[Razorsharp]

The Republicrats are crowing over the possibility of Marco Rubio being Romney's running-mate.

Something is going on. It's just a little bit too much of a "coincidence" for the question of a candidate's "Natural Born Citizen" status to come up in successive elections.

Not only that, but the qualifications for Natural Born Citizen status have also evolved. When it was Obama's status that was being scrutinized, he attained his "natural born" citizenship through the citizenship of his mother.

Now, since neither of Marco Rubio's parents were citizens, all that is required to be recognized as a Natural Born Citizen is to be born on U.S. soil.

If that's the case, then Anwar Al-awlaki, the terrorist that Obama killed in a drone strike, would have been recognized as a Natural Born Citizen.

The Founders deliberately used the term "Natural Born Citizen" as a qualification for, not only President, but for Commander in Chief, because, according to their understanding of the term, it would insulate America from foreign influence and intrigues. And the qualification of Natural Born Citizen that the Founders recognized that would insulate America from foreign influence, was the requirement of citizen parents.

The evidence is in - today, there are many born here who hold allegience to the country of their parents, rather than to America.

[Cavalry Doc]

What is the current legal definition of "natural born citizen". Pretty sure it would have nothing to do with having a c-section.

I tend to agree that it should be both parents being citizens, and born on US soil. But what I think really doesn't matter much.

If he is not qualified, better to hash it out now than in October.

[Razorsharp]

In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

What is the current legal definition of "natural born citizen".

Evidently, it's whatever the powers-that-be wish it to be.

Must be part of that "the Constitution is a living document" thing.

[kirgi08]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

tagged.

[Hyksos]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

Obama doesn't meet the definition of 'natural born citizen' according to that case law either. But, guess what? He's still president. Natural born citizen means born on US soil. Now, if you want to talk about the Court refusing to follow stare decisis, then you could write an entire book. They ignore precedent all the time and just make up some crap to get around it.

I don't think natural born citizen will ever mean what the Court said it meant in 1875.

[eracer]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

This is a subtle strawman argument.

Minor v Happersett did not 'deal with citizenship.' The case was about whether the Constitution expressly gave women the right to vote. In this case, they unanimously affirmed that it did not.

The court affirmed that the Virginia Minor did meet the definition of 'citizen,' but in no way defined (or tried to define) what 'natural-born citizen' meant.

"The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth."

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by eracer

This is a subtle strawman argument.

Minor v Happersett did not 'deal with citizenship.' The case was about whether the Constitution expressly gave women the right to vote. In this case, they unanimously affirmed that it did not.

Matters not. The Happersett Court defined NBC in its majority opinion, and therefore could be citable in future cases, which is possibly why the Court refused to hear any challenges to Obama's eligibility.

Had they, they would have been confronted with the Happersett opinion.

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Matters not.

Hmmm. I've never heard that context doesn't matter in law. Do you have more on this?

[czsmithGT]

Not this crap again. Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen and is entitled to hold the office of President. He was born in the United States. Any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements are Natural Born Citizens.

[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Evidently, it's whatever the powers-that-be wish it to be.

Must be part of that "the Constitution is a living document" thing.

Bullsh**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...._Wong_Kim_Ark


"In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[2] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[3] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted."

[eracer]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Matters not. The Happersett Court defined NBC in its majority opinion, and therefore could be citable in future cases, which is possibly why the Court refused to hear any challenges to Obama's eligibility.

Had they, they would have been confronted with the Happersett opinion.

Can you cite the part of the decision that defined 'Natural Born Citizen?'

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by eracer

Can you cite the part of the decision that defined 'Natural Born Citizen?'

14th.

First sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…

So, if your parents are not here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Which skewers the argument about "anchor babies", which is a complete fraud.

So, if Rubio is born here and his parents were here legally, or somehow sought to become and did become legal, then he's probably ok. Lets see the birth certificate.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

Any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents

Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.

[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.

If that is what yuu believe then you will have to prove it in court.

[eracer]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

14th.

First sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…

So, if your parents are not here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Which skewers the argument about "anchor babies", which is a complete fraud.

So, if Rubio is born here and his parents were here legally, or somehow sought to become and did become legal, then he's probably ok. Lets see the birth certificate.

The 14th Amendment predates the court decision we are discussing. I asked for a citation of the definition in the Minor v. Happersett case (since Razorsharp claimed that the court defined NBC in that case.)

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

The Happersett Court defined NBC in its majority opinion...

[engineer151515]

Obama successfully obfuscated and delayed the issue until a birth certificate could be produced.


At this point, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger could probably get away with being the POTUS.

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

So, if your parents are not here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Really? Illegal aliens can't be arrested, tried, and jailed by US government entities? I wonder how all those defense lawyers missed that?

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Gundude

Really? Illegal aliens can't be arrested, tried, and jailed by US government entities? I wonder how all those defense lawyers missed that?

There are a lot of things you can't require of an illegal alien. You can't require them to register for military service, for instance.

Uh oh. Who can we think of who probably didn't register for selective service, because the document he produced has a number that is completely out of sequence for the year it supposedly happened in?

[Ruble Noon]

Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:

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.


http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

[brickboy240]

Is Rubio's citizenship really more of a mystery than Obama's?

At least Rubio likes the country he wishes to represent.

- brickboy240

[Rob1109]

As much as I like Rubio, I like the Constitution better! Did I miss if Rubio was born here?

Just checked and it appears he was born in Miami.

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by eracer

Can you cite the part of the decision that defined 'Natural Born Citizen?'

Sure, I'll do it again.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

[aircarver]

Originally Posted by brickboy240

Is Rubio's citizenship really more of a mystery than Obama's?

At least Rubio likes the country he wishes to represent.

- brickboy240

The Obamamatons, who wouldn't give us the time of day about him, will demand full certifications and proof for Rubio.....

.

[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by Rob1109

As much as I like Rubio, I like the Constitution better! Did I miss if Rubio was born here?

Just checked and it appears he was born in Miami.

He was born here.