not a citizen. If he naturalized no documents were found. He knew, and had his personal documents burned days before he passed away.”
Total contradiction.
If he was not a citizen, he didn’t have any papers to burn or the guy would have never found any.
Maybe he did sneak in, like Obama, but he did not do it legally. He certainly had no societal unction.
The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to former slaves. It did not do away with the natural citizenship clause.
The Constitution talks about citizens, citizenship, but only natural born citizen once, which means it was separate.
If the 14th Amendment had been thought to have changed the natural born citizen requirement, there would not have been any controversy about Arthur. Even Obama is careful to claim he is a natural born citizen.
“If Chester Arthur’s father wasn’t naturalized even though he was born outside this country, what is your problem with Rubio’s NBC status?”
The controversy about Arthur was never about his father, it was about him. If a person is naturalized, his offspring will be natural born, for crying out loud. Rubio’s parents were not naturalized citizens when Rubio was born. Non-citizens of the United States cannot bequeath natural born status to their offspring. If the natural born clause was not considered operative, there would not have been a controversy with Arthur.
Even Obama has genuflected to the natural born clause by putting out a birth certificate to prove he is natural born citizen.
“Native Americans were not considered to be citizens until the 20th century, 1924 actually.
You can do your own Google search since you obviously saved so much time by Posting about something that you have not researched.”
That is a laugh. I have researched it. But I have noticed some posters have done more, and they can cite chapter and verse in agreement.
But you mention Native Americans. Have you ever wondered how Native Americans can be BORN IN THE UNITED STATES and NOT be citizens? Not until 1924. Why weren’t they covered under the 14th Amendment? Do your own research.
And I'm trying to tell you that Arthur's father was not naturalized until 14 years after Arthur was born. Do you have a problem understanding English?
Odawg, Obama has not claimed to be a natural born citizen. In fact, he told the world, on his web site, that he was “born a subject of the British Commonwealth” because his father was. He told us he was a “born citizen”, implying the he was naturalized by the 14th Amendment. He could have claimed naturalization either by being born in Hawaii, or by have been born to a citizen mother. But the only document hinting at his eligibility was the Nancy Pelosi-signed confirmation from the Democratic Party asserting that Barack was eligible. Apparently, only Arizona required such a document and there were two such documents submitted by Pelosi.
Obama, Larry Tribe’s student at Harvard was administered the oath by Tribe’s student John Roberts. Cruz has been admonished by his constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe, for reversing his, Cruz’ vocal support of originalism while he was Larry’s student. Larry was honest, as was Barack, about his regard for the Constitution as an antiquated but historically interesting relic, in need of a new bill of positive rights. Roberts apparently absorbed Larry’s philosophy because he, on the third attempt, decided to claim Barack had said enough to let him claim allegiance. Cruz is lying.
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.