Politics

Birthers Now Claim Sen. Marco Rubio Isn‘t a ’Natural Born Citizen’

Senator Marco Rubios Citizenship Is Being Attacked by Birthers

The birther movement in America is still alive and well. But rather than focuses the entirety of its attention on President Barack Obama, it adherents have moved on to a new target: Sen. Marco Rubio.

Rubio, a senator from Florida and rising star in the GOP, isn’t currently campaigning for the White House, but considering his popularity, a future run could be a possibility. Recognizing this, birthers are setting their sights on his potential future candidacy, as they hope to take an early stab at derailing his chances.

Instead of fretting over birth certificates, this time birthers are challenging Rubio‘s viability based on his parents’ citizenship. As the basis of their view that the senator isn’t eligible to run for the American presidency, they cite Article 2 of the constitution, which says, “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

But, as the Miami Herald points out, “natural born citizen” has never been defined. While some would contend that anyone born inside the U.S. would and should be considered citizens, birthers disagree. They rely on old writings that apparently stem from the nation’s founding to claim that an individual must be born to two U.S. citizens in order to be “natural born.”

Rubio, who was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, doesn’t fit that bill. In fact, his parents didn’t become citizens until 1975. So, in the eyes of birthers, he is no different than Obama, as neither is viewed by birthers as having the legal ability or right to assume the presidency based on their parents (although some birthers still contend Obama’s birth certificate is false).

Charles Kerchner, a prominent blogger, was concerned after hearing buzz about Rubio being a potential 2012 vice-presidential candidate. So, he contacted the senator’s office and inquired about his citizenship, claiming that he was subsequently brushed off. Here’s what happened next (as per the Miami Herald):

So Kerchner got in touch with the National Archives in Atlanta, which had the naturalization petitions for Rubio’s father Mario and mother Oriales. The documents, independently obtained by the St. Petersburg Times on Wednesday, show they sought and were given citizenship in 1975.

“Senator Rubio should stand up for the Constitution and speak out about this and say that as much as he’d like to run someday for those offices, he is not constitutionally eligible to run for president or VP,”  Kerchner wrote on his blog. [...]

Mario Apuzzo, a lawyer from New Jersey, says that this isn’t a personal attack on Rubio. “It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t change the rules because you like a certain person,” he says. “Then you have no rules.”

Senator Marco Rubios Citizenship Is Being Attacked by BirthersTaking this logic to re-examine the way in which birthers view Obama, even if they believed that the president was born in Hawaii, he’d still be ineligible since his father was a Kenyan national.

Birthers would essentially say that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — whose parents are from India and were not citizens at the time of his birth — is not qualified to run for the presidency. Rubio, though, is shrugging off these assertions. He says:

“The price of our freedom and our liberty is that people can go out and spend a lot of time on stuff like this. For us, the more important thing is to focus on our job.”

But Orly Taitz, a California dentist and lawyer who has distinguished herself as the most prominent birther, doesn’t plan on letting the issue die. She wants it hashed out in the courts.

In fact, she has a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that seeks to challenge Obama’s long-form birth certificate that was released in late April. Additionally, the suit will attempt to seek clarification on the Article 2 language that sits at the center of the Rubio birther claims. “We need the court to finally adjudicate this issue, who is a natural born citizen,” she says.

Below, see the strong message that radio commentator Mark Levine has for birthers who are targeting Rubio’s citizenship:

St. Petersburg Times’ writer Daniel Ruth didn’t hold back while describing his thoughts on the new birther campaign: “…we live in some pretty loony-tunes political times.”

(H/T: HotAir.com)

Comments (362)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • IPSE_DIXIT
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:36am

    The notion that anyone born in the US is a “natural born” citizen is fallacious on its face. It is a myth propagated by a broad reading of the 14th Amendment. The scope of that amendment was intended to be quite narrow. The mischief caused by this aberrant reading of things into it things that were never intended by Congress has made a mockery of the rule of law. The incongruous opinions by members of the Supreme Court that have been spawned by this error make them appear to be double-minded and unstable in all their ways. The majority of 14th Amendment jurisprudence is pure fantasy rather than good law.

    When Rubio was born he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. His parents were citizens of Castro’s Cuba. Notwithstanding the fact that they were seeking asylum here, they were nonetheless subject to the jurisdiction of Cuba until such time that they had a legal right to be in the U.S.

    At best he is a naturalized citizen. A natural born citizen he is not.

    Report Post » IPSE_DIXIT  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:42am

      What goes around comes around.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:46am

      Yes, Mr Rubio will be President

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • Cthulu
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:00pm

      @IPSE:Anyone born in the US and its Territories, Military Installations(to US citizens naturalized/born) is a US citizen. Rubio was born in Miami he is a natural born US citizen regardless of his parent’s status -if anything hes is an “anchor baby” of legitimate refugees with more proven recorded credentials than the Kenyan Candidate, Marxist poseur currently squating in the White House.

      Report Post » Cthulu  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:00pm

      Ha, so JZS and Simpletruths are finally admitting that Oblamus is not a natural born citizen?
      If Rubio is ineligibile, then so be it, but Oblamus needs to be investigated as his father was a British subject at the time of Oblamus, jr.’s birth. Fair is fair.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:07pm

      @IPSE_DIXIT
      Sorry, I just saw your profile picture you share with Simpletruths and thought it was him/her. For all I know, you could be the same person using a different username, but seeing your comments later in this posting, I don’t think so.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:09pm

      Idiot. Try reading the actual US Law that defines levels of citizenship. But that would be too inconvenient for you tinfoil heads. You prefer your crazed internet theories rather than actual official legal definitrions.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS MY IDOL
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:12pm

      I have to stand with consistency and say I agree – you can’t be for the Constitution when it benefits you, but not want to uphold its original intent when it doesn’t… Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:13pm

      I agree .. if Rubio is not ‘legal” than neither is Obama .. are the Dems willing to take him off the ballot and VOID the last election? All of Obama’s acts .. including Obamacare null and void!

      TEA!

      How do we get our money back from Solyndra etc … and when will Holder and Obama be held accountable for Fast and Furious

      Report Post »  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:15pm

      Cthulu
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:00pm

      Rubio was born in Miami he is a natural born US citizen regardless of his parent’s status
      ==============================================

      The U.S. Constitution makes a distinction between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen”.

      Obviously there exists at least some sort of difference between the two sub-groupings of “citizens” because of this distinction.

      Does Rubio fall into the former or the latter category here?

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:33pm

      @JZS

      Yes, what goes around does indeed come around.

      And after next November, you will see all the stuff you guys have been “spreading around” come right back at you.

      The American people are tired of having things they don’t want, or agree with forced upon them by devious means. They don’t want their country or their lives“transformed”

      Do ya like the way I just used one of your favorite tactics?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:34pm

      “if Rubio is not ‘legal” than neither is Obama ”

      CATB, by what logic can you make such a statement? Obama had one US citizen as a parent. Rubio did not. Thus they are not equivalent.

      Of course, I, following the actual LEGAL definition of the term Natural Born Citizen, hold that they are BOTH natural born citizens.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:40pm

      Yes JZS..rather than examine Rubio’s legitimacy and applaud the non-partisan nature of the concerns, you choose to view the revenge perspective in typical leftist fashion. No wonder you’re an eggplant.

      Report Post »  
    • addie
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:40pm

      Like it or not there are ONLY 2 ways to become a citizen of this country, natural born or naturalized meaning they came here legally, went through the process and became naturalized citizens. If you are born in this country regardless of parent’s citizenship you ARE a natural born citizen! Why do you think the Mexicans come here for anchor babies, all those anchor babies ARE natural born US citizens! If Rubio was born in this country he IS a natural born citizen. The ONLY time parents citizenship comes into play is if the child was born outside the US or foreign US military bases. My neighbor dad was military and married her mom while in the UK. She was born in a UK hospital and at the time, could not become a natural born US citizen, she is a naturalized US citizen. Had she been born on the US military base overseas, she would be considered a natural born. So, like I said, like it or not, Rubio IS a natural born US citizen and so are all the Mexican anchor babies!

      Report Post »  
    • Morris
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:59pm

      Dictator Barack Hussein Obama our Muslim-in-Chief is not a American Citizen,His birth certificate is a FAKE a FALSE LIE,Everything about Dictator Obama is a lie!!!!
      Dictator Barack Hussein Obama is not a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”,HE SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE!
      Dictator Obama is afraid of Sen. Marco Rubio,Because Rubio is telling the TRUTH ABOUT
      DICTATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!
      The DIctatorship of Barack Hussein Obama our Muslim -in-Chief and his Complete Corrupt
      Incompetent Administration are out to destroy our Republic our America!
      CONGRESS WERE IN THE HELL ARE YOU,CAN,T YOU SEE WHAT THIS MUSLIM BASTARD IS
      DOING TO OUR AMERICA???
      WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA THIS MUSLIM SOB IS OUT TO DESTROY OUR AMERICA!
      IMPEACH THIS MUSLIM DICTATOR NOW SAVE OUR AMERICA!
      Dictator Obama and his complete Admin. is working with the Saudi Arabia,“CAIR” and
      THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO DESTROY OUR AMERICA!
      Dictator Obama wants to turn our America into part of the “MUSLIM TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION”,
      “CAIR is a Barbaric Islamic Satan Muslim Cult, and they have a office in our Whitehouse,
      WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA,GET THIS MUSLIM DICTATOR OUT OF WASHINGTON DC,
      AND GET RID OF THIS CORRUPT INCOMPETENT MEXICAN MUSLIM LOVING ADMINISTRATION!
      With the help Of Dictator Obama “CAIR” is out to get there “TOP PRIZE”, “CAIR” and Saudi Arabia
      and the Muslim Brotherhood are out to destroy our America!
      FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY,WAKE UP AMERICA!
      IMPEACH THIS DICTATOR!

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:12pm

      Democrats can only hope the birtherism continues. We long for the days when birtherism was Trumps single issue platform , or when Herman Cain’s single issue was about deciding who could and could not exercise religion in the US, despite that First Amendment thingy. The smart republicans know you can get in the news with those platforms, but not elected.

      So yes, I admit there are some smart Republicans.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • kennyg933
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:26pm

      Read your constitution. Senators don’t have to be natural born citizens. They can be immigrants.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:30pm

      JZS is just doing his job, that saul, (I mean that’s all)

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:32pm

      everyone in the entire world knows that a “natrual born” citizen is a person born of TWO legal citizens of the SAME nation… hence…. “NATURALLY” they are THE same nationality as their parents.

      if their parents are citizens of 2 seperate nations… they can never be “naturally” a particular nation.. they would be dual citizens by birth. same as an African and Caucasian breeding… you can NEVER be a NATURAL African or a NATURAL Caucasian…

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:32pm

      @KENNY

      Did you read the article????????????????????????????

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Fred Zimmerman
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:40pm

      So Another Double Standard for the Lefties. It’s OK for Obumer DEM but not for Rubio REP.

      If we allow Obumer to stay in office I guess that settles it?

      Report Post »  
    • mermaid7
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:55pm

      Your view is correct. I like Rubio, but he is NOT a natural born citizen and he won’t be eligible for the presidency. Sorry. Can’t help it.

      Lately, people have had a skewed view of what it originally meant. Both parents HAD to be both from here for their child to inherit citizenship.

      Report Post »  
    • jbean
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:52pm

      So you’re confusing Article 2 Section 1 (the qualifications for president) versus the 14th amendment adopted to immediately confer citizenship on former slaves. It we take your definition of “natural born Citizen,” all presidents up to the 8th (Martin Van Buren) would have been illegitimate as they were born prior to the USA being a sovereign nation. The 14th amendment established citizenship upon birth in this country, not based on the birthplace of the parents and the person running for office is the only one that matters.

      Report Post »  
    • chrisden
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:05pm

      Well said. Now will anyone listen. I am so tired of people condemning those of us who are looking at this issue from a legal standing. Mark Levin is wrong on this issue. In fact, on his program he said he would block any debate of the facts. This from a man who is supposed to be so knowledgeable on the Constitution. There needs to be a good discussion of the issue of natural born citizen.

      Report Post »  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:24pm

      He’s not a naturalized citizen. He’s been a US citizen from birth. As for being a “natural born” citizen, the early writings of the founding fathers seem to suggest this means that both your parents were US citizens when you were born. The purpose behind it was that they didn’t want a president who might possibly have any allegience to another nation.

      Under this reading Obama would NOT be eligible for the presidency and neither would Rubio.

      Personally I would love to see the Supreme court settle this once and for all so it doesn’t keep coming up. Of course if they decided to go with the original intent, especially before next November, I think that would cause quite a mess…

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:56pm

      defrost is 100% correct. anything other than that is absurd.. to even think it’s ok, that someone who has a parent of another nation could be president of this nation, is madness…
      there is a HUGE loyalty issue there… not to mention the theft and exploitation possibilites…
      no other nation allows this, why would we? it is just plain stupid on our behalf…
      as to the 14th and the “slave excuse”…
      it should be as simple as this…
      if they weren’t born here of parents, who were slaves of citizens here, then they aren’t natural born americans. if they were brought here and set free, they aren’t natural born americans… sorry.. their children will be though… such is life… if 2 immigrants move here and become citizens, they can’t run for president… but if they are citizens and have a child, the child can run when it is of age…
      that is how it is set up. and that is how is should be forever.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 4:34pm

      @Chrisden

      You say you are “looking at this issue from a legal standing” but you ignore the actual law, the Congressional statutes passed which define these things. You are making up your own “law”.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • jmanuola
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 4:35pm

      Despite the fact that arguments can be made from either stand point, the key to this whole this is that the Supreme Court has NEVER fully disposed of the issue of what a “natural born citizen” is. They have addressed the issue as it pertains to other questions brought before the court. But they have never addressed the issue to its fullest extent. That being said, The only way TO know what the founders meant by the use of the term is to go back to their writings…something the author of this article seems to feel is rather silly.

      I don’t know of a single conservative who would NOT like for Rubio to be eligible. However, the issue of what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’ and what does not has clearly not been resolved. Anyone who is not willing to call for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue once and for all is clearly allowing their personal prejudices to rule.

      Report Post »  
    • wildbill_b
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 6:52pm

      I will try to help the poorly educated here. “Natural born” is absolutely defined in the Constitution.

      Art 1:2:2 states: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

      Natural born is a “citizen of ONE of the 50 states of the Union”. They are American Citizens.
      Naturalized Citizens are NOT citizens of one of the 50 states, UNLESS they happen to live in one of the 50 states at which time they become “Dual citizens” I.E., US citizens as per the 14th amendment.

      Isle is an idiot trying to use 8 U.S.C. 1401 to claim anything. 8 U.S.C. 1101 is general definitions and displays both citizenships.
      (21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.<<<AMERICAN CITIZEN
      (22) The term “national of the United States” means
      (A) a citizen of the United States, or
      (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.<<<US CITIZEN who is NOT an American Citizen.

      It is appalling to see the level of stupidity displayed here by the ones claiming anchor babies are "US" or "American" citizens. See "ex parte knowles) 1855 Peace.

      Report Post »  
    • MIBUGNU2
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:02pm

      Time to send the Kenyen home. Mo will be Proud there…see ya !!

      Report Post » MIBUGNU2  
    • 1ClassicLiberal
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 12:23am

      There is a common misconception that being born on US soil is equivalent to ‘natural born’ as used in the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1. This is the only place in the Constitution this phrase is used. Representatives and Senators need only be citizens for 7 or 9 years respectively. (They don’t even need to be born in this country.) The 14th Amendment grants “citizenship” not natural born status. Shortly after ratification of the Constitution laws on naturalization and other scenarios of US citizenship were promulgated. None of these laws conferred natural born status. In point of fact neither Congress, the President, nor the Supreme Court has Constitutional authority to bestow natural born status. Obviously the Framers of the Constitution felt the holder of the office of President needed to be held to the highest standard of citizenship. International law at the time defined that standard as Natural Born Citizen, a person born within the boundaries of a country of parents who are both citizens of that country. Neither major party candidate in the 2008 election met this constitutional standard. Our current presidential debacle clearly illustrates why the Founders felt the need to include this standard in the Constitution. We need to be forever vigilant that this Obamination does not occur again.

      Report Post »  
    • Vince Vega
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 12:30am

      @DRFROST Holy cow! You seem to be coming from a logical point of view….how refreshing! Go easy on the logic though…..it upsets many folks.

      Report Post » Vince Vega  
    • teddlybar
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 5:09am

      “Try reading the actual US Law that defines levels of citizenship.”

      Islesfordian, acts of Congress do not change the US Constitution. The Constitution can only be changed by amendment. The “actual US Law” that you keep referring to ONLY pertains to citizenship by naturalization. That is the ONLY power given to Congress to determine in this matter.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 9:56am

      “of Congress do not change the US Constitution.”

      They aren’t claiming to change the Constitution. They are simply clarifying a term left undefined by the Consitution.

      “The “actual US Law” that you keep referring to ONLY pertains to citizenship by naturalization.”

      You didn’t even look at the US Code, obviously. If you had you would see that there are separate sections that deal with citizenship. One deals with who is a citizenship by birth and one defines a naturalized citizen. Another section defines a US national who is a non-citizen. check out this link
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III.html
      It’s a more readable format than the official government site, but the same exact text.

      You must think that you guys are smarter than the Supreme Court because the Court had never challenged Congress’ long established practice of defining these terms

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Plutarch
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 6:14am

      The headline of this post should be “Rubio Not Eligible to be President”.

      Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913). The SCOTUS ruled:

      “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”

      Here we have a direct citation to Minor v. Happersett as precedent by the Supreme Court… 15 years after Wong Kim Ark was decided. This is another important case which bears witness to Minor as authority on federal citizenship.

      Case closed. Rubio fails eligibility for POTUS. He could become an overnight national hero by embracing the Constitution and pointing out his non-eligibility.

      Then Obama could explain how the child born to a British father into British citizenship and formal status as a subject of the British Crown under the jurisdiction of the British Government would be eligible for the office of POTUS when Rubio is not.

      That would be a moment of truth to behold.

      Where Obama was born has NEVER been the issue. It was always smokescreen; a brilliant subterfuge.

      What is Rubio’s true character? We shall soon see if he is different or if he is just another Obama demanding special exemptions from the laws that otherwise apply to every other American.

      SCOTUS has already spoken. The eligibility debate is ove

      Report Post »  
    • burn-the-koran
      Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:28pm

      his parents did the right thing and filled for there citizenship witch makes him a united states citizen unlike the illegal alien muslim obama witch in his own words he says he is not a american citizen that he is from kenya and i have the video to prove the idiot is not legal to be president .

      Report Post »  
  • NHABE64
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:33am

    Isn’t it something how the liberals can find something like this but NOBODY has Barack Obama dark and questionable background on any front pages ? I mean we have a radical cockroach in the White House who lies to America every day of the week and nobody goes after him. Amazing isn’t it ?

    Report Post »  
    • afishfarted
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:36am

      Amazing yes, but it also explains why the RNC didn’t pursure it. They had plans for Rubio

      Report Post »  
    • db321
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:07pm

      Compare moral values – Obama is not, nor will he ever be in the same class as Rubio.

      Report Post » db321  
  • Brontefan
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:32am

    Are you kidding me? This man is one of the first politicians I have seen in more than twenty years who can stand on the Senate floor and articulate with elegance what it means to be an American citizen. I like this Senator!

    Report Post »  
    • chrisden
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:20pm

      Just because he is articulate doesn’t mean that he is eligible for POTUS. Obama is not eligible because BOTH his parents were not US citizens. Only his mother was a US citizen. His father was Kenyan. Rubio is not a natural born citizen. At best he is a naturalized citizen. There is a distinction to be eligible for POTUS. You must be born in the US of two US citizen parents. Simple as that. Sorry. I refuse to stomp on the Constitution just because I like my politician.

      Report Post »  
  • AmericanDogMan
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:31am

    He’s not!! No discrimination just following the law! If you want change it amend the constitution! to a citizen born in the US. Not natural born citizen!

    And Herman Cains a pro-choice, big government , fed loving liberal republican!! Just like ROMNEY and JEB BUSH!

    TEA Party doesn’t care about the politics of the truth! We just want the truth!

    Perry/Paul 2012

    Full DISCLOSURE I LOVE LEVIN MORE THAN BECK AND RUSH PUT TOGETHER!! SO I UNDERSTAND HIS POINT! But we want the law followed or not! I like RUBIO enough! But he’s got a tint of LIB/JEB BUSH/COUNTRY CLUB/CARPETBAGGER/republican on him too!

    Report Post »  
    • addie
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:45pm

      Anyone born within the US regardless of parents citizenship IS A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN! Parent’s citizenship ONLY comes into play when a child of US parents is born outside the US. Every Mexican anchor baby is ALSO a Natural born US citizen! Like it or not! Natural born citizen MEANS born within the US, it DOES NOT SAY, born within the US to US citizens!

       
    • mermaid7
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:01pm

      Adie – Then you need to read what the founders thought of that. You might then change your mind.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:14pm

      The exact reason the GOP made Rubio a super-star. So the anchor baby debate can continue.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:23pm

      Show me what Law, or what part of the Constitution declares that the definition of natural born citizen can’t be set by Congress, and revised for further statutes. Congress apparently thinks it has that authority since it is constantly defining it. US code title 8 section 1401. Is there any official ruling that says Congress can’t do this?

      No? Well, then, move on.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • teddlybar
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 5:14am

      Islesfordian, US code, title I section 1401 is only authorized by Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. As such, it ONLY applies to Congress establishing a uniform rule of NATURALIZATION. I realize you may not like that assessment, but Congress is NOT defining natural born citizenship when they pass legislation pertaining to citizenship. They are ONLY ascertaining “citizenship”, not “natural born” citizenship.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 10:52am

      Here’s the proof that you are wrong about what the US Code is doing.

      Section 1401 deals with citizenship at birth. Yet you claim this falls uder their authorization under the constitution to establish rules for naturalization. So obviously you are saying that section 1401 is dealing with a specific form of immediate naturalization. But the section that declares Congress’ authority to establish rules for naturalization is found in section 1421, and in section 1433 it describes how some non-adult children born outside the US can be automatically made citizens and thus naturalized. If the people described in section 1401 are really being naturalized then they should be grouped with all the others following section 1421. since 1401 come BEFORE 1421 Congress is clearly saying that citizen at birth does not fall under the category of naturalized citizenship.

      Argue out of that one.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
  • Rational Man
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:28am

    America, (as a whole), is just too stupid to survive.
    Never mind the corruption……………

    Report Post » Rational Man  
    • hud
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:35am

      You are correct sir.

      Report Post »  
    • jackbauer
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:45pm

      Yes, America is standing on the cliff edge, almost committed to stepping over, and arguing about the type rock the cliff is made of! The law is the law. It’s only up for debate in the courts. Whether Obama or Rubio, if they fit the law’s requirements then they can run, if not well they will just have to sit it out! It is time for the court to determine the meaning of natural born.

      Report Post » jackbauer  
    • chrisden
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:45pm

      You are right to say that America is too stupid to survive. Addie keeps commenting that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. She said that even anchor babies are natural born citizens. This is just plain ignorance on her part. There are numerous court cases which have defined natural born citizen. The conclusion of these court cases stated that to be natural born you had to be born in the US of two US citizen parents. Get with the program people. The GOP and the Dems won’t touch this because they are either afraid or they have plans for people like Rubio. Obama is not eligible either because his father was Kenyan.

      Report Post »  
    • MIBUGNU2
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:16pm

      Thanks to Brain Dead Libotards..

      Report Post » MIBUGNU2  
  • KidCharlemagne
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:27am

    Can a distinction be made between a citizen and a “natural born” citizen?

    It’s obvious that the United States Constitution does indeed make that distinction (which logically means that these distinct sub-groupings of the collection of “citizens” does indeed exist as well).

    Does Rubio meet the definition of “natural-born” citizen?:

    (John Jay’s letter to George Washington)
    “New-York, 25th July, 1787.

    Dear Sir,

    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

    I remain, dear sir,

    Your faithful friend and servant,

    John Jay.”

    Report Post »  
  • THX-1138
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:27am

    Yes, get the courts to settle “Natural Born Citizen” AND at what point a person *becomes* a person.

    We need to settle these questions once and for all.

    Report Post » THX-1138  
    • Joe Belleau
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:00pm

      ‘Twas already settled. See the 1874 case of MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&page=162

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:37pm

      Natural Born Citizen is a stautory definition. It is defined by LAW, and this fact is nowhere denied by any court decision. Minor v Happersett is irrelevant.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • teddlybar
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 5:20am

      Natural born citizen cannot be defined by statute, because an act of Congress cannot change the Constitution.

      As to Minor v. Happersett being irrelevant, are you saying that Supreme Court cases carry NO precedence? Really?

      Show me one Supreme Court Case where a natural born citizen was ruled to be anything other than someone born in the country of citizen parents.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 10:14am

      “Natural born citizen cannot be defined by statute, because an act of Congress cannot change the Constitution.’

      How does defining a term undefined in the Constitution change the Constitution?

      “Show me one Supreme Court Case where a natural born citizen was ruled to be anything other than someone born in the country of citizen parents.”

      You seem to be operating under the idea that the Supreme Court has to define EVERYTHING and that Congress has no power to define citizenship until the Suprem Court says it does. that’s hardly a conservative, or Constitutional, concept of our democracy. It‘s like saying that the people don’t have any rights until the government says that they do. I operate, and I think the Founders did too, on the principle that unless ruled otherwise the power belongs first to the people and their representatives. I can understand needing the Court to weigh in if there is an argument between branches of government or if a citizen brings suit against the government’s practice on this. But there has been NO challenge of the right and authority of Congress to define what natural born citizen means.

      Can you show any such challenge? I have shown you, if you have bothered to look, how the Congress is precisely defining that term. The ball is in your court to show how that practice is unconstitutional. And you might explain why only you birthers, and never the Supreme Court, seem to see that.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Plutarch
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 5:49am

      @ ISLETFORDIAN

      Dude. Learn your history of the law.

      In Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) the Supreme Court of the United States found:

      “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”

      Here we have a direct citation to Minor v. Happersett as precedent by the Supreme Court… 15 years after Wong Kim Ark was decided. This is one of several cases which bears witness to Minor as authority on federal citizenship.

      You must be one of those duped “Justia Scholars” who have been victimized. Note the unfolding scandal of SCOTUS rulings published by Justia that had been tampered with during 2008 prior to the election to remove references to Minor v. and 25 other SCOTUS rulings bearing upon POTUS candidate eligibility requiring same be born to the nation of two parents who are its citizens.

      By the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Minor v. Happersett TODAY stands as established precedent, not dicta.

      I have always accepted the current POTUS was indeed born in Hawaii. This is not about place of birth. This is not about “citizenship”.

      This is about ELIGIBILITY to hold elective federal office. Rubio has a great opportunity to lead, to heroically embrace the Constitution. Wi

      Report Post »  
  • Drakkhanlord
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:25am

    A natural Born Citizen is a person born in America to two US citizens…as per Senate vs Mccain 2008.

    Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
    • Drakkhanlord
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:26am

      rubio is a citizen , but he is not a NBCitizen.

      Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
    • Drakkhanlord
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:45am

      Rubio is a Citizen and seems do be a dam fine American…he is not a NBC.

      Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
    • Survivor101
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:17pm

      McCain was born abroad to a military parent on orders….not even relevant…

      Report Post »  
    • mermaid7
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:05pm

      You are comparing apples to oranges. McCain had two parents that were born HERE. Obama does not, neither does Rubio.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:14pm

      Inverted logic. Someone born to two US citizens is a natural born citizen. That does not make the reverse true. A shark is a fish. That does not mean a fish must be a shark. A natural born citizen does not need to be born of two, or even one US citizen if he is born on US soil, as per US law ratified by Congress.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • chrisden
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 9:35pm

      @ Isles You need to read the 14th amendment properly. Anchor babies should not even be citizens let alone natural born citizens elgible for POTUS because when they are born on US soil they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. There has been a gross perversion of the 14th Amendment and it has created a long standing falacy. Also, refer to Minor vs. Happerstatt for rulings on natural born citizen. Please tell me where I am wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • teddlybar
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 5:32am

      @Islesfordian – “Someone born to two US citizens is a natural born citizen.”

      This is not a correct statement. It should read “Someone born to two US citizens in the country is a natural born citizen.” Both Jus Soli AND Jus Sanguinis must be applicable.

      Furthermore, your logic analysis is incomplete as the reverse IS true if the definition being used can be written as an if and only if statement, i.e. someone is a natural born citizen if and only if they are born in the country of citizen parents. In that instance, the statement, inverse, converse and contrapositive statements would all be true.

      Your example “A shark is a fish” is NOT an IFF statement, and therefore your analogy is a false analogy because though the statement and its contrapositive would be true, the inverse and converse are not.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 11:04am

      “This is not a correct statement. It should read “Someone born to two US citizens in the country is a natural born citizen.” Both Jus Soli AND Jus Sanguinis must be applicable.”

      Show me where ANY law says that. You are simply making this up. There are sections in the US Code where it list qualification for citizenship, and when it reuires ALL of them to be met it makes that clear. Section 1433 is one such instance. Subsection (a) requires conditions (1) to (5) to be met for the Attorny General to grant immediate citizenship. Section 1401 has no such language. A person must meet only ONE of the conditions (a) to (g) to be declared a citizen at birth.

      You guys are making up your own rules and definitions because they aren’t established anywhere.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 11:29am

      “Your example “A shark is a fish” is NOT an IFF statement, and therefore your analogy is a false analogy ”

      You haven‘t shown that Happersett’s decision that a man born of two US citizens is a natural born citizen is an IFF statement. So my analogy is valid.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 7:59am

      Minor v Happersett is irrelevant because the Supreme Court said it was irrelevant in the Minor v Happersett decision.

      “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 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.”
      Those sentences come right after the out of the out-of-context quote that you have been told establishes the definition of a natural born citizen.

      The quote you produce from Luria v. US, “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency,” is relevant, but not for the reason you think it is. It makes it clear that the Court regards native and natural born as synonyms, and sees natural born and naturalized as the only two kinds of citizens, contrary to recent efforts to create some mysterious new third category of people who are born citizens but not born natural born citizens. This means that when they ruled in US v Wong Kim Ark that Wong Kim Ark and everyone else who was born in this country was born a citizen, they were ruling that he was a natural born citizen. That’s the precedent that finally settled the issue, and it will remain the law of the land unless it is overturned by another Supreme Court decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

      Report Post »  
  • Ex_Masshole
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:22am

    Watch the other hand…

    Report Post » Ex_Masshole  
  • Drakkhanlord
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:20am

    for rubio’s info…

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62055196/Rubio-Naturalization-Petition-CERTIFIED-from-National-Archives

    Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
  • kentuckypatriot
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:20am

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. I think the definition should be cleared up once and for all. Then maybe we can find out for sure that Obummer is not qualified ( we all knew that though).

    Report Post » kentuckypatriot  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:22am

      They will say it is too late to do anything about Obama .. but try to stop Rubio .. who is an AMERICAN … Rubio loves this country in a way Obama will NEVER understand.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:24am

      That’s why GOP propped Rubio up in the first place, got conservatives to love him — so they can settle the “anchor baby” debate. Media manipulating the people — as usual.

      Report Post »  
    • kentuckypatriot
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:32am

      @ CATB:
      You are right, Rubio is a true American. Sadly, can’t say much for the imposter though.

      Report Post » kentuckypatriot  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:09pm

      Romney’s family lived in Mexico (converting Catholics to Mormanism), so I wonder when all the naturalizing illegal alien-stuff hits the fan, if the GOP plans to use that to suck up.

      Report Post »  
  • biohazard23
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:19am

    Orly Taitz? Now there’s a voice of reason…. (rolling eyes)

    Report Post » biohazard23  
  • Annie Fields
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:18am

    Mike Barnicle, FIRED for “embellishing” stories at The Boston Globe took the opportunity to INSULT Senator Rubio’s father by suggesting it was HIM who told his son to “embellish” their story of fleeing from Cuba…

    Do these people have NO SELF-AWARENESS AT ALL?????????????

    OMG.

    http://www.anniefields.com/blog

    Report Post » Annie Fields  
  • hauschild
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:15am

    I’ll be interested to find out whether the MSM will be as motivated to squelch these theories about Rubio to the extent they did about the Marxist.

    Report Post »  
  • joan k
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:14am

    The rule of law is important for any society to remain intact. Every citizen should know and follow these laws. Yes, WE ARE THE ROMAN EMPIRE exactly because we are not following our laws. And many of our citizens know exactly what our laws are nor do they care any longer about them. The US Constitution should be the LAW of the land. When you do not follow your laws, you begin to decay. We are now allowing Sharia Law into our courts instead of asserting our Constitution as the law of the land. So we are essentially no longer a Republic, but are becoming a Democracy. And as our Founders all knew, Democracies have a short life span before they fall into tyranny. Once mob rule becomes your law you are doomed. Thus we are becoming the Roman Empire and we will soon be in bondage.

    Report Post » joan k  
    • hud
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:34am

      A nation with few laws usually has high regard for its laws, a nation with many degrades the respect citizens have for the law.

      Report Post »  
    • joan k
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 12:01pm

      @HUD I was only referring to the Constitution and it’s laws, not the laws that they have added on top of that. The Constitution clearly defines that the President and VP should be ‘natural born citizens’ this was added to keep our leaders from having any undo foreign influence or other loyalties. The official designation of ‘natural born’ citizen was taken from Vattel’s work of 1758 “ The Law of Nations ” which ALL our founders had read. It was a book on Natural Law. Vattel defined two kinds of citizens: citizens and natives. Thus he defines “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Vattel concludes: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      And this is EXACTLY why Obama should have been ineligible to serve. As for Rubio, he also, had a father and a mother who were not a citizens at the time of his birth. This would rule him out as eligible to serve, as well.

      Report Post » joan k  
  • dave88
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:11am

    Its not the birthers, its the pseudo birthers.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:18am

      Mark Levin .. is a Constitutional Lawyer and a very smart man .. and he is correct — THIS IS CR*P! .. but we are going to have to fight the SAME people who DEFENDED Obama … These are not people who questioned Obama’s birth!

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:25pm

      CatB
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:18am
      Mark Levin .. is a Constitutional Lawyer and a very smart man
      ====================================================

      So is Obama though….what’s your point?

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:16pm

      My point is Levin knows the law …. and follows it.

      Obama studied the Constitiution to try to dismantle it .. and will if not stopped by those like Levin!

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • chrisden
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 5:17pm

      CATB, you say that Mark Levin knows the law and know doubt that is true. That doesn’t mean that Mr. Levin is applying the law to this issue. He has never told me why Rubio is a natural born citizen. He simply shuts down all debate on the issue saying he will ban a person from calling his program if they have a view contrary to his. I need him to tell me why I am wrong not just call me crazy because I happen to come to a conclusion that is contrary to his. Mr. Levin needs to back up his point of view with facts and tell me why past Supreme Court cases are invalid. Example : Minor vs. Happersett.

      Report Post »  
  • South Philly Boy
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:11am

    On that note … was obummer father a US citizen

    Report Post » South Philly Boy  
    • Red Meat
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:13am

      Rubio is yet another Tea Party fail. He supported moving the FL primary up to bolster Mitt Romney’s chances. Maybe he can go to Cuba and run for office there.

      Report Post » Red Meat  
    • IntransigentMind
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:16am

      Red Meat, you got that right!

      Report Post »  
    • hightide
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:19am

      Obama’s birth certificate says he is African.

      Report Post »  
    • txrailroader
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:33am

      No……..

      Report Post »  
  • kickagrandma
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:07am

    Guarantee you it isn’t the birthers doing this, but the controllers of the leftist machine who are worried about Rubio.

    Always remember, the left is going to lie, bend or twist the truth. They are satan’s to a man / woman.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:10am

      Exactly .. and after Obama isn’t this a moot point … we have lowered the standards for everything … Marco is a REAL American .. born and raised!

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • RightUnite
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:10am

      You are correct Grandma!!

      Report Post »  
    • ltb
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:13am

      I like Rubio a lot, but agree with what these birthers are saying. We need to use the original definition for “natural born citizen,” until an Amendment to the Constitution changes that definition.

      Report Post » ltb  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:21pm

      LTB, the so-called “original definition” of natural born citizen is not itself in the Constitution, so, while it may have been official law at one time, it required no amendment to change it. It was changed with a simple statutory change, the same way many legal definitions are changed all the time.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • ltb
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:57pm

      Islesfordian, like I said, I do like Rubio. When it comes to the Constitution, though, I am a strict Originalist and believe that we open the door to all kinds of problems when we fail to interpret the Constitution as it was written. If the 1947 Supreme Court had used the definition of the word “religion” (as in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ‘religion,’”), which was prevalent in America at the time the first Amendment was drafted, the Everson decision would have been completely different, because the vast majority of people in 1789 America defined “religion” as “the doctrine of the gospel.” The true argument in 1947 was not “what the founders meant by the First Amendment,” the argument was “did America want to continue to be a Christian nation?”. That argument didn’t belong in the federal courts, it belonged in Congress and if the majority of Americans had wanted to change the Constitution to redefine “Religion,” an Amendment should have been offered to the states. Same with “natural born citizen.” If we want to deviate from the meaning that this phrase had to our founding fathers, then we need to have that discussion in Congress. I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just think America would be a much better place if we abided by the Constitution as it was written, using the definitions at the time it was written.

      Report Post » ltb  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:03pm

      LTB, you are not being an Originalist in this instance, for Congress established in its 1790 statute the authority to define the terms of citizenship, and have repeatedly done so since. The definition of natural born citizen isn’t in the Constitution, which means that it is up to Congress to define it. THAT is what Original intent means. It has been practiced that way for over 200 years and only challenged now by birther foolishness.

      check out US Code, Title 8, Section 1401. Where is there any Constitutional writing that says Congress doesn’t have the authority to define these things? Absent of real evidence in that regard any continual argument against the official Code can only be seen as willful rejection of inconvenient facts.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • jmanuola
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 4:43pm

      You’d be completely wrong, Grandma. I have been calling for the Supreme Court to “fully dispose” of the issue of what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’ long before it became an issue with Rubio. I have my own opinions as to what the founders meant when they inserted that phrase into the Constitution, but my opinion is just that…MINE. The only ‘opinion’ that matters is that of the Supreme Court. And they, as has often been noted by those on BOTH sides of this issue, have never ‘fully disposed’ of this issue. They’ve referenced it on a number of occasions in cases where the question(s) being answered by the Court did not require them to fully dispose of the issue of what is and is not a natural born citizen.

      The SCOTUS has to rule on this. I might not like the answer they give, but it ultimately their jobs to do this.

      Report Post »  
    • teddlybar
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 5:41am

      @Islesfordian – “It was changed with a simple statutory change, the same way many legal definitions are changed all the time.”

      You do realize that by that logic, if 100 years from now, some Congress passes an act that defines a person as only a white male born in the country, then every person of every race other than white and all women would cease to be considered persons under the law.

      Obviously that assertion is absurd and thus also is the assertion that the Constitution can be changed by a simple act of Congress. The Constitution provides specific mechanisms by which it can be altered, and acts of Congress are not one of them.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 11:25am

      “You do realize that by that logic, if 100 years from now, some Congress passes an act that defines a person as only a white male born in the country, then every person of every race other than white and all women would cease to be considered persons under the law.”

      No, that does not follow, because I am recognizing the authority of Congress to define WHAT HAS BEEN UNDEFINED. If the Supreme Court defines natural born citizen as including those born of two US parents then Congress cannot override that without a Constitutional amendmnet. Also, if SCOTUS has defined citizenship as including all persons regardless of race who are born here to be citizens Congress cannot change that with amending the Constitution. Congress cannot narrow the definition from what the Court has declared it to be. But Congress can expand it in areas where the Court hasn’t ruled. New situations require new definitions, which is why section 1405, for instance, defines citizens at birth to include those born in Hawaii after 1900, but those born before 1900 and after 1898 are just citizens. This part of the Code was written in 1952, even before Hawaii became a state. The fact that it distinguishes between citizen at birth and mere citizen for two groups who were already adults proves that they are doing something more than just dealing with naturalization.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • teddlybar
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 1:07pm

      Islesfordian, I think I’m seeing where the root of our difference of our difference of opinion lies. Do you hold the the judicial theory of originalism, or the living Constitution theory

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 2:22pm

      No, Teddlybear, you do not see where our differences lie. I am an Originalist. But being an Originalist does not mean that all terms and rights in the Constitution cannot be expanded. Liberty can always be expanded. The power of the Government is what should be restricted and kept within the bounds of the original conception.

      There are limits to even the application of Original Intent on current situations, for it takes a level of interpretation to see how the 4th amendment applies in radically new situations like the internet. The key for me is precendent. How has Congress and the courts dealt with such matters? What practices have been left unchallenged. YOU want to ignore the clear actions of Congress in definig natural born citizenship by claiming that it isn’t really doing that. But only an a priori argument that Congress CAN‘T define that term can possible justify the conclusion that it isn’t doing precisely that in the Code, and has been doing it for a long time. But there is no Originalist argument that justifies that a priori assumption. Just because the Founders ORIGNIALLY defined it that way does not mean that they intended to limit the definition to that. If they had they would have made it more explicit, or Congress would have when they began to first write the Code and declare matters of citizenship related to birth. For Congress NOT to say that “citizen at birth” was different from NBC makes no sense if there was a difference.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 2:40pm

      Let me make clear my Originalism and how it may differ from yours.

      Let’s take the 2nd amendment. I hold that the meaning of “arms” should not be limited to what the Founders were thinking back then. there are liberlas who try to play the Originalist argument against the right to self defense by saying that the Founders were thinking of muskets and simple rifles, so restrictions on semiautomatics and magazin sizes has nothing to do with the righ to bear arms. I say the definition or application of “arms” should expand as the technology expands, because the enemy to be defended against will not be so restricted.

      The question is what was the PURPOSE of the right to bear arms.

      Now, what was the purpose of the natural born citizen clause? To make sure that no one with foreign allegiances could lead the bcountry? That seems to be the case. But may I point out that Bill Ayres, Hilary Clinton, Michael Moore and the vast majority of the flea bags in OWS are NBCs under your definition? Does your restriction really seem to be adequate to the task? I find that most immigrants are more loyal to this country than many of the pampered children born here. I don’t see how the new expanded definition that I say Congress has created in the US Code endangers us any more than our own Universities and their corruption of or youth.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Trueblazer
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 4:08pm

      Islesfordian makes a fine presentation in my opinion.

      I personally would prefer that the “natural born” clause be defined in a way that offers the best safeguard against dual allegiances that is possible. Reminding ourselves that allegiances are subtly transferred through lingering cultural and ideological heritages which are like old habits that die hard.

      I believe its potency as a safeguard has been watered down as a result of the SCOTUS and congress have acting on this issue without the best interest of me or my country in mind. I believe that my opinion on this matter is “right” in that my opinion is aligned with what I believe to be the original intent of the safeguarding clause.

      Which means that anyone who agrees with me must likewise fortify himself with the understanding that the safeguard is now less safe when compared to the original intent. And thus take approrpiate measures to more thoroughly vet and screen candidates, then educating our fellows as to the character of anyone who becomes a candidate who might have a higher potential for dual loyalty, having become a candidate by passing weaker requirements.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 6:54pm

      Trueblazer,
      I understand the desire to gaurd against dual loyalties, but frankly, that ship has sailed, and you can’t blame SCOTUS or Congress. Disloyalty to America and American values has penetrated deep into the culture. It pervades the elite in the Universities, the Media, Hollywood, and in many liberal churches. Disloyalty to America and the Constitution is now a “native” strand. No definition of NBC will fix that. Obama’s antiAmericanism did not derive from his birth but from his upbringing, mostly by native born Americans. We have to gaurd against dual loyalties by thoroughly examining each candidate and searching for the signs of the progressive infection.

      I’m pretty sure the Founding Fathers would rather have Mark Steyn be eligible to become President than Keith Olbermann, for obvious reasons. I would bet that, if the Constitution were written today by the same men that the term natural born citizen wouldn’t appear. It is now a moot point.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Trueblazer
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 10:52pm

      Islesfordian,

      While you may be correct in your perception of the profound pervasiveness of Godless, treacherous, anti-American conceptions in the minds of many natural born citizens, I would say that fact itself is a good reason to adhere to whatever safeguard protocols we have in place, as well as reason to redouble our efforts to educate our children in discriminatory civics, and triple our efforts to shield them from the communist encroachment. Even if it means not just home-schooling, but banding together with other home schoolers of like mind and re-creating classic places of education, even to the extent of relocating to supportive conservative enclaves to be near like minded families.

      In other words, rapture would sure be convenient right about now, but until then I will continue to face the current harsh reality here on the ground and use my ability to reason in order to fight my families way to higher ground by any and all means which might avail themselves.

      kind regards,

      Trueblazer

      Report Post »  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:06am

    .
    I’d just as soon have this illegal Senator(haha) in charge, than the illegal President we have now……..

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
  • cessna152
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:05am

    They are racist, Nazi haters!!

    Report Post » cessna152  
    • kindling
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:35am

      They are racist, Nazi haters!! How can someone be a racist and a Nazi hater at the same time unless they hate Nazis because of something other than the fact they were a bunch of racists?

      Report Post » kindling  
  • pap pap
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:02am

    I agree that neither the unvetted Obama, Rudio and Jindal are natural born citizens and therefore ineligible to be president or vice president of the USA. If we were to break the rule at least it should have been for an actual American and Rubio and Jindal do fit this but Obama can’t claim to be an American in my eyes because his allegance is somewhere else.

    To be a natural born citizen your parents would have to be citizens for 5 years before you are born.

    Report Post »  
    • AuditoryEngineer
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:14am

      Says who? Where is the “5 years” rule listed?

      Birther nutcases are assisting in the decline of the US

      Report Post » AuditoryEngineer  
    • hud
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:17am

      What’s wrong with the Constitution? Obama was wrong in so many ways. He’s a bastard w/ a British passport, place of birth?, attended college w/ foreign aid, hates the Constitution, hates the US, and many more examples exist. Rubio is great, but both parents born in Cuba. A Constitutional obstacle that needs to be resolved by the Supreme court.We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but it looks to me like we’ve put that behind us w/ little o.

      Report Post »  
    • Bill Rowland
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:36am

      Pzp Pap – Where do yu get you proof that the parents have to be cirtizens for five years, in order for the child to be a naturural born citizen? Our founding fathers nor their parents were natural born citizens, they were citizens of England until the revolution. They must have intended that you be born in this country and nothing was saif about your parents.
      In Obumblers case he was borne in Kenya. Explain his scholarship to school for foreign students and explain the social security number for a dead man instead of a person born in Hawaii.

      OMG

      Report Post »  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:07pm

      “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

      The U.S. citizen parent or his or her U.S. citizen parent has (or at the time of death had) been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of 14.

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:26pm

      “If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of ‘natural born.’”

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • Locked
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:25pm

      @Auditor

      They made it up. Nowhere is “natural born citizen” defined, as the only thing it influences is presidential eligibility. Citizenship itself, and “natural citizenship” are found in legal literature, and have nothing to do with the concept of a “natural born citizen.” But hey! Why tell the truth when you can lie? Like Blackhawk is doing:

      “As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

      Britain‘s laws are not the US’s laws. In the US, if at least one parent is a citizen, so is the child. If the child is born on US soil, they gain citizenship naturally through the 14th amendment.

      “The U.S. citizen parent or his or her U.S. citizen parent has (or at the time of death had) been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of 14.”

      Also a lie. A US citizen who gives birth -outside- the US must be a citizen and lived in the US (or US terriroties) for one year (if an unmarried mother) to confer citizenship. Blackhawk’s quote comes from a government site saying: “Biological or Adopted Children Residing Outside the United States,” which Obama was not, being born in the US. Being born in the US, Obama was a citizen from the get-go.

      Birthers. All nuts.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:19pm

      Auditor: Where is the “5 years” rule listed?

      Locked: They made it up.

      Not quite, Locked. There IS in the US Code a rule about a parent needing to be in the country 5 years but they ignoe the details and context. Here it is from US Code Title 8, Section 1401

      “(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”

      This of course is irrelevant to anyone born within the US. It means that if someone is born to only ONE US parent then that parent must have resided in the US 5 years before the childs birth.

      It’s like so many “facts” on the internet. A piece is liften out of context and morphed into something else. It‘s like Frankenstein’s monster. There are so many bits and pieces of disparate facts put together by madmen.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • teddlybar
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 5:48am

      @Islesfordian – “It’s like so many “facts” on the internet. A piece is liften out of context and morphed into something else.”

      I agree, which is exactly what you’ve done. Congress gets its authorization to establish this section of the code from Article 1 section 8 which ONLY gives Congress the authority to establish uniform rules of NATURALIZATION.

      This code section is NOT about natural born citizenship, but simply about citizenship, which is NOT the same thing, for while all natural born citizens are citizens, not all citizens are natural born citizens.

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 10:35am

      So in your understanding there are three types of citizens: Natural born citizens, citizens at birth anmd naturalized. The US Code only deals with the last too but says nothing about the first. Where is the first defined.

      You can’t claim Happersett because that did not exhaustively define natural born citizen. It said all born to two US citizens are NBC but it didn’t say that all NBC are born to two US citizens. It didn’t define the term beyond the case brought before it, beyond the point of saying that this man and all like him are NBC. That is not a comprehensive definition.

      So it looks like in your scheme the term is undefined. Pretty silly position to take. I stick to the US Code passed by Congress until the Court rules otherwise. You can stick to your pet internet theories.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:00am

    Obama has a fake birth certificate and his whole background is a made up story. Rubio is more legal than the Kenyan.

    Report Post »  
    • hud
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:25am

      Levin is right a large part of the time, but this is a Constitutional problem that needs to be resolved legally for all time.Levin should get the ball rolling in that direction rather than bitch about people presenting an inconvenient truth.

      Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:00am

    Break out your tinfoil hats, here we go again…

    But I doubt a conservative like Rubio will stir 1/100th of the controversy that Obama did.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:09am

      Are you kidding? .. the MSM will pick up on this and hammer it !! While they ignored Obama and ridiculed those who wanted proof .. here we have someone we KNOW was born in the United States .. grew up in the United States .. to parents who were PROUD to have come to this country. They see Rubio as a THREAT and will try to take him out. Marco Rubio is a REAL American I have seen him speak in person .. he loves this country .. and I will be seeing and supporting him again next week at aTown Hall.

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:24pm

      I think you are right, Locked, about the level of heat this will get as opposed to that over Obama. Most Birthers are on the conservative side of the spectrum, so that will dampen some of them.

      Still, they are a crazy bunch, so you never know.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Locked
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:54pm

      I agree Isles. Not all conspiracy theorists are conservatives (I feel most “Truthers” are liberals), but it seems the vast majority of birthers were on the birther train not because they thought it valid (though perhaps they hoped so) but because they hated Obama.

      Orly Taitz, of course, just being your garden variety crazy.

      Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:33pm

      CATB:
      What the MSM will “hammer on” is not the claim that Rubio is not a natural-born citizen, but that he’s either a liar or inexcusably ignorant for having floated his political career on the story that his parents were refugees from Castro.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
  • saranda
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:00am

    Shut the hell up and find something a little more productive to do with your money and time.

    Report Post »  
  • JLGunner
    Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:57am

    Give me a break already. Can someone please focus on the demise of our country???? We ARE the Roman empire.

    Report Post » JLGunner  
    • db321
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:09am

      Thanks for clarifying that – this explains why America is not mentioned in the end times.

      Report Post » db321  
    • IntransigentMind
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:15am

      Well, here’s the problem: It all depends upon which definition of “natural born citizen” we accept as the correct one, doesn’t it? If it’s the definition that says born in the US to two citizen parents, then neither Obama or Rubio are qualified. The question has always been, and I suspect it will eventually be settled in a court: Which definition is the controlling one where US law is concerned?

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:28pm

      “ I suspect it will eventually be settled in a court”

      No, it won’t, because it is ALREADY settled in LAW ( US Code title 8 section 1401) and only Birther nutjobs refuse to accept it. It is doubtful that even a court ruling would change their fevered minds

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • teapartyconservatism
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 7:18pm

      Rubio nor Jindal are Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Like Obama, neither are natural born citizens. Eligibility requires not just citizenship, but citizenship having the quality of being a natural born citizen.

      Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 1, “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 … .”

      Exempting a “citizen” from being a “natural born citizen” proves they aren’t equal, or no exemption was needed. Being not less than, nor equal, a natural born citizen must be more than the minimum requisite for citizenship, which at the time was US birth to a US citizen parent. Only US birth to US citizen parents (plural) is greater, thus defining a natural born citizen.

      The Supreme Court agreed in Minor v. Happersett, 1874. “The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens.” – Leo Donofrio, JD.

      A natural born citizen while encompassing citizenship now granted by US birth, which wasn’t possible prior to the 1965 Immigration Act considered by many to be a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, is a higher quality of citizenship also requiring both birth parents to be a US citizen.

      See the facts: “Obama is Not an Eligible Natural Born Citizen” http://www.ObamaBirthCertificate.net

      Report Post » teapartyconservatism  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 10:23am

      The flaw in your argument, Teapartyconservative, is that the Supreme Court never in that decision declared their definition of natural born citizen as exhaustive. They recognized that any child born of two US citizens was himself a natural born citizen. That does not mean that all natural born citizens must have two US citizen parents at birth.

      This is elementary logic. All sharks are fish does not mean all fish are sharks.

      Someone show where in that decision they explicitly said the obverse: that all natural born citizens must be born of two US citizens. If it isn‘t there you can’t claim that decision as supporting your case.

      Plus, you have to explain why Congress has been defining natural born citizen for so many decades without any challenge from the Court. Are you smarter than all Supreme Courts justices?

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • motorcycleboy
      Posted on January 30, 2012 at 2:36am

      No, Islesfordian, I looked at your citation reference of US Code,

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

      There isn’t even a mention of the word “natural” on the page.

      You are confusing “natural born citizen” and “citizen”.

      Report Post » motorcycleboy  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love