The Future is Now
There is no question conservative republicans have their eyes and hearts set on Sen. Marco Rubio to make a run at the Oval Office ... sooner rather than later. In his recent Iowa debut he has broken fundraising records...
ALTOONA, Iowa – As the Republican Party regroups after Mitt Romney’s defeat, the message Saturday night at Iowa Republican Gov. Terry Branstad’s birthday fundraiser was “turn the page” and “look to the future” — and what that future apparently holds is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the event’s featured speaker.
Rubio was invited to speak at the event around Sept. 1, Branstad told The Daily Caller, and had Romney won, the atmosphere might have been a bit different.
But only 11 days after voters went to the polls and Republicans came up short, Rubio was speaking to a crowd that had trained its sights squarely on 2016.
In his speech, Rubio weaved together the personal and the economic. He discussed the importance of a stable family life to a stable economy, and how critical the success of the middle class is not just to the country’s financial situation, but also to its place in the world. American exceptionalism, Rubio said, is important to every nation, not just the United States.
“The way to turn our economy around is not by making rich people poorer; it’s by making poor people richer,” Rubio said.
The Florida senator talked about the need to improve the country’s immigration system and develop a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. He also emphasized the importance of education reform, which he said is necessary to ensure that future generations are competitive in the global economy.
“People understand that we need to do something to address those issues, and they want to do that in a reasonable and responsible way,” Rubio told the crowd.
[...]
This was Rubio’s coming out party, his first chance to woo the voters that will make the first determination about who will become the Republican nominee for president four years from now.
By all accounts, he hit a home run.
“I heard a number of people indicate to me that, ‘My gosh, why wasn’t he on the ticket?’ And so that alone indicates to me that he’s a viable potential candidate for 2016,” said Doug Gross, a veteran Republican political operative in Iowa.
[...]
“I was sitting next to our secretary of agriculture, Bill Northey, and he remarked on how when Marco Rubio talks about American exceptionalism, he does so in a way that we understand it, and it sweeps us up and makes us feel good and proud and also gives us a sense of goal and destiny,” King added.
[...]
Even before they heard him speak on Saturday, Iowans were attracted to Rubio. Branstad said the fundraiser generated more than $600,000, a total he said was greater than he had raised before in any single event.
Read in full...
A Rubio candidacy will see the left elevate the "birther" mentality from conspiracy nutjobness to constitutional patriotism.
Luis, you nailed it.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that many of the birthers who consider Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen and unqualified for presidential candidacy, are not liberals, but many are from the ultra conservative, Tea Party camps. However, if he did become a candidate, then those on the left as well as the right will finally join hands gleefully in a frantic attempt getting him to step down, which of course only favors the left.
If you are a "birther", and you argued that Barack Obama is not qualified for the Presidency because his American citizenship did not transfer to him through his mother at birth (Stanley Ann Dunham was too young to meet the legal standard required for a jus sanguine transfer of birthright at the time of Obama's birth), then NOT questioning Rubio's eligibility makes you a hypocrite.
If jus soli is the standard to meet that natural born citizen status, then Rubio is eligible.
The primary difference between Rubio and Obama is that, unlike Rubio, Obama was born holding dual citizenship.
The salient issue for natural born citizenship status is one of jurisdiction over the parents. The Supreme Court has ruled as such in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
Obama's father, by his own admission in his autobiography, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore the United States DID NOT have legal jurisdiction over BHO senior. Forget the age of the mother; that alone disqualifies him from being President under Article II of the Constitution.
In Obama's case it is clear that the United States DID NOT have jurisdiction; in Marco's case it is evident that the United States DID have it. Both of his parents were fully vetted legal US residents at the time of his birth.
Let the libs try to bring it up. It'll be a party for us.
And, BTW, it was Hillary Clinton supporters who were the first birthers, the ones that made it an issue, not conservatives.
This whole thing about the citizenship of the parents is news to me and I expect it is to most voters. The way I see it is very simple. Marco Rubio was born an American Citizen he was never naturalized and has never been a citizen of another country. Case closed. I won't debate it any further than that. Everything else is conspiracy theories from non-lawyers pretending to be constitutional scholars.
Henry, it is case law. Plain and simple. You can deny it all you want but it doesn't change a goddamned thing.
The fact that the citizenship of the parents thing is news to most voters doesn't surprise me. Like you, most voters believe that simply being born on US soil fulfills the Constitutional requirement under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution (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).
Here are the reasons why I don't believe that's the case.
1. The Founders saw fit to include a carve out of unusual nature because prior to the ratification of the Constitution, because everyone of age to qualify for the office at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, had been born holding citizenship elsewhere, so they included a "waiver" of sorts to qualify themselves for the office that's impossible for anyone ever else to meet. No one could ever be born even one day after the ratification, holding a citizenship other than American, and qualify for the office of President of the United States. Then they added the additional caveat: "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." So, even if you were on US soil at the time of the ratification, opted to leave the country because you didn't agree with the way things went down, and you remained loyal to the Crown, you had to be physically present in the US for fourteen consecutive years, AND be at least thirty-five years old in order to qualify. The absolute earliest that anyone who wasn't alive and on US soil before ratification was 1822.
2. If simple citizenship by birth on US soil (jus soli) meets the Constitutional "natural born citizen" requirement, then, Arnold Schwarzenegger qualifies to be President.
Follow me on this:
Amendment XIV U.S. Constitution: 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.
The XIV Amendment erases all differences between persons born citizens, or persons naturalized citizens, and prohibits any State from abridging the "privileges or immunities" of anyone who is a citizen of the United States.
So if born a citizen is equal to natural born citizen, and born a citizen (per the XIV) is equal to naturalized citizen, then naturalized citizen is equal to natural born citizen in all aspects of US law...including qualifying to hold the office of President of the United States.
Yet, no one in their right mind will argue that Arnold qualifies, so we instinctively know that being born here, regardless of that equity built by the XIV Amendment between those citizens described as "persons born" and the second set of citizens described as "naturalized," is not enough to qualify.
That distinction tells me that a natural born citizenship can only be transmitted by blood, and that that blood can't be "tainted" (for lack of a better word) by an allegiance owed to any nation other than the US by those whose blood will grant citizenship to the baby.
Obama was born a subject to the British Crown, in accordance to British Law, and Ann Dunham was (according to prevailing US law at the time of Obama's birth) too young to transfer her US citizenship to her son.
I'm not going to get into a huge debate over this, it is simply a statement on what I believe.
World Net Daily (AKA Birther Central) wrote about Rubio's 'ineligibility' a long time ago. To wit:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/vice-president-rubio-not-so-fast/
I am NOT agreeing with Farah, I am just posting a link to show that top dog / head birthers long ago decided Rubio was not natural born, and so not eligible for VP or President.
The various arguments that Obama was / is ineligible have been busted / debunked many times.
[Link deleted.]
"The various arguments that Obama was / is ineligible have been busted / debunked many times."
Not really.
[Degan, I'm not linking to a leftist site. Ed.]
Luis,
"If simple citizenship by birth on US soil (jus soli) meets the Constitutional "natural born citizen" requirement, then, Arnold Schwarzenegger qualifies to be President."
Arnold was born in AUSTRIA. What kind of nonsense are we talking here?
Gallardo, read his comment again.
Regarding the link I gave, I believe the site owner is a libertarian and not so much a liberal. Anyway, why should it matter if his analyses are well sourced and documented?
The second of the deleted links I gave was actually to a page that provided the detailed decision of Superior Court judge Robert Bent, who wrote that "The expression “natural born citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed."
Well, here is the same thing, more or less, from some newspaper's site:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20121115/NEWS03/311150036/Vermont-judge-tosses-natural-born-citizen-anti-Obama-lawsuit
"The expression 'natural born citizen' is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed."
That is patently incorrect and displays a breathtaking ignorance -- willful, maybe? -- of what the founders were thinking when they made the distinction.
That's one judge's opinion, and plenty of judges have issued plenty of opinions that have eventually been overturned because they where wrong.
I'll draw my conclusion on the subject based on the opinion of John Bingham, the man who is recognized as the father of the XIV Amendment:
”Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
"Parents" is the plural form of the noun. One of Obama's parents was a British subject, and Obama himself was born British subject.
The Constitution identifies three types of citizens (that I can recall off the top of my head):
1. The natural born citizen (citizenship by right of blood).
2. The person born citizen (the totality of all citizens receiving citizenship either by right of blood, or right of soil).
3. The naturalized citizen (citizenship by act of Congress).
Only citizen #1 qualifies to be President.
Barack Obama is citizen #2, and his dual citizenship at birth does not qualify him to be citizen #1..
P.S. If that judge you quoted is right, then Arnold Schwarzenegger can be President, because he could not be denied equal standing to a person born into citizenship under the letter of Amendment XIV of the US Constitution.
I do not understand this at all. What early president would fit the description of natural born if it depended on the citizenship of the parents?
We had better get ahead of this one at once or the left will beat it to death and don't tell me we have questions about Obama's citizenship. The left will say the usual oh, that's old news, racist etc.
I just came back from the NR cruise where Rubio was the outstanding favorite in any poll asking who we want as our next candidate.
Honey, the founders exempted themselves. Here is the sentence:
"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."
So how does this say that the parents must be citizens? Wasn't Rubio a natural born citizen even if his parents were born in Cuba? And how does this work for Obama and then against Rubio?
Honey, I'm not going to explain it to you or anybody else. I've already done the work, now it's your turn to do the research. I think Luis and I have given enough information to start anybody off on the right foot.
It doesn't work for Obama, it's just that he had the double "dispensation" of being a Dem and black. In other words, he was too much of a liberal wet dream to be disqualified. If he had been a Republican candidate, you'd better believe the MSM would have been all over the eligibility issue, big time.
Honey, I came to the conclusions that I arrived at by doing research and coming to my own conclusions after reading hundreds of articles, Congressional records and history.
Everyone should do the same.
Too hard for me. All I want to know is if the MSM and the politicos have enough to disqualify him or will we be able to get in front of this early enough to say that Obama set a precedent and now we are following that?
"Everyone should do the same." Surely you jest. What do you think this is, Switzerland?
Why does the left always get what they want and we do not? If we made a big enough stink early on, and repetitively, using Rush and the rest and our Tea Parties and our noise, we might win for a change.
Why do they get to vet our candidates and set our rules?
No this is not Switzerland; this is America! And we had better start making big noises like threatening to tear up cities or whatever if we don't get the same rights they do. We had better make noises big time NOW!
Yes George, I read Luis' words, they are observations but not valid interpretations. None of them change the fact that anyone born in USA is granted natural citizenship and given the same legal status as the daughter of Elvis Presley. Unarguably, this is a double edge sword given how such law has been abused by illegal immigrants, wealthy foreign women coming as birth tourists, unassimilated groups, etc.
Luis' statements "That distinction tells me that a natural born citizenship can only be transmitted by blood..." or "The natural born citizen (citizenship by right of blood)" are erroneous regarding U.S. law.
This is not Germany where a parent, either adoptive or biological, has to be a German citizen for the child to be granted German citizenship.
The United States is the only country in the developed world other than Canada that grants Jus Soli or birthright citizenship (with the exception of diplomats). The U.S. law dates back to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified after the Civil War to ensure that all freed slaves and their children would be American citizens.
Jus Sanguini only applies if the child is born of citizens, meaning BOTH parents being U.S. citizens, temporarily residing abroad, as in the military service, then he/she may become eligible to be president as well. This was the case of George Romney of Michigan (Mitt Romney's father) who ran for president in 1968 despite being born in a Mormon community in Chihuahua, Mexico. His parents were U.S. citizens so he was a natural born citizen. Presidential candidate John McCain was also born abroad, in a Panama base to American parents.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
ANYONE BORN INSIDE the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
That said, as long as Marco Rubio was born USA all else is nonsense and irrelevant.
Gallardo, I don't want to get into this with you other than to say to you are wholly incorrect in your assertions.
There are three types of citizenship recognized in the United States (you can check the immigration department manuals if you don't believe me): natural-born, native-born, and naturalized. There are key distinctions between them. My son and niece are natural-born. My sister is native-born. I am naturalized.
Suffice to say, the founders, who WERE NOT uneducated men, specifically used the phrase "natural-born" when creating the clause about the qualifications to be President. That phrase is from Vattel's The Laws of Nations and is unequivocally tied to the citizenship status of one's parents at the time of birth. The founders used it as a means to prevent British subjects form subjugating the Presidency by necessitating that US citizen parents be the vehicles by which individuals would be eligible to serve as President. The case I mentioned at the start of this thread, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), specifically dealt with the issue of natural-born citizenship. It determined -- and I'm simplifying it for the sake of our discussion -- that the governmental entity (i.e., country) holding jurisdiction over the parents determined the status of the person, i.e., native- or natural-born. There is no question about the fact that if you're born here you are a citizen. The distinction is made wholly to determine eligibility under Article II of the Constitution.
If you think your interpretation is correct, fine. But the Constitution is what is. It is downright shameful that so few people know it and understand it.
That is why we are in the shithole we're in today...
Here's the link for Vattel:
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm.
Section 212 of Book 1 has the relevant information. This is one of the sources the founders relied upon when crafting the Constitution.
So then how did Obama get away with it?
That, my dear, is the $64,000 question...
Luis, there have been a lot more than one Judge that have determined as I wrote. At last count, the Birthers have lost well over 100 cases in front of about as many Judges. See here for a partial list:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf
About Vattel. He wrote in French and the Birthers have relied on mistranslations when they cite him. I do believe that the Founding Fathers understood what Vattel wrote ... not so, the Birthers of today.
Regarding Minor v. Happersett, from a 2009 court decision:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
"Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and 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"
Again, this is just one of many dozens of Judges who have found / ruled / decided similarly. Yes, it is possible that they are all wrong. Not very likely, though.
Now Honey (and George), you know the score, or should. McCain and the Republicans were afraid to play hardball, as usual, and the MSM was WAY in the tank for Obama. As I said, he was too much of a liberal wet dream to be shot down by some constitutional "technicality," and the vast majority of voters had no clue there was any problem. I mean, if there had been, surely Obama would never had gotten the Dem nomination, would he? Pelosi knows her shit, not to mention Harry Reid and the rest of the Dem top brass...or so the reasoning would have gone, assuming it had ever become a real issue, and the MSM wouldn’t let that happen. At most, the usual suspects would have dismissed the problem as silly anal retentiveness--make that RACIST anal retentiveness. Hillary could have pressed the matter more, but she couldn’t count on the media backing her up, and even if she’d succeeded in sinking Obama’s candidacy, it would have cost her the black vote (at least), and the election along with it. Her people must have figured, however grudgingly, that it was a no-win situation, so they let it go. That'll be $64,000, George.
Will you take a check? Drawn on the Fed, of course.
I want it in Twinkies.
Degan, have you read United States v. Wong Kim Ark? I don't think so. That case proves my point exactly. And, to top it off, it has NEVER been repealed or overturned.
George poked me earlier about joining this convo.
1. All's I know is Marco Rubio not only was born in this country, but has LIVED in the USA longer than Obama has (in all reality, and Rubio is younger, I believe), but has done so in the actual mainland states and gets it where the American Dream is concerned. A retired Marine friend of mine met a then teen Obama on the streets of Hawaii. They got into a discussion when Obama told him he was going to be POTUS. My friend then asked if he had ever lived in the states. The teen told him "Yeah, Hawaii".
To which my then Marine friend informed him, "Hawaii is NOT the United States. The mainland is completely different than the island state. The last four years have shown that Obama is completely clueless to the actual historic ambitions of the working class he so loves to faux champion,and has only emulated the darkest and most base of American political mechanics he adopted in Chicago.
Concerning Obama's citizenship, I find the question of his birthplace is one avenue ... but for me it's the whole Indonesian citizenship thing that's not answered any better than the birthplace. And this goes into the unanswered questions regarding how he went to college here, and his stated citizenship status at that time.
2. Anyhow, I'm with asombra ... Bring on the Twinkies.
I have to agree with asombra, too...
BTW, do you take Monopoly Dollars? because I suspect in a few years they'll be worth more than the real thing...
Re: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, actually, I have read it. It is true that United States v. Wong Kim Ark has never been repealed or overturned but it does NOT say / mean what Birthers think it does. That is not just my own informed opinion. Dozens (hundreds?) of Judges ruled / courts decided / legal scholars have determined this. This group includes many conservatives; it is not a liberal thing. Yes, they could all be wrong. I think it is far more likely that Birthers are tilting at windmills. If they enjoy that, good for them. It's just sorry their efforts are not better and more usefully spent.
Degan, explain, please. What DOES it say? If you've read it you know that the case was to determine a ruling based on a very narrow set of facts and rule whether or not the defendant was a US citizen. However, the analysis of British common law and its definitions of who its natural born subjects were are the salient part I was referring to.
"At last count, the Birthers have lost well over 100 cases in front of about as many Judges."
Patently false.
All cases have been dismissed due to lack of standing. The fact that a citizen of the United States, the true and proper "owner" of the US Constitution (if there is such an individual) could lack standing before a Court on the execution of the Constitution is beyond me.
I am the injured party when my Constitution is not properly observed by a public servant.
"About Vattel. He wrote in French and the Birthers have relied on mistranslations when they cite him. I do believe that the Founding Fathers understood what Vattel wrote ... not so, the Birthers of today."
I will politely tell you to shove the veiled insult up your ass. I have no lack of understanding in any of the languages that I speak, write and read...and I am a US citizen, not a birther. I will not allow you to define me by way of your arrogance and insult.
There aren't many judges who have ruled/found similar to the Arizona case, and the Arizona finding would not be (by far) the only ruling overturned on a significant case.
I never was a birther. My feeling was if we didn't vet him before the election, then we have to live with it.
But I still wonder why if Obama's parentage is in question, and he got away with it, forget about the main stream media, why can't we organize now and in advance of the expected destruction of Rubio storm the battlements and say if it was good enough for Obama, it is good enough for Rubio? Then we can call anyone who defames our Hispanic as racist and that would settle that.
That's your first error, Honey. Using their pejorative term to describe a legitimate, skeptical Constitutional inquiry. I won't buy in to their premises. Nor should anyone who cares about the Constitution.
I do not understand what you mean. Do you mean that I used the term birther? I only used it to say that was not my soapbox.
It's like now many of my conservative friends want me to push for Obama's impeachment now. As far as I am concerned he is a liar, a destroyer of our country, his actions on Benghazi are horrendous and led to the unnecessary deaths of those four people and it would have been thirty-two had the Seals not disobeyed orders and saved 30 of the people there, and the cover up and obfuscations since are awful. There are plenty of grounds to seek impeachment proceedings. But he was elected and it is to late. It is the American electorate who should be impeached for giving us the same destructive administration again.
So all I meant to say was that I was not on the bandwagon to investigate his birth and I am not on the impeachment bandwagon now. Although if anyone were to challenge him on either front, I wouldn't be unhappy.
But answer me - what do you think of my idea of our being proactive? I don't want us to lose our wonderful candidate, Rubio, because they smear him big time. I want to shame them in advance. Show how they tar and feather whomever we want. We cannot let them do this to us all the time. I want us on the offensive.
Honey, do you think that you would accept anyone using the term "teabagger" where you wouldn't find it offensive and demeaning, even if the individual using it meant "no harm"?
The term itself is insulting and meant to marginalize a group of individuals because they hold an opinion that's looked down upon by others.
This is Vattel, the English translation available at constitution.org:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Here is the French:
§. 212. Les Citoyens sont les membres de la Société Civile: Liés à cette Société par certains devoirs, & sourmis à son Autorité, il participent avec égalité à ses avantages. Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens. La Société ne pouvant se soutenir & se perpétuer que par les enfans des Citoyens; ces enfans y suivent naturellement la conditionn de leurs Pères, & entrent dans tous leurs droits. La Société est censée le vouloir ainsi; par une suite de ce qu'elle doit à sa propre conservation ; & l'on présume de droit que chaque Citoyen, en entrant dans la Société, réserve à ses enfans le droit d'en être membres» La Patrie des Pères est donc celle des enfans ; & ceux-ci deviennent de véritables Citoyens, par leur simple consentement tacite. Nous verrons bien-tôt, si parvenus à l'âge de raison, ils peuvent renoncer à leur droit, & ce qu'ils doivent à la Société dans laquelle ils sont nés. Je dis que pour être d'un pays, il faut être né d'un père Citoyen, car si vous y êtes né d'un Etranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans être votre Patrie.
Where's the discrepancy?
So, again, why is Obama allowed to be president if his father was a Nigerian? Does Vattel apply to American Constitutional law? If so, why was this not given energy instead of where was Obama's birth certificate? If Obama can be president, then so can Rubio.
Also forgive me for using the term birther. It is not my term; I was repeating it as others used it here. I don't think it is as demeaning as Teabagger, though. Birther really has no meaning except to set aside those who belong to the group that wanted to spend a lot of energy on giving the issue of where is Obama's birth certificate prominence.
Honey, the Founders did not create the Constitution in a vacuum. They used the scholarly texts of the day and, of course, texts that were timeless treatises. Vattel's The Laws of Nations was one such text. It pays to uncover these things. After all, we are not liberals. We pride ourselves on our intellect and our ability to understand history. Vattel is incomprehensible to liberals and "progressives" because there's never been an edition published with pretty pictures.
Lots of discrepencies. Here is just one. "Patrie” (homeland) is mistranslated as “pays” (country). Quoting a french attorney, "it is a mistake to just equate one with the other, especially when Vattel could have used the other word."
As was the case with Ancient Greece, esp. Athens, one might be a citizen of a country, and still not be a son or daughter of the homeland.
Furthermore, in Art. 214, Vattel concludes: “And then there are other states such as England in which the mere birth in that country is enough to make the children of a foreigner a citizen."
Tilt away!
"Lots of discrepancies."
You list one, far from "lots".
Vattel states that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." That is the key sentence in the paragraph. The original Fench states that "Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens."
Vattel defines the at-large body of citizens in the first sentence, then separates the "natural born citizen" from the pack in the second, then points to the distinguishing feature possessed by "natural born citizens" as being "nés dans le pays" (born in the country), "de Parens Citoyens" (from citizen parents).
Your "discrepancy" does not play into that.
Tell your "French attorney" (Lupin...really? lupin - Any of numerous plants of the genus Lupinus in the pea family, having palmately compound leaves and variously colored flowers grouped in spikes or racemes.) that my French sister-in-law attorney says he's full of shit.
Vattel used both words in the specific places where he needed to use them:
He used it here: "La Patrie des Pères est donc celle des enfans." - "The homeland of the fathers is therefore that of the children."
Barack Obama Sr. being Kenyan (a British subject) then (according to Vattel), Barack Hussein Obama's "homeland" is Great Britain via the colony of Kenya. If your "homeland" is not the United States, then you can't possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Last sentence: "Je dis que pour être d'un pays, il faut être né d'un père Citoyen, car si vous y êtes né d'un Etranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans être votre Patrie."
Let's use your French attorney's (Maître Pea) definition of "patrie"(1) and "pays"(2):
I say, that, in order to be of the country(2), it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his
countryhomeland(1)."According to Vattel, The United States then becomes simply the place where Barack Hussein Obama, a British subject, happened to have been born, and not his "homeland". If your "homeland" is not the United States, then you can't possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Had Barack Obama been born in England, then your last sentence would have a measure of relevance...he wasn't, so it doesn't.
"If Obama can be president, then so can Rubio."
My kids try that one on me all the time, and no matter how many times they try, two wrongs still fail to make a right.
"I don't think it is as demeaning as Teabagger, though."
Most terms like that mean a lot more to the person they are directed to, than to others.
Luis, this is not a kid trying to con his parents. This is settled experience in this country. The left cannot change the rules that were broken and change them back again when it suits them. I do not think our side would stand still for this.
We have to be proactive on this or are you saying that Rubio should miss his chance? I surely hope you don't mean that.
Honey...I didn't like it when the rules were broken, but it wasn't because it was they who broke them. I don't think anyone should.
If we are going to play the game of "you broke the rules, so now I get to do the same" we may as well just discard the Constitution.
"...are you saying that Rubio should miss his chance?"
I am saying that the Constitution is a higher purpose than any political party, politician, and political agenda.
"I am saying that the Constitution is a higher purpose than any political party, politician, and political agenda."
Bingo.
Well, if that is Bingo, it is not my game.
For four years babalu has been pushing Rubio and hoping that he will be our salvation. We have already been denied Palin. Do you want us to be denied Rubio now?
Rand Paul is promising a campaign of legalization of marijuana and illegals or something like that to appeal to our youth and hispanics. Thrilling, no?
And when Romney says the obvious that it is hard to defeat Santa Claus, Jindal jumps on him to say absolutely wrong. Jindal asserted that this insults all those who voted for Obama. Well, I am delighted to insult all those who voted for him. And I'd rather insult them than Romney. And for Jindal to think it is more important to get voters to like us than to keep solidarity with a good candidate who nearly beat the left at their game, then Jindal is surely not the one I want next time, either.
There will be lots of good governors and others on our plate. But right now I like Rubio and i thought you did, too.
I love the constitution. But we have been ignoring it on so many levels, to let all that go by the wayside and concentrate on this rule alone upsets me.
But then I never win at Bingo.
Honey, regarding your comment at 9:50 AM today. Reread what you wrote and tell me it doesn't sound absurd.
NOBODY is anybody's salvation, not Palin, not Marco, not Reagan. WE THE PEOPLE are our only salvation. The genius of Reagan was that he recognized that very principle and empowered us to do just that! Be our own arbiters!
The American people blew it two weeks ago. Big Time. We CANNOT campaign like we are afraid of offending A or B or C. We have to have the balls to campaign on our principles. Unafraid and unashamed, with a smile on our face when we can, and when we can't smile, well fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
Whenever I describe this blog to strangers I say we are "the largest Cuban American blog on the Internet, unashamedly conservative and unabashedly anti-communist." THAT is how we proceed. Never, ever give up your principles. We have had two lousy candidates that we've had to support despite their obvious lack of consistent conservative principles. We can no longer afford those kinds of compromises.
As for Babalu pushing Marco? Yes, we have. And we'll continue to do so. I, along with my wife, will support, campaign, donate, and otherwise speak up for Marco's candidacy at every opportunity we get. But, if Marco strays from the conservative principles I know he has, I promise you I will be the first one to rake him over the coals about it. To repeat myself, we can no longer afford to compromise our principles.
"We have already been denied Palin."
Palin ran for office and lost.
Palin then chose NOT to run for office.
How were you "denied" Palin?
BTW Honey, the views and opinions expressed in my comments are strictly my own, and in no way reflective of the site, its owners, or editorial staff.
We were denied Palin because the msm and the dems, but I repeat myself, did everything they could do destroy her reputation and made her a laughingstock and our side, Buckley and Noonan, etc. went along and said "She is not electable." We allowed the other side to define our candidate and then said she is not electable. So she figured, what's the point and Galted herself and was helped by Romney and company keeping her out of the convention.
I am sick of all this. I want us to decide and I want us to fight.
Good caveat Luis.
I think readers need to realize that Babalu is not in the least monolithic in its conservative thinking save for one issue: Cuban liberty and the destruction of castro's regime.
That said, I'm closing the comments with this thought. When we forget what our country is about -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- then I'd have to say we are pretty much done. Our constitution and the rule of law have prevailed for 236 years and have given us the greatest country in the world.
We may be witnessing its death throes.
I despair that we've lost our way; I see little hope of finding the road again.