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

Originally posted by timetothink
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?

I just don't understand why there is so much backlash to the truth, facts, and evidence.

Its not like I didn't post it in the OP....


And yes, the Founding Fathers were damn sharp, I think it is because they actually bothered to revisit history. That combined with the experience they just had fighting and defeating tyranny, they really did create a sort of masterpiece.

So I guess we will see a bunch of Rubio threads from now on. I guess it’s a good thing McCain didn’t win being born in Panama and all. I don’t believe the original constitution covered that either until a later dates.

Edit to add

While we are at it are you aware what qualified an individual to be able to vote back when our founding fathers wrote the constitution?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Yes, and in 1790 only white men who owned property could be considered citizens. Women were property and only became citizens based on their husbands' status. Forget about men of color.

Yeah, that's the standard that we use to allow people to run for office.

Stepping back into present times:

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by windword


That's just an opinion, not using the foundation of Vattels definition, which the founders did indeed use.

All these false arguments are really silly.

Originally posted by timetothink
That false argument is really getting old.

The false argument that Vattel is somehow relevant is even older and staler. The birthers have lost every silly court case, but some people just refuse to accept reality.

reply to post by timetothink


Yeah, well you can take Vettel's opinion to the Supreme Court and see if you can use to it get Obama impeached!

What is this thread really about?

Anyone born in the United States of America is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to run for President.

Rubio didn't have to apply for citizenship to become "naturalized." Natural American citizenship was conferred upon him at birth. There aren't degrees of natural born citizenship. You either are born an American or you're not. There are no second class natural born citizens.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Yes, and in 1790 only white men who owned property could be considered citizens. Women were property and only became citizens based on their husbands' status. Forget about men of color.

Yeah, that's the standard that we use to allow people to run for office.

Sure but ou fail to state that all of the things you mentioned were AMENDED in the Constitution.

The founding fathers always said the Constitution was imperfect, if they thought they were 100% right, they could've locked it up so NOBODY could amend anything.

Doesn't ANY of you think that if the requirements to be president were too radical, that there would've been an amendment for it? Be honest with yourselves here.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Is there an amendment that states one doesn't have to be a landowner to vote or revokes that requirement? Just asking, as that used to be a standard for citizenship.

Does the Supreme Court really have to legislate every aspect of common sense?

Originally posted by windword
Rubio didn't have to apply for citizenship to become "naturalized." Natural American citizenship was conferred upon him at birth. There aren't degrees of natural born citizenship. You either are born an American or you're not. There are no second class natural born citizens.

Much like Annee before you, just making it up doesn't necessarily make it true.


I think I see whats going on here and I apologize if my thread has inflamed the Obama supporters, I actually didn't mean for that to happen. You won't see me posting about his 'birther' situation but you will see me openly condemning his atrocious acts against the Constitution be re-authorizing the patriot act and repeatedly power grabbing for indefinite military detention and the privilege to kill Americans, both without due process.

People, let's look at this from a non-partisan standpoint, the FACTUAL standpoint. Don't let your 'party affiliation' decide the facts for you, thats a dangerous slope to be on.

I still don't know what this thread is really about!

The supreme court has ruled that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, so please O.P what is the point of this thread?

Just because you support Ron Paul, that does not make you an expert on the Constitution.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Is there an amendment that states one doesn't have to be a landowner to vote or revokes that requirement? Just asking, as that used to be a standard for citizenship.

Does the Supreme Court really have to legislate every aspect of common sense?

They don't have to legislate common sense because the OP has provided all the common sense necessary to deride a factual statement.

Anything else is opinion and/or hearsay.

You may think it is common sense to have it your way but history and the facts obviously show otherwise, THAT is the common sense.

reply to post by eLPresidente


You're the one making stuff up.

You don't like the policies of someone, so you look for loopholes to discredit their authority.

There are no second class natural born citizens. I'm not making that up. Either you're born an American, like Marco Rubio, or you're not, Like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Anything else is opinion and/or hearsay.

That is all birthers have, as they have zero facts.

Marco Rubio is a natural born US citizen

Originally posted by windword
There are no second class natural born citizens.

True, there are 2 types of citizens, natural born or naturalised. That is all.

14th Amendment as it is stated pretty clearly.

Read, citizen, not natural born citizen. Wording is important when it affects so many millions of people.

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,

Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Constitution directly had 3 types of citizens, at the adoption of the 14th Amendment, those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. Framers of the 14th amendment chose to use "citizen" and not "natural born citizen."


Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

Correct is right. This is a stupid and pointless thread.

The Supreme Court has spoken!!! Next!

By the way, Rubio is not a lock to win over Latino voters en masse if he ever decides to run.

Many, many Latinos regard him as a phony, pompous, aloof, extremely selfish and shady character.

Many Latinos don't forget the way he treated Floridians when he resided in the Tallahassee House. He wiped out the funding for public education, tried to eliminate the class size amendment and wiped out the budget on education, just for starters.

Rubio may get a whole lot of Latino voters but folks who have seen him in action want NO part of him.

That's a fact.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Wording is important when it affects so many millions of people.]

Yes, it is. Which is why Obama, as a natural born citizen, is the legal president

And Marco Rubio could also run for the job.

From the beginning of this thread there hasn't been one court case and/or law quoted in opposition to the OP.

If its so easy to prove, folks, then prove it?