Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Marco Rubio Not Natural Born Citizen


As much as we tea partiers like Marco Rubio, he is not eligible to be president due to the constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizenship. Senator Rubio's parents naturalized in 1975, but he was born in 1971. Unless a time machine can take his parents back to 1971, it would be a mistake to put the Senator on the Republican presidential ticket. It would be an insult by the establishment toward millions of Americans who have already been demonized as "birthers" for challenging Barack Obama's eligibility.

Let's look at the history and reasoning behind the requirement of Natural Born Citizenship.


Chester A. Arthur's father was born in Ireland and he later become 21st President of the U.S. This represented the first time that an ineligible person tricked the American people into being elected President. Thomas Jefferson‘s mother was born in England, Andrew Jackson‘s parents were both born in Ireland, James Buchanan had an Irish father, Woodrow Wilson‘s mother was English, and Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother. However, all of the Presidents, save Arthur, were natural born because their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth or they were granted the status at the founding of our country.

The reason that Natural Born Citizenship is crucial to the viability of a nation comes down to culture. Barack Obama was taught as a young boy in Indonesia. He never became part of the American culture during his formative years. He was never culturally assimilated and that is why he is such a horrible president. The lack of   assimilation into American culture makes him incapable of representing the values of American citizens. He simply does not understand what it means to be American. He was never immersed in the culture.

Marco Rubio does not suffer this problem. He is obviously a traditional American by ideology and culture. However, conservatives believe in Rule of Law.

Beyond culture, there is also the question of loyalty. A Natural Born Citizen is unlikely to be loyal to another country, culture, or ideology. Those who currently demonize the "birthers" fail to realize that our Republic has a possibly fatal flaw. As any open or democratic system of government, it can be influenced by outside powers.

By removing the requirement of Natural Born Citizenship, Vladimir Putin could naturalize and run for president in America. Vladimir Putin could have a child born on American soil, raise him or her in Russia and then one day pump billions of dollars into making him or her the American President. The same could have been argued of Britain prior to World War I, when they were America's foremost adversary. This is the central argument that made Natural Born Citizenship a constitutional requirement. It is the only way to guard against becoming a puppet government while remaining a free society.

Again, there is no questioning Marco Rubio's loyalty. However, it would be hypocritical and contrary to the Rule of Law to put him on the presidential ticket.

Senator Rubio has, on several occasions, declined consideration as a Vice Presidential pick. Proof that he has more class and respect for America than our current President. He is a class act for sticking to principle when tempted with power.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and the meaning of Natural Born in the common law refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.

Here is how the term Natural Born Citizen was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution went into effect:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state." And here is how it was used in 1829:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)



There have now been three state court cases (Indiana, Georgia and Arizona) and one federal court case that all have ruled specifically that Obama is a Natural Born US citizen based on the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. And there were also several lower court cases that stated that the US-born children of foreign citizens were Natural Born US Citizens.

“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.]

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

Foxfier said...

'cus one should always listen to anonymous persons whose first source is wikipedia, especially when the text is really similar to random comments elsewhere....

Anonymous said...

Actually, one should listen to the following authority. And one should recognize that the members of US Congress, most of whom are lawyers, did not make a mistake about the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause.


“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.]

Foxfier said...

Tell me again, what was our relationship with Cuba at that point? Sunshine and fairy farts, right?

Foxfier said...

Online from the HF, rather than a quote from an off-line source.

Anonymous said...

The HF in the article you cite is discussing citizenship. It never says that the phrase Natural Born comes from anything other than the common law. And in the common law, the phrase Natural Born goes back 300 years before the US Constitution and always referred to the place of birth--regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

The key ruling is the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled (six to two, one not voting) that EVERY CHILD born in the USA--except for the children of foreign diplomats--is Natural Born.

It said: "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."

So the court ruled that not only did the meaning of Natural Born refer to the place of birth, not the parents in England, but it did so in the 13 colonies, and in the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

And, not only has the US Supreme Court ruled that, but that was the way that Americans used the term Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written.

Here is an example from 1803, very shortly after the Constitution:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state."

And here is how it was used in 1829:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

And here is how it was used in one of the three state court cases that specifically ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case:

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

Foxfier said...

Saw your cut and paste the first time.

Doesn't hide that you're not responding to complete HF document, which doesn't say what you want. Same way you haven't responded to your very own quote not saying quite what you want it to.

Anonymous said...

The HF article did not define what Natural Born is. The Wong Kim Ark ruling DID define what Natural Born is.

It said that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. The ruling also says that there was no reference to parents in the common law.

The Meese book is right, and you are wrong. The three state court rulings and the federal court ruling are right, and you are wrong. The National Review is right, and you are wrong. The Wall Street Journal is right, and you are wrong.

Foxfier said...

You say and say, but that does not make it so.

Anonymous said...

Re: "You say and say, but that does not make it so. "

Readers will notice that Foxfier is no longer discussing the issue. Of course what I say does not make it so. But what you say does not make what you say so either.

(1) The historical facts show that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, and I have shown examples and authorities who say the same thing.
(2) The meaning of Natural Born in the common law referred to the place of birth, regardless of whether the parents were citizens or aliens--and even if they were only visiting in the country. The US Supreme Court recognized this in the Wong Kim Ark case.
(3) The US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and that every child born in the USA--except for the children of foreign diplomats--is Natural Born.
(4) The members of the US Electoral College recognized this meaning of Natural Born Citizen when NOT one single one of them changed a vote. The members of the US Congress recognized this meaning of Natural Born Citizen when NOT one single one of them---including Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul--voted against confirming Obama's election.
(5) Three state courts and one federal court have specifically recognized this interpretation in Obama's case--and at least two appeals courts (the Supreme Courts of Indiana and Georgia) have rejected appeals of those rulings.
(6) Several state courts have recognized the interpretation in cases not related to Obama, in such rulings as:

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.”

(7) Dozens, if not scores, of constitutional scholars and history books hold the same interpretation of Natural Born Citizen.

(8) The Chief Justice of the USA, who knows the precedents, swore in Obama. And the US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case.

Foxfier said...

Readers will notice that Foxfier is no longer discussing the issue.

I can't do it one-sided. When someone just keeps saying the same thing over and over, without responding with anything new, I'm not going to join up in the "nuh-uh! Yeah-huh!" chorus. Two different points got ignored, I'm not going to pitch up a third.

Readers will notice THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA, YOU CUT AND PASTE DONKEY! See the big picture right up top? The guy who is definitely not Barry? Name's Marco Rubio?

Obama was pointed out as an example of someone born in the US who isn't part of American culture. This is about Marco Rubio. Different situation, what with not having an American mother and all.

You might've noticed that if you were "discussing the issue" in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Re: "THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA, YOU CUT AND PASTE DONKEY!"

Answer: Okay. Rubio was born in the USA, and he too is a Natural Born Citizen due to his place of birth. Every US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. That is what Natural Born means. Only naturalized US citizens are US citizens without being Natural Born--and hence they are not eligible.

Rubio is eligible. Arnold, who was naturalized, was not eligible. Jindal and Obama are also eligible.

The courts have ruled that this is so. And the meaning of Natural Born has been shown to refer to the place of birth, not the parents.

Foxfier said...

And back on the "nuh-uh" go-round.

Screw it, anybody that bothered to get through to this point already has their mind made up.

Foxfier said...

(For those whose heads are still spinning-- the Kim Wong case isn't quite what they build it up as, and there's quite a bit of difference between someone born to an American woman on Hawaii and someone born to Cubans in Florida. Google around, there's all kinds of stuff that even specifically points out this weakness. I'm not re-subscribing to comments, though.)

sidewinderaz said...

Consider this:
In the Wong Kim Ark case the decision was that Ark was considered as "native born" due to the fact he was born in San Francisco. Both his parents at the time were still subjects of the Emperor of China and later returned there.
Barak Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jendal all fall into this category.
I believe the prescedence set in prior SC cases is that you are a US citizen by birth on US soil. However, the difference made in more than one SC case (including Ark's) is that there are three distince categories of "citizen".
1. Natural born - Born of two US citizens regardless of location (as in McCain's case).
2. Native born - Born on US soil but one or more parents NOT US citizens.
3. Naturalized - Becoming a US citizen by naturilization process.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Ark was considered as "native born" due to the fact he was born in San Francisco. Both his parents at the time were still subjects of the Emperor of China and later returned there.'

Answer: Ark (actually the family name is Wong) was ruled to be a US citizen. That is, of course, the bottom line of a case in which he was claimed not to be a US citizen.

But, as part of the ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (not from Vattel or any natural law philosophy), and it ruled that under the common law every child born in the USA---I repeat EVERY--except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.

The actual words of the ruling 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."

If you ever studied logic, syllogisms, if you have a statement "all men are mortal" and another statement: "Georgia is a man"--then George must be mortal.

The US Supreme Court ruled that Every child born in the USA is Natural Born. It accepted the stipulated fact that Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA. Therefore, Wong Kim Ark must be Natural Born.

He was a citizen and he was Natural Born, a Natural Born Citizen.

That applies also to Obama, Jindal, and Rubio.

The courts have held that that logic applies in many cases, three state courts and a federal court in the case of Obama, and several other courts, such as this one:

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.”

That is why this appeared in the book edited by Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general:

"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.]

Doo Doo Econ said...

"Here is how the term Natural Born Citizen was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution went into effect:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state." And here is how it was used in 1829:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)"

This is referring to people who lived at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, thus George Washington was a British subject but was granted NBC status.

Doo Doo Econ said...

Further, NBC is not from British Common law, per the Federalist papers it is from "The Law of Nations" by De VATTEL http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

Anonymous said...

There have now been FOUR state court cases (Indiana, Georgia, Arizona and New Jersey) and one federal court case that all have ruled specifically that Obama is a Natural Born US citizen based on the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. And there were also several lower court cases that stated that the US-born children of foreign citizens were Natural Born US Citizens.

There is not a shred of evidence that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the Swiss philosopher Vattel, who recommended that every country should have a state religion and whose works were not translated to included the phrase Natural Born Citizen until TEN years after the Constitution.

The US Supreme Court has held, and the historical evidence confirms, that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and that its meaning includes ALL US citizens who were born in the USA and excludes ONLY naturalized US citizens.

Anonymous said...

Actually Vattel aplpies here.

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens . As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Further Wong Kim Ark was not delcared a natural born citizen, merely a citizen of the U.S.

His natural born citizenship was not at issue before SCOTUS.

The American common-law defintion of natural born citizen was not changed by Ark or the 14th amendment.

Research Dr. David Ramsay, who was the historian of the founding of our country. He was also the acting President of the US, in Congress assembled.

THe precedent you are looking for is not Ark, but Minor (1875).

The holding of SCOTUS in Minor states that natural born is born in the US of parents who are citizens.

This holding has been cited in at least 25 other SCOTUS cases. It is established law, and has never been overturned.

This means that Obama, Jindal, Rubio and Haley are all ineligible.

If you don't like the law, sponsor a constitutional amendment, which has actually been tried over 20 times and each time, the measure failed to pass.

Doo Doo Econ said...

The cases you refer to are state cases and they all reference an Indiana OPINION written based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of British Common Law which applied to SUBJECTS not CITIZENS. The difference is that subjects do not have the right to rule as citizens do.

ShareThis

Ads

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...