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

reply to post by TKDRL


The Supreme Court doesn't just twist meanings. The Supreme Court, and the Judicial Branch as a whole, was created to interpret the law. The Constitution was left vague o purpose because the founding fathers knew that things will change over time. For over 100 years now the court has interpreted the natural born citizen clause as referring to any citizen with birthright citizenship. Prior to that there was no definition for natural born citizenship. The courts have spoken and as long as someone is born on US soil they are a natural born citizen.

reply to post by timetothink


I'm not an Obama supporter (however I am anti-birther) and no there is no problem with George P. Bush running. He was born on US soil, not to mention having a parent who is a US citizen, so there should be no question regarding whether or not he is a natural born citizen. In fact I welcome him running. Jeb seems to be the only member of that family who actually knows anything about politics and the government so I hope he passed that on to his son.

reply to post by eLPresidente


He is a US Citizen.. He was born in the US and because of that its not relevent where his parents are from.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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.

reply to post by Xcathdra


No one disputes he is a citizen. You have to be a natural born citizen to be president. There is a difference between the two, or there used to be. I guess now it's all the same. Who cares I guess. What the supreme court says, goes. Until they say something else.

Originally posted by TKDRL
No one disputes he is a citizen.

The implication is present in the op's post / comments.

Originally posted by TKDRL
You have to be a natural born citizen to be president.

Since he was born in the United States he is a natural born citizen as is eligible to be President.

Several pieces of legislation after the 14th amendment addressed these issues as well.

We can see this very clearly in the immigration issue and the use of the term anchor baby.

Originally posted by TKDRL
There is a difference between the two, or there used to be.

Care to back that claim up with some facts?

reply to post by TKDRL


Once again this is not a modern change. Natural born citizenship has been equivalent to birthright citizenship for over 100 years and the case that decided this was the first to address the question. Prior to this there had been no official definition of the term.

reply to post by hellobruce


The fact that natural born citizen is even mentioned....... This was back in the day when people had to write by hand, they didn't mince words. But like I said, who cares. The supreme court ruled on it, and that is that. Until the supreme court says something different.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The fact that natural born citizen is even mentioned....... This was back in the day when people had to write by hand, they didn't mince words. But like I said, who cares. The supreme court ruled on it, and that is that. Until the supreme court says something different.

edit on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:59:19 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

If we look at the Constitution you will see what was meant. They specifically pointed out those individuals who were present in the colonies prior to their independence and grandfathered them in. If they meant anything different than being born in the country there never wouldhave been a need to address the status of those subjects who told the crown to piss off.

reply to post by eLPresidente

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]

And that law was changed just a couple years later with the wording corrected. Then it was made moot altogether by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

"Born on American soil" == "Natural Born Citizen" (except for children of foreign diplomats and invading armies).

"Born on American soil" is not the only circumstance that is equal to "Natural Born Citizen" but it is the simplest and most sure. The circumstance of the parents has nothing to do with it if "Born on American soil" (except the two exceptions listed above).

You folks have been trying to push this 2 parent citizen falsehood for 4 years now and it just doesn't fly. Please go away.

So, then if the definition of natural born is only to mean born on American soil, (which is not what the founders meant)......

Then what happens if a family is on vacation, (not military service to our country), and mom goes into labor and has child in another country?

reply to post by timetothink

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".

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Xcathdra


I've already addressed that in a later post. I hope you saw it.

reply to post by timetothink

So, then if the definition of natural born is only to mean born on American soil, (which is not what the founders meant)......

Then what happens if a family is on vacation, (not military service to our country), and mom goes into labor and has child in another country?

You didn't read my post did you timetothink?

Because I didn't say that was the only way. I said:

"Born on American soil" is not the only circumstance that is equal to "Natural Born Citizen" but it is the simplest and most sure. The circumstance of the parents has nothing to do with it if "Born on American soil" (except the two exceptions listed above).

If you are NOT born on American soil, then and only then does your parents status come into it. The 14th Amendment says "All persons born...in the United States" and makes no reference to the parents.

Obama (Hawai'i) and Rubio (Florida) are "Native Born Citizens" because they were born on American soil. End of story. That is enough.

John McCain (Canal Zone, military) and George Romney (Mexico, civilian) are Native Born Citizens because, even though born abroad, their parents were Citizens.

Does that answer your question? The important takeaway is that Birth Right Citizenship = Natural Born Citizen.

I repeat: the simplest, most straightforward, most common Birth Right Citizenship is Born on American Soil.

If you are NOT born on American Soil, the citizenship status of your parents, the marriage status of your parents, the age of your parents, the residency history of your parents can all play a role in the determination of your Natural Born Citizenship.

reply to post by rnaa


The point I am trying to make is that there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen.

The founders put it in the constitution or a reason.

To prevent anyone with split loyalties ie: parent that is a citizen if another country or perhaps birth in a country that thinks like the US and recognizes anchor babies, from being elected to the highest office of our land.

The presidency should not be available to just any old citizen.

reply to post by Swills

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

The irony of that is, we seen that mess come to what it is now....You are right we might as well suck it up and just deal with it, because obviously there are too many stupid people who can't comprehend the rhetoric....

reply to post by timetothink


There are two type of citizen: "Natural Born" and "Naturalized". That is it.

An American is either "Natural Born" or "Naturalized".

If your point is that there is a third kind of citizen, you are wrong.

There are other types of citizenship because of territories the states "own".

You can look it up, it is very complicated and gets into the IRS etc.

For further reference, if you choose to be open minded thus article is excellent.

www.federalistblog.us...

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”* When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

This definition disqualifies Obama and Rubio.

reply to post by timetothink


There should be a law BANNING the Bush family from fielding any future candidates.

Enough is enough.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


How American of you.......