Marco Rubio is NOT eligible to be President or VP. Eligibility & Reasoning explained.

Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born citizen.

Why were the founding fathers so fanatic about only natural born citizens being eligible to be president?

They just fought an entire revolution to stop tyranny, ending the label of 'subjects' to the British Crown in exchange for Independence to be American 'citizens'. One of the few ways to stop the system from being corrupted was to make sure there was no loyalty to another nation.

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“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 to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

www.newswithviews.com...

Vatttels' Law of Nations (which definitions of the Constitution was written under) § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens - it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

main.issuevet.com...

Rubio meets the birthplace requirement to be a natural born citizen. He was born in Miami, Florida, in the United States.
However, he does not meet the second requirement--the parental citizenship test. To be a natural born citizen, a person's parents must be U.S. citizens. Marco Rubio's parents, Mario and Oriales Rubio, were both born in Cuba and immigrated to the U.S. as refugees to escape Castro. The both obtained permanent legal residency in the United States. They became citizens nearly four years after Rubio's birth, making it impossible for them to confer natural citizenship upon Rubio.

www.washingtonpost.com...

On Sept. 9, 1975, Marco Rubio’s parents also petitioned for naturalization. Their petitions list the same date of admission to the United States as the petition of Rubio’s brother. It is unclear why Rubio’s parents waited 15 years to seek naturalization.

The parents’ naturalization papers have begun to circulate on the Internet as part of a “birther” controversy related to Rubio’s eligibility for future presidential tickets. The controversy, which was reported this week in the St. Petersburg Times, has been compared to the frenzy surrounding President Obama’s birthplace, but in reality it bears a closer resemblance to the fight over Sen. John McCain’s eligibility in the 2008 election.

Back in the days that this was written, loyalty was an important idea.
Most loyalty was thought to be based on heritage.
Therefore a person who was a second generation citizen was considered safe to hold important office and more likely to be loyal to the Republic and work towards it's welfare.

Of course, look at recent American history and you can see that American citizens holding office seem to be the most eminent hazard posed to the welfare of American citizens.


The same people who set those rules would have found it absolutely ludicrous that the citizens of any country would allow politicians to spend 16 trillion dollars more than they actually had.

Instead of a citizenship clause we should have had a sanity clause.

I sure hope he has a Birth Certificate.

Never mind....Precedent.

If he or another non natural citizen becomes president (not necessarily saying it will happen) but IF.

Our tradition and Constitution regarding presidential eligibility will be gone forever and with it, one of the most important checks and balances that make this country great (or formerly great).

reply to post by eLPresidente


Who? What? Not eligible for Prez? Who cares?

We just finished an election. Let's deal with the mess we have now.

Where your parents are born has nothing to do with it.

If he is born in America - - he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Do we really have to go through this again?

Originally posted by Annee
Where your parents are born has nothing to do with it.

If he is born in America - - he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Do we really have to go through this again?

Apparently you missed the sources.

Making things up doesn't make it true.

1 STATUTE AT LARGE 103:

“SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.”[7]

Terminology used in the Constitution were based on certain definitions and these definitions shall remain unless amended in the Constitution.

I don't know why there is any argument around this.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Annee
Where your parents are born has nothing to do with it.

If he is born in America - - he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Do we really have to go through this again?

Apparently you missed the sources.

Making things up doesn't mean they're true.

OK.

Because they're not.

Lol where have you been the last 4 years or so. Did ya care that Barack has the same issue

Now I can say who cares move on Racist

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Why were the founding fathers so fanatic about only natural born citizens being eligible to be president?

Hardly fanatic... it was a last minute addition.

So by your interpretation none of the Founding fathers actually qualified to run for office. They were neither born in the United States nor were their parents. They were all subjects of the British Crown and the United States did not exist.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
So by your interpretation none of the Founding fathers actually qualified to run for office. They were neither born in the United States nor were their parents. They were all subjects of the British Crown and the United States did not exist.

I'm not interpreting it, what you just said does happen to be the case and you won't find me denying it.

How fun facts are


I do however, find it quite interesting that opinions get more stars than facts here on ATS where the motto is "deny ignorance".

I'm just glad Annee conceded her argument because it was backed by none other than opinionated hearsay.

How fun facts are.

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Lol where have you been the last 4 years or so. Did ya care that Barack has the same issue

Now I can say who cares move on Racist

Please don't make it about left vs right. Obama has had plenty of threads here on ATS.

The only one here that is making this a racist situation appears to be you, you are the first to play the race card in this thread.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Please don't make it about left vs right. Obama has had plenty of threads here on ATS.

The only one here that is making this a racist situation appears to be you, you are the first to play the race card in this thread.

What is this thread really about?

I don't get it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Please don't make it about left vs right. Obama has had plenty of threads here on ATS.

The only one here that is making this a racist situation appears to be you, you are the first to play the race card in this thread.

What is this thread really about?

I don't get it.

I'll refer you to the title of the thread and the OP, you should find what you are looking for there.

reply to post by eLPresidente


You do know this is the oft put down birthers argument pertaining to Obama, right?

His father was not a citizen...and his mothers age is a question whether she was of age to confer citizenship.

But if you are using Vattel, which is the proper definition of natural born according to the founders, then you will also notice his definition stipulates that citizenship is conferred from the father.

Of course Obamas followers say this doesn't matter because he was born on US soil....thus ignoring Vattels definition all together.

See the predicament?

Sorry I went off track, but the argument against Rubio brings up the question of Obama "natural born" status.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Come on....read the constitution, it states the founders were grandfathered in or they couldn't elect a president for years. You think they were that dumb?

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 to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

You see the part of the sentence, "a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution"?

That false argument is really getting old.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

You do know this is the oft put down birthers argument pertaining to Obama, right?

His father was not a citizen...and his mothers age is a question whether she was of age to confer citizenship.

But if you are using Vattel, which is the proper definition of natural born according to the founders, then you will also notice his definition stipulates that citizenship is conferred from the father.

Of course Obamas followers say this doesn't matter because he was born on US soil....thus ignoring Vattels definition all together.

See the predicament?

Sorry I went off track, but the argument against Rubio brings up the question of Obama "natural born" status.

I agree.

If you would like to connect familiarities of this thread with the Obama situation I won't stop you nor will I argue with you because its the truth and I do support the truth.

As long as you don't make this into a racial issue like some others are attempting to do, I think it'll be fine.


Now onto the grandfather clause, I'm not sure if Kelionyx meant to make it look like the founding fathers were hypocrites (which is pretty silly given the circumstances) or just pointing out the facts. Maybe Keli can clear things up.

reply to post by eLPresidente


No, I never played the race card....don't worry.

I wish more people would use their heads when it comes to who we put in the big chair, as long as "they" have enough support or money behind them, the constitution goes out the window.

I can't wait to see if this same thing happens with a candidate they don't like.....what will the definition be then?

reply to post by eLPresidente


I just posted that for you.....they always seem to skip that portion of the sentence.....a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution.....

The founders were kinda smart.