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

Originally posted by eLPresidente
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?

It is very easy to prove the op is wrong

Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon 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”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010);

Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”);

Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party, Arizona Superior Court (March 7, 2012) (order dismissing complaint)(“[A]nd this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”)

Farrar et al v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI (Feb. 3, 2012) (Ga. Office of State Admin. Hearings) (relying on Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels to hold that Obama is natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States);

Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);

Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);

Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”)

nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com...

reply to post by hellobruce


The only thing you just proved is that progressives have been spitting on the constitution. It's obvious, been going on for a long time now. Nothing different. All the illegal "gun laws" passed spitting on the second is another example.

Originally posted by TKDRL
The only thing you just proved is that progressives have been spitting on the constitution.

No, I have proved the courts are upholding the constitution, but some people do not like them doing that, as it shows Obama is the legal President, and Marco is also eligible.

reply to post by hellobruce


Have progressives changed the meaning of upholding now too? Last I checked upholding did not mean to interpret any way you feel like it. The constitution has no need to be interpreted, it is written plainly. But screw it, not like it matters right? Just a piece of paper and all that.

Originally posted by TKDRL
it is written plainly.

And thus Obama is the legal president, and Marco is also eligible.

But you want to give it a different meaning.

What Vattell's says and what the founding fathers intended at the time is irrelevant. Like many things in the Constitution the founding fathers left the natural born citizenship clause vague so it could be interpreted over time. The fact is there is no definition of natural born citizenship in the Constitution. As a result it is left up to the courts to provide a definition. This question has been raised in the courts a number of times. The earliest case I am aware of is Lynch v. Clarke. In this case the decision included these words:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

Every other case I am aware of that has addressed the natural born citizen question has gone along with the Lynch v. Clarke decision that birthright citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship. For example the 1939 Supreme Court case Perkins v. Elg states in its decision that as long as someone is born on US soil, even if they live their entire life overseas, they are eligible to be President.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

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.

edit on 10-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

No, no. You are right and I am glad you are right.
I am from Florida don't want to see Rubio on a ticket.
Facts matter to me.

I agree with you in regards to Rubio's eligibility, BUT if Obama can be President then so can Rubio, because Obama has already set the precedent. Having said that, Rubio isn't the answer.

When this subject came up in my Political Science course last Spring it made a real challenge to check out. College has been a series of little lessons in humility and researching and checking anything but my own name 6 ways before taking a formal stand on it. lol....

I was certain this was the thing. The Whammy to get Obammy. After all, I'd heard idiots on talk radio who should have known better and maybe did, saying this was the big way for a few years. Surely someone in a high profile position couldn't be standing with all the basis of quicksand that long and still be at it, right?

Well... I'd be happy to be proven wrong now because the instructor I got to eat just a little crow with, is up there this year and I'd love to good naturedly show him wrong. The fact is though, the Constitution itself doesn't clearly define the term "Natural Born" like we really NEED it to be. Some Founder's papers refer better as I recall but then it comes to the brick wall. Courts have been anything but clear and pretty well made it a definition in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'd say precedent of the other Presidents who had to show their Birth Cert pretty well ends this whole thing for standing back when Arizona certified it through Hawaii for this election.

Now that it's not about Obama... Can't be about Obama...and isn't about ANY particular person to either side (Who knows who runs next??) THIS is the time for some reforms and requiring the Birth Cert -only going forward- if necessary to make that way, should be among the first. The men ..ALL of them...running for President should have to at least pass the basic security clearance and those standards that a kid would find going into boot camp. They are the Commander-In-Chief after all. Showing THEIR ID ought to be agreeable.

reply to post by TKDRL


Thomas Jefferson said this;

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs.

teachingamericanhistory.org...
www.goodreads.com...

I guess you forget the founding fathers specifically made the constitution amendable in article V.

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.

Amendments may be proposed by either :

two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress ; or
by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of :

the legislatures of three-fourths of the states ; or
state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.

Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used.

Any amendment so ratified becomes a valid part of the Constitution, provided that no state "shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the senate," without its consent.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Trustfund

What does that have to do with anything? There was no amendment made pertaining this issue. That is the problem with having supreme court just twist meanings. It usurps the whole process that was created just for the very purpose of changing the constitution. Consider this. If natural born citizen and citizen, meant the same thing, then why would they have bothered putting in natural born in the first place? Makes no sense. There was clearly a difference between the two.

Instead of trying to change amendment two for example, the liberals tried to say that it only applied to militias, and not individuals for a long time. Considering every man over 18 was considered militia in those days........

reply to post by Annee


Some people don't know how to let go.

And why Marco Rubio? He hasn't run for President and I'm unaware of any intentions he may have.

Do you know something we don't, OP?

reply to post by TKDRL


No one is "spitting on the constitution" here.

Rather, Ron Paul fanboys now consider themselves constitutional experts.

It's just another document like the Bible, etc. How one interprets it determines how it is used. The founders knew that it was imperfect when they created it. I doubt they wanted us to follow it to a "T".

Last I checked, this is the 21st century, not the 18th century.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

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.

If I understood the point of the OP.

I wouldn't be asking what the point of this thread is.

Originally posted by muse7
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.

Exactly!

This subject has been hashed and re-hashed - - - and the correct answer never changes.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Annee

 

Some people don't know how to let go.

And why Marco Rubio? He hasn't run for President and I'm unaware of any intentions he may have.

Do you know something we don't, OP?

Apparently!

I've been through more discussions on this then I can count over the last 20 years.

If you are born on American soil (not territories) you are a natural born citizen. Period! That's why some were trying to change the "anchor baby" status - - but were shut down.

The Constitution does leave an opening in case of discrepancies/challenges. Such as being born on an American military base off shore or of military parents. The opening does not dis-include those born on American soil - - but allows for adaptations as mentioned.

reply to post by TKDRL

Consider this. If natural born citizen and citizen, meant the same thing, then why would they have bothered putting in natural born in the first place? Makes no sense. There was clearly a difference between the two.

The founding fathers considered themselves to be citizens of the country they were responsible for creating. They were neither born American nor were they "naturalized" through petition. They were the original citizens.

Today, all people born on American soil are natural born citizens, regardless of sex, color, religion or ownership status. There are no second class natural born citizens. Either you're born and American, or you're not.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this. Any natural born citizen has the right to run for the office of POTUS.

I pray someday the population will show interest in their local politicians

you local congress-people and governor have much more of a direct impact on your life than the potus does.

believe it or not, potuse doesn't even write legislation or pass laws

So then Obama supporters would have no objection to George P Bush running for president....looks like he is filing in Texas to start his political career. By objections I mean his citizen status.

He was born in US but his mom was a Mexican citizen.

So he's all good right?



Just a side not, his mother was not a US citizen when George was born, became naturalized in 1987.

Originally posted by timetothink
So then Obama supporters would have no objection to George P Bush running for president....looks like he is filing in Texas to start his political career. By objections I mean his citizen status.

He was born in US but his mom was a Mexican citizen.

So he's all good right?

Yes he's good.

Where a parent is born is not relevant.