Free Republic
Comment:
The title suggests one thing, but the comments section of the post reveal something else. Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Neither is Obama. So, should Marco Rubio be on the ticket? If he were to be, the issue will become moot for all time. The Constitution will have been amended in de facto fashion, as opposed to de juris fashion. Should this development be welcomed? My opinion is no- but a discussion of the issue in his case would be most informative. Whether or not the information would make any difference is an altogether different question, however.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
6 comments:
Both Rubio and Jindal and Obama--and every US citizen who was born on US soil---are Natural Born Citizens.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to citizenship at birth, mainly caused by the place of birth. The only kind of US citizens who are not Natural Born Citizens are naturalized citizens.
“Concerning specifically the reading into the Constitution of a two-citizen- parent requirement for “natural born” citizenship status, it should be noted that there is, significantly, no historical nor controlling legal holding in American jurisprudence to support the argument that parental citizenship governs and controls the eligibility of a native born U.S citizen to be President. As indicated in the discussion of the history of the constitutional provision, there is also no justification for this unique theory, which would exclude an entire class of native born U.S. citizens from eligibility for the Presidency, in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.”-- Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Useful sites for further research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346
Thank you for your comment.
I reviewed previous posts that I had on the subject. A video which explains "natural born citizen" has been taken down. If it hadn't been taken down, I could cite that.
Instead, I looked into the Supreme Court decision Minor v. Happersett 1875, which is said to define the term natural born citizen.
The ruling was partly overturned by the 20th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. However, it is not clear on the basis of my reading so far, that the definition was altered in any other way.
In other words, the definition as given by the decision still applies.
The key point in the original decision was even a natural born citizen, as defined by the decision, was insufficient to entitle a woman to vote. Hence the need for an amendment to the Constitution.
Why do birther sites cut out the part of the ruling in which it said “We do not have to decide?”
Why do birther sites not explain the legal concept of “dicta”–which says that a statement in a ruling about X subject cannot be used as a precedent on Y subject? (And, as you know, Minor vs Happersett was a voting rights case, not a citizenship case.)
Why do birther sites not explain that the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, and hence would have overturned it (IF Minor vs Happersett was actually a ruling, which it wasn’t. And the Wong Kim Ark case WAS a citizenship case.)
And the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is NATURAL BORN. Its words were:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
Notice how similar the Wong Kim Ark ruling is to what Edwin Meese said?
That is because it is the law. Birther sites are pulling your chain. There was never a ruling that two citizen parents are required. Three birther lawyers misquoted the Minor vs Happersett ruling and did not explain DICTA.
In contrast, some 400 or more lawyers in the US Congress voted to confirm Obama'S election.Don't you think that at least one of them would have voted against if Minor vs Happersett was really a ruling? In contrast, not one of the 600 or so members of the Electoral College changed her or his vote to vote against Obama. Don't you think that at least one of them would have voted against if Minor vs Happersett was really a ruling?
There have now been three state court cases and one federal case which specifically ruled that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. And many others, such as this, which simply stated that the US-born children of foreigners were Natural Born.
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
@anonymous
Well, it appears I've struck a nerve.
Alright, let me back up just a little. The issue may or may not be what I thought. The fact is, I'd have to spend a lot more time on it than what I have in order to answer your comment thoroughly.
Let me also state categorically that I'm not trained in the law: my perspective would be as a non lawyer. Whatever thoughts I express on the subject should be looked upon in that light. I try not to present myself as an authority on that subject or almost any subject written about here.
I like to write and I have opinions.
After having written that, I'm not convinced with what you've said. But I haven't enough time to spend reading through enough stuff to convince myself one way or another. Perhaps some other time, but not now.
Finally, the issue is not being given enough attention. Whether the "birthers" are pulling chains or not is not germane to the issue. The issue should be put to rest one way or the other, and it hasn't been.
The issue has been put to rest. The US Constitution charges the Electoral College with the final vote on the president. Birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama, but not one of them did.
The US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case. Three State Courts and one federal court have ruled specifically that Obama is a Natural Born citizen due to his being born in the USA, and each one of them referred to the Wong Kim Ark case.
The overwhelming majority of Constitutional scholars hold that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. And simply because you think that it is not settled--that means it is not settled?
@anonymous
Hey fella. I said it wasn't settled yet- for me. I think for myself, regardless of what some authority says- if something doesn't look right, I'll say so.
Minds can be changed- sometimes. Maybe it won't make any difference here, but on the other hand, it might.
I'll look into it. You can count on it.
Post a Comment