Birthers Convinced Marco Rubio Is a Cuban Citizen, and Yes... Obama's Still a Kenyan

Categories: Politics
marco-rubio.jpg
Sen. Marco Rubio
Pass the tinfoil; we've got more hats to build.

Sen. Marco Rubio is a hot pick for the vice presidential spot on the ticket of several GOP presidential candidates, but according to the birther lab, he's not eligible to be president or vice president because he's not a "natural-born citizen of the United States" -- he's a Cuban, or something.

And that Barack Hussein Obama fella -- he's still from Kenya, England, Indonesia, or Santa's workshop somewhere else that's not America, and it's all part of the government conspiracy.

Charles Kerchner, the lead conspiracy theorist on the Rubio situation, says that since Rubio was born with dual citizenship in Cuba and the United States, he doesn't qualify as a natural-born citizen.

Since "natural-born citizen" isn't exactly defined in the Constitution, Kerchner's interpretation is that it's someone born in the United States with both parents being citizens.

"Senator Marco Rubio has obviously known this for a long time," Kerchner writes on his website. "His silence in response to the American electorate and avoidance to answering the questions put to him over the last year about this issue says a lot about Marco Rubio and indicates that when it comes to his own personal political objectives he is in the progressive school of thought about following the fundamental law of the land, our U.S. Constitution.

Part of his theory -- that "Kenyan" guy in the White House may have had help getting there from the Republican Party.

The leadership of the Republican Party and the RNC is also complicit in this usurpation of the founders and framers intent with the eligiblity clause in Article II Section 1. The Republican Party leadership has ENABLED Obama to get away with what he's done to illegally usurp national power in order that the Republican Party can do the same thing too, i.e., ignore the Constitution when it suits their own political power objectives.

Also, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal isn't qualified either, according to the theory.

Not surprisingly, Alan Keyes is on board with this one:


Click here to see the documents that "prove" Rubio is ineligible.


Follow The Pulp on Facebook and on Twitter: @ThePulpBPB. Follow Matthew Hendley on Facebook and on Twitter: @MatthewHendley.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
104 comments
republicanbalck
republicanbalck

OMG I just read an article that says basically even if Obama was born in Kenya, heck even CUBA he would be able to run for president all because he was born after 1952, check out the article you give up the BIRTHER thing, I did

http://bit.ly/ahbirthers

Juan del Sur
Juan del Sur

Whew, from reading some of the posted comments, articles like this really draw out the obots and their disinformation attempts.  I am so glad we still have legally astute and sound thinkers like Mario to set the record straight.

I am overwhelmed by how misguided or malicious the obama supporters can be in their efforts to support the usurpation of our country's Constitution.

Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

Sean,

For the Founders and Framers, for those born after July 4, 1776, “natural born Citizen of the United States” meant born in the county to citizen parents.  See Samuel von Pufendorf (1691), Emer de Vattel (1758), and David Ramsay (1789).  That a court or Congress subsequently added to our citizens by making other persons “born . . . citizens of the United States,” but not “natural born Citizen[s] of the United States” was neither intended to amend Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 nor did it amend that clause. 

The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization.  It did not give Congress the power to create “natural born Citizen[s],” which would in effect have given the power to Congress to change who may be eligible to become President without going through a Constitutional amendment.  We saw the Third Congress in 1795 in the Naturalization Act of 1795 remove “natural born citizen” from the First Congress’s Naturalization Act of 1790 and replace it with “citizen of the United States.”  Hence, 8 U.S.C. Section 1401 only defines “citizen[s] of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen[s] of the United States.”  You will note from reading Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that the status of being a “Citizen of the United States” as being the sufficient and necessary citizenship standard for presidential eligibility became obsolete for births occurring after 1787.  For those born after 1787, the sufficient and necessary citizenship standard became “natural born Citizen,” which would have been and in fact was a more stringent test.    

Minor’s “doubts” were about who was a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States,” not who was a “natural born Citizen of the United States.”  You are confounding and conflating these two citizenship standards.  I do not know about your strawberries, but I will tell you that Vattel said a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).   This is a definition. This definition has been confirmed by, among other authorities, The Venus (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring and dissenting for other reasons), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) (J. Daniels, concurring), Minor v. Happersett (1875), and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).   We can reduce this definition of a “natural born Citizen” to the following logical statements:  If one is a natural born citizen, then one was born in the country to citizen parents (both being necessary and sufficient conditions).  Stated differently:  One is a natural born citizen if and only if one is born in the country to citizen parents. 

So as you see, I am only stating a bi-conditional and I am not affirming the consequent as in the case of your strawberry example. The difference in our logical arguments is that yours comes from finding and applying an a fallacious logical statement to my argument (like applying the wrong law to a given factual scenario to achieve a desired result) while my comes from finding and applying a valid logical statement which represents the intent of the Founders and Framers in drafting a bright line rule for presidential eligibility (like applying the correct law to the given factual scenario).        Finally, you are wrong that the Founders and Framers left “natural born Citizen” undefined.  They specifically told us who is a “natural born Citizen” by telling us in the early naturalization acts of Congress what persons needed naturalization in order to become at birth a “natural born citizen” which was later corrected to “citizen of the United States” and after birth a “citizen of the United States.       

nanook5
nanook5

ahhh tea party...even after being made irrelevant you still think you can shout your way to the top. i'll stick with the protestors who are more concerned with him being a war criminal and bank stooge than when and where his mommy's water broke. i know it's hard to get perspective when you've always got a pair of balls in your mouth, but come on...

MinutemanCDC_SC
MinutemanCDC_SC

"A natural born Citizen is a citizen born in the country to parents who are citizens."

(N.B.: "parents" is plural, meaning the biological father and mother, not adopting parents, not the mother and her legal husband, and plainly, not a citizen parent and an alien parent.)

This definition was:

the norm in Western Civilization dating back to Plato and Herodotus in the 4th and 5th c. BC;

used in correspondence among the Framers of the Constitution;

 codified (not created) by Emerich de Vattel, a noted scholar of international law, in his law text, The Law of Nations, which the Framers used for writing citizenship and nationality clauses in the Constitution, in order to escape the "Crown/subjects" ideology prevalent in Common Law and the writings of Blackstone and Locke;

 quoted nearly verbatim in at least three U.S. Supreme Court cases: The Venus, Shanks v. DuPont, Minor v. Happersett, as well as in Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan's correct dissent in Wong Kim Ark; concurred with in Ex parte Reynolds, U.S. v. Ward, and Perkins v. Elg; and never contradicted in any U.S. Supreme Court decision (although the lower courts were confused);

quoted by U.S. Rep. John A. Bingham and U.S. Sen. Jacob Howard, authors of Amendment XIV, which concerns only citizens and never mentions natural born Citizens; and

characteristic of every duly-elected President born since the Constitution was ratified in 1787... except Chester A. Arthur, who even burned his Presidential papers to hide his father's Canadian citizenship, which status was only discovered in 2008 by Atty. Leo Donofrio's researchers.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama was not only born in Mombasa, Kenya, but his mother was not yet 19, the age required in 1961 to confer her U.S. citizenship to her foreign-born child (see INA of 1952). His father of record was a Kenyan, a British Protected Subject, which status passed to all his offspring. How could a newborn Barack Obama II, whose birth status was governed by British law, be a natural born Citizen of the United States? He was not even a U.S. citizen at birth.

UNLESS he has been NATURALIZED (which is mutually exclusive of "natural born" and which would exclude him from being a natural born Citizen), HE IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN, A U.S. CITIZEN!!!

HE WAS BORN A BRIT, HE'S ALWAYS A BRIT, AND HE'S NOT LEGIT!

MarioApuzzo, Esq.
MarioApuzzo, Esq.

Joe Acerbic and his followers are really misguided.  First, they expect us to believe that the Founders and Framers, after what they and their generation went through to win the Revolution, create the new republic, and become citizens of the United States, would give the office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and its duty of preserving the nation for their Posterity to the children of non-U.S. citizens.  Second, they have not offered one single piece of evidence, i.e., political philosopher, historical figure, Congressional Act, case law, etc., from the Founding or shortly thereafter which supports their theory that a natural born citizen could be a person other than a child born in the country to citizen parents.  

Joe and his crew have had plenty of opportunities to convince us of their position.  They have provided nothing but personal attacks and irrelevant comments.  They have not offered anything of value to this debate.  I think it is time for Joe & Company to hang it up.  

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

What an idiotic, half-baked, ignorant article.  I've never seen so many half formed and totally unresearched utterances from a single 'source'.  Is Mr. Hendley an actual employee?  A professional writer?  A journalist?!?

If Mr. Hendley is still an employee and has any integrity whatsoever left, I expect him to write a follow-up article refuting the argument found at http://naturalborncitizen.word....  I expect him to explain the purpose of John Jay's letter to George Washington in which he suggests that the POTUS should be a 'natural born citizen'.  I expect him to refute Continental Congress delegate David Ramsay's words:

"In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained whothe “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” asthe children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning thechildren born after the Declaration of Independence, “[c]itizenship is theinheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the laterevolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who werethemselves citizens….” Id.at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but thechildren of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration ofIndependence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, andtransmitted it to their offspring….” Id.at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none butthose who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6."http://www.thepostemail.com/20...There's more but that's a good start and Mr. Hendley won't be able to fit all of his arguments into a single article anyway.You're on, Mr. Hendley.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Joe Acerbic,

With regard to children born out of the United States, that there exists naturalization "at birth" is confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649  (1898) and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 840-45 (1971) (J. Black, J. Brennan, and J. Douglas, dissenting), which consider persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized "at birth."  See also 8 U.S. C. Sec. 1401(c)-(e), and (g)-(h) et seq. (uses the phrase “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”). 

With regard to children born in the United States, the early naturalization acts also show that Congress’s naturalization power also extended to anyone who may be born in the United States.  That power included being able to declare someone born in the United States a “citizen of the United States”  “at birth” if it so desired.  In fact, Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment which constitutionalized that Act, and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) and (b) applied its naturalization powers to children born in the United States, but only if those U.S.-born children were not born to U.S. citizen parents were those laws necessary for them to be granted the status of a “citizen” of the United States.  In this connection, it is telling that Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795 and the many that followed up to the time of Wong Kim Ark (1898), considered a child born to parents who were subject to a foreign power to be himself/herself an alien, regardless of where that child was born.     Being made a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by being born abroad to one or two U.S. “citizen” parents or by being born in the United States to one or two alien parents are both cases of naturalization “at birth.” Naturalization is necessary because of the child being born with foreign allegiance and citizenship which he or she inherits from his or her alien parent or parents.  It is to be understood that one who is naturalized “at birth” needs no further naturalization and becomes a “citizen” of the United States automatically at the moment of birth.

NickFortune
NickFortune

I agree, that since the news media didn't do it's job in vetting Obama, the Republicans and the John McCain campaign SHOULD HAVE DONE their job in EXPOSING HIM, but they didn't, the question is WHY?????

Mitt Phoney
Mitt Phoney

For once the birthers are right. Rubio is not a natural born U.S. citizen.

Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

Joe Acerbic,

You said:  “Obama is clearly not an “original citizen.”  And he's clearly not a naturalized citizen. Hence, he can only be a “natural-born citizen.”  Thank you very much for yet another self-debunking.” I see that you just keep trying.  The error that you make now is in assuming Obama is not a “naturalized citizen.”  You err because, in fact, what U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) created was a born “citizen” of the United States by naturalization at birth.  Justice Gray arrived at his conclusion by following the jus soli path of Lord Coke who in Calvin’s Case (1608), naturalized Calvin at birth to be a “natural born subject.”  While Calvin was born in the dominion and under the ligeance of the king, he was born to alien parents.  Hence, Lord Coke had to naturalize him to be an English “natural born subject.”   Vattel explains it well at Section 214 of The Law of Nations, entitled "Naturalisation:"  "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner." We can see that Vattel confirms that these children born in the country of England, given “natural born subject” status, were naturalized at birth if not born to citizen parents.  We should also remember that the British considered their naturalized subjects as “natural born subjects.”   Wong was not a “natural born” Citizen.  Nor was he a naturalized citizen after birth.  So the only thing that Justice Gray could do to make him a “citizen” was to naturalize him from the moment of birth by using the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Wong’s parents were not U.S. citizens.  But Justice Gray said that since they were domiciled aliens, they were subject to the laws of the United States.  Wong’s birth in the territory of the United States along with his parents being subject to the laws of the United States was all sufficient for the Court to naturalize Wong from the moment of birth and thereby declare him to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” of the United States.  Wong needed to be naturalized at birth because he was born to alien parents.  If he had been born in the country to citizen parents, there would not have been any issue regarding whether he was a “natural born” Citizen and therefore also a “citizen.”   Hence, under Minor’s definition of the clause, Obama is not a “natural born” Citizen.  Nor is he a naturalized citizen after birth.  Hence, assuming that he was born in Hawaii, he can only be a naturalized citizen at birth, just like Calvin and Wong was.  Do not think that the concept of being a “citizen” of the United States by naturalization “at birth” does not exist in our law.  Congress has been making “citizens” of the United States by naturalizing person “at birth” since 1790 and continues to do so in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) et seq. Also, do not make the mistake to think that these “citizens” “at birth” are “natural born” Citizens, for needing naturalization at birth they are not.       

Hawaii Massage
Hawaii Massage

The art of massage developed over a number of years, and the training can take 4 months or stretch out over a two to four year period depending on the type of massage form or modality that are learned and the type of degree or certificate that will be earned from the training. Massage therapist have over 200 variants of massage that they can study while enrolled at therapeutic massage therapy schools. Practitioners in the field of massage will develop new techniques for massage everyday so there is always plenty to learn

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Re: "confirm that a "natural born" Citizen is a child born in the country to citizen parents"

Wrong. They confirm that a child born in the country to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. If you really don't understand the difference between those statements, you should not use the word "logic"...

MinutemanCDC_SC
MinutemanCDC_SC

"No Person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President;" U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 1, ¶ 5.

Citizenship is by nature (without legislation) inherited from one's father. (Until women's suffrage and emancipation, a husband's citizenship also extended to his wife and minor children. But since {_Perkins v. Elg_ (1939), additional cite needed}, a U.S. citizen female who marries an alien can claim U.S. citizenship independently of her husband and confer it to her children.)

Since Amendment XIV (1866), a person can claim U.S. citizenship if born on U.S. soil, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, that is, not subject to the jurisdiction of any other state or sovereignty.

"[T]he opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment... put it beyond doubt that all persons... born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside." _The Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873), http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...

"Beyond question, by that act [of April 9, 1866, 42 USC 21 § 1981], national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race, (excluding only 'Indians not taxed,') who were born within the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power." _Elk v. Wilkins_ (1884), dissent by Justices Harlan and Woods.

Since _Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), a person born on U.S. soil can claim U.S. citizenship. The implicit "subject to U.S. jurisdiction" requirement has been lost or swept under the rug through subsequent misinterpretation.

Therefore, practically speaking, the de facto interpretation of

"citizen" = born of a citizen parent or born in the country (or both).

On the other hand,

"natural born Citizen" = born in the country of citizen parents (both),

according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in _The Venus_ (1814), _Shanks v. DuPont_ (1830), and _Minor v. Happersett_ (1874).

_Wong Kim Ark_ redefined requirements for a "citizen", but not for a "natural born Citizen." The only valid definition of "natural born Citizen" in _WKA_ was Gray's verbatim quote of Emerich de Vattel:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

In _WKA_, Associate Justice Gray also appealed, though without validity, to:the Naturalization Act of 1790, an erroneous law which was repealed and corrected in the Naturalization Act of 1795;_Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which mentioned "the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth," but which did not refer "natural born Citizen" to the place of birth alone; andCircuit Justice Swayne's decision in _United States v. Rhodes_ (1866), which relied upon British Common Law for what was only a Circuit Court decision and not a ruling for the United States.

"It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of the United States," wrote U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Fuller. He was pointing out the failure, as precedent for U.S. law, of King George III's misconstrual of Common Law in claiming any and all persons born on British soil as natural born subjects.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...

(Click on http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-13... for further references.)

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Well that was amazingly addled. First of all, "native born" appears nowhere in the Constitution (although judges have later used it as synonym for natural born); it recognizes only two types of citizenship: natural bornnatural-ized See the only difference? Simply born citizen or made citizen later. Why they put the word "natural" to both? Probably because the basis for the legal terminology came from the English common law, "natural born subject". The purpose of the "grandfather clause" was to make it possible to have a President already before there was anybody 35 years old and born in the USA and had absolutely nothing to do with any differences between native and natural. Duh.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Kook-a-kookle-kook! This makes me want to congratulate the "legal birfoons" for having half a brain and just trying to desperately claim that the Constitution, law, and court opinions mean something other than what they say. These "Mombasa birfoons" have no brain.

SMDrPepper
SMDrPepper

Problem with your theory is the founding fathers, under your definition, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HOLD OFFICE!  They were all BRITISH citizens, moron.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

I have "followers" and "crew"? Oh birfoons, always imagining their opposition as some grand, organized conspiracy... but in reality I'm just one guy who likes to mock idiots and nothing more is needed to defeat the birfoons. You seem to be under the delusion that anyone's trying to convince you birfoons of anything: you're wrong (as always). It's just a little entertainment and, as mentioned earlier, possible education to anyone who might be genuinely ignorant and gets to see here how birfoons twist themselves to all kinds of pretzel shapes with their illogical claims but can't prove anything past the simple fact that the Constitution mentions exactly two mutually exclusive kinds of citizenship: born and naturalized. Q.E.D.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Noted: more birfoonish babbling but no quotes from any law or court decision declaring anybody "naturalized at birth".

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

Mr. Apuzzo. . .Courts have rejected every effort to get this issue heard and resolved.  Justice Thomas laughed as he said 'we're avoiding that issue'.  The Republicans, who are now up to their necks in the conspiracy, aren't likely to help.  The media won't touch it - my guess is that they've got guns to their heads.  We are in the midst of a constituitonal crisis that could tear the country apart.  Is there nothing we can do to bring this issue to a logical and legal conclusion?

SMDrPepper
SMDrPepper

First off, it is not the medias job to vet anyone.  Secondly, there are many government agencies that go out an check to make sure that whoever runs for president actually qualifies.This is the problem with birthers.  They are too damned ignorant to have paid attention in any basic social studies course.Morons are just trolling on here now.

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

I've been saying that for three years re. Obummer.  Been right all along <g></g>

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

If you really believe your "naturalized at birth" fantasies, shouldn't you be filing a challenge to Obama's 2012 candidacy in New Hampshire right about now instead of spraying textual diarrhea all over the internets? Biden just filed for himself and Obama there: now's the time so you don't need to whine about lack of standing later. You just need to file a FOIA for Obama's Certificate of Naturalization which he must have as a naturalized citizen per Sec. 338. [8 U.S.C. 1449] :-)

MinutemanCDC_SC
MinutemanCDC_SC

From _Minor v. Happersett_:  “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 as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Sufficient condition (if) for nbC: "...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens ... were natives or natural-born citizens..."

Necessary condition (only if) for nbC: "...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens  ...as distinguished from aliens or foreigners," which included those who would be naturalized, as Chief Justice Waite went on to explain.

Correct logic and accurate interpretation of the "natural born Citizen" clause in Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5 of the U.S. Constitution, as amended and interpreted, is not lacking.  What is needed is enforcement of the law.

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

You're pretty good at insulting people, Joe.  Too bad your logic and reasoning and sources  aren't nearly as sharp as your ugly tongue.

Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

You argue that Minor did not give us a definition of a “natural born” citizen.  Rather, you say that it only confirmed that a child born in the country to citizen parents is a “natural born” citizen. This argument is the same as arguing that a dog is an animal, but an animal is not a dog.  But the fallacious reasoning of this argument as it relates to Minor and in maintaining that Minor did not give us a definition of a “natural born” citizen is revealed by examining the Minor decision itself.   To determine whether Virginia Minor had the right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article V, Minor had to first determine whether she was a “citizen.”  For the Court to determine whether she was a “citizen,” it had to first find a definition of the term.  The Court explained who were included as “citizens” in the United States.  It said first we had the “original citizens.”  Then we had additions to those “citizens” by way of birth and naturalization.  The Court then told us under what conditions a person could be an “original” citizen,”  “natural-born” citizen, or “naturalized” citizen.   Since she was neither an “original citizen” nor a naturalized citizen, Virginia Minor, to be a “citizen,” could only be a “natural-born” citizen.  So, in order for the Court to determine whether she was a “natural-born” citizen, the Court had to first give us a definition of what a “natural-born” citizen was.     Minor said “[t]he Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens.”  The key in this statement is that the Court was concerned with who “shall” be “natural-born” citizens.  In other words, it looked for who was included in the class called “natural-born” citizens.  The Court then looked to American “common-law” for an answer to the question of who shall be included as a “natural-born” citizen.  Hence, the Court was concerned with what persons were included in this class of citizenship.  The focus was what a “natural born” citizen is and in analyzing that question it gave us certain conditions which when existing make one a “natural born” citizen.      The Court then defined a “natural-born citizen” by giving us the necessary and sufficient conditions for a “natural-born citizen” to come into being.  Those necessary and sufficient conditions are (1) “born in a country” and (2) “of parents who were its citizens.”     In giving us these conditions at a time that the Court was telling us who were the “natural-born” citizens, it would have been absurd for the Court not to tell us that these conditions were merely sufficient conditions and not necessary ones also in which case other persons who did not meet those conditions could also be “natural-born” citizens. So it is evident from how the Court defined a “natural born” citizen that the Court included those persons who shall be “natural born” citizens and by only including those persons, necessarily excluded everyone one else it did not include in that class.   Even using the enabler’s fallacious argument, neither Minor nor Wong Kim Ark helps them.  Minor said that the conditions of being born in the United States to alien parents did not necessarily make one a “citizen.”  It said:  “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”  Here we see the Court looking to determine what persons are included in the class called “citizens” just like it looked to determine what persons are included in the class called “natural-born” citizens.  If the Court said “there were doubts” if those conditions were sufficient to make a “citizen,” those same conditions surely would not be sufficient to make a “natural-born” citizen which we learn from the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 has a higher standard.  Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, said that those conditions are sufficient to make a 14th Amendment “citizen” of the Unites States but not sufficient to make an Article II “natural-born citizen.”       

Colony14Author
Colony14Author

The Constitution frequently uses the term "citizen," and only once prefaces it with "natural born." The framers had a reason for that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Joe Acerbic,

The problem with your theory is that you have no U.S. Supreme Court cases that support your position.  On the contrary, we have not only U.S. Supreme Court cases which confirm that a "natural born" Citizen is a child born in the country to citizen parents, but also logic and historical sources that do. 

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

The only thing even remotely wrong with Minuteman's post is possibly the Mombassa, Kenya birth reference and that's still out with the jury.  There has been nothing definite to prove where Barry was born or who his real parents were and calling me names won't change that simple fact.  Barry can prove the facts any time he likes - he just has to release his records.

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

Unbelievable.  You've never even read the Constitution and you're trying to give lessons to a constitutional lawyer?  How stupid can one man be?

The fact is that the founding fathers were NOT allowed to hold the office of POTUS under the Constitution. There, feel better? You shouldn't. . .

The founding fathers KNEW they weren't eligible to serve under the Constitution because while they were now citizens of the United States of American, they were NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS so they inserted a grandfather clause making them and their generation eligible to serve until their children, the first generation that could claim 'natural born citizen' status reached the required age of 35 years.

Imbecile.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The Article II presidential eligibility clause itself refers to a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” of the United States.  These are two different types of citizens.  The latter were allowed to be eligible for the Presidency under that article’s grandfather clause which is now obsolete.  It is this grandfather clause which permitted our early presidents to serve in that office.  Martin Van Buren was the first president to be a “natural born” Citizen.  

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

I see that when someone makes a legal argument not in your favor, you really do not have any intelligent response.  Rather, you simply blow it off with your ridicule and personal attacks.  I am therefore not writing this for you, but rather for someone in the public who may be truly interested in discovering who is right and wrong in this debate. To understand what is meant by “born,” we need more than your superficial analysis of the meaning of the word “born.”  The Constitution gives us “citizens” who are either “born” or naturalized. The Article II presidential eligibility clause itself refers to a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” of the United States.  These are two different types of "citizens."  The latter were allowed to be eligible for the Presidency under that article’s grandfather clause which is now obsolete.  Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that limits Congresses power to make one a naturalized citizen only after birth, regardless of whether that person is born in or out of the United States.     Article II calls for a “natural born” Citizen, not a “born” Citizen.  Hence, by definition of the clause, a “born” citizen under Article II is a person born in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875).   The Fourteenth Amendment calls for a “citizen” of the United States.  Hence, by definition of citizenship under that very amendment, a “born” “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This can include a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents (one or both). See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).  Not being born in the country to citizen parents, Barack Obama (assuming he was born in Hawaii, but to a British citizen father and U.S. citizen mother), Marco Rubio (born in Florida to Cuban citizen parents), and Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to Indian parents) are only Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizens” of the United States, not Article II “natural born” Citizens.  They cannot benefit from the now obsolete grandfather clause.  They are therefore not eligible to be President or Vice-President.   

SMDrPepper
SMDrPepper

Birthers are like a zit.  You know your not supposed to mess with it but its really satisfying when you pop it.  An they are both just as useless.

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

"there are many government agencies that go out an check to make sure that whoever runs for president actually qualifies."------------------

Really?  Please name them and point out in the statutes their responsibilities.

Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

Looks like you are having some difficulty understanding the meaning of “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States.”  I guess these arguments just go over your head.  Is it too difficult for you to understand that people may be born in the United States and be declared born United States citizens by being naturalized at birth (“persons born . . . in the United States”) or someone may become a United States citizen after birth by being naturalized in the United States (“persons . . . naturalized in the United States”)?       

Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

The diarrhea is all yours.

Also, you are very ignorant of how the 14th Amendment works.  One who is made a born "citizen" under that amendment does not get a naturalization certificate like one who is made a "citizen" of the United States after birth under a Congressional Act.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

The ratio of birfoonish babbling vs. direct quotes of full sentences from the court opinion is very telling as usual. No matter how often and with how many words you try to lie about it, Minor v. Happersett does not say that ONLY a child born in the country to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Only other birfoons will be fooled but no judge anywhere, ever.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

So you have learned to parrot the logical terms "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition". Be careful though: if you ever learn what they MEAN, you'll become an obot...

Sean
Sean

As a citizen, you are either "natural," or "naturalized." That's it. End of list. "Natural" means you are a citizen as a condition of your birth, while "naturalized" means you are a citizen via legal immigration and acceptance.

8 USC 1401 pretty explicitly states conditions for citizenship at birth. I'm a little surprised a scholarly lawyer such as yourself doesn't cite the law at all.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Next you can try to claim that the Senate Christmas Resolution "means" that Obama is not a natural born citizen and it will have exactly as much effect on the real world outside Birfoonistan as your other claims...

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

Snicker.  Now that was funny.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha!

Not.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Are you really trying to imply that YOU'RE making sense? Can you show any case where anybody ever was "declared born United States citizen by being naturalized at birth"? Nope, it's just birfoonish babbling.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Re: "people may be born in the United States and be declared born United States citizens by being naturalized at birth"

Depends on the meaning of "may". If it's the kind of "may" as in "geese may fly out of your butt and lay golden eggs", sure, anything MAY happen. It's just not happening in this current reality.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

"made a born citizen", ROTFLMAO!!!! Actually the 14th begins clearly enough "1. All persons born OR naturalized in the United States..." (caps mine). No such thing as "person born AND naturalized" anywhere (you do seem to have a problem grasping basic logic concepts). Perhaps you should try reading the Constitution one of these days...

MinutemanCDC_SC
MinutemanCDC_SC

Joe wrote, "Obama is clearly not an 'original citizen.' And he's clearly not a naturalized citizen. Hence, he can only be a 'natural-born citizen.'”

No, no, Joe.  Mr. Obama is an illegal alien.

As you say, he is clearly not an "original citizen."

And as everyone knows, he is clearly not a "natural born Citizen," either,

a citizenborn in the countryof parents who were then citizens,

because when he was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen, but rather, a (Kenyan) British Protected Citizen. In fact, his father was NEVER a U.S. citizen, and he never declared his intention to become a U.S. citizen, if he ever HAD any intention of becoming a U.S. citizen... which he didn't. And that IS a good thing, inasmuch as the U.S. Dept. of State deported him for moral corruption, for being a bigamist, who was well on his way to becoming a "triganist" with Ruth Nidesand, if such a thing as a "trigamist" existed... and if it didn't, Barrack Obama, Sr., was bound and determined to bring it into existence.

"NATURALIZED" includes "naturalized at birth" in keeping with Amendment XIV, which Justice Gray wrongly interpreted in _Wong Kim Ark_, ignoring the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. As Mr. Apuzzo has so clearly stated, "one who is naturalized 'at birth' needs no further naturalization and becomes a 'citizen' of the United States automatically at the moment of birth."

We have NO RECORD of Mr. Obama being Amendment XIV "naturalized at birth," because, as everyone here knows by now, a computer image of a fabricated forgery - even two computer images of two distinct fabricated forgeries, even if they authenticate each other - are not records admissible as evidence in a court of law.

Therefore, UNLESS Barack Obama II has been NATURALIZED, of which we have NO RECORD for evidence, and to which he has made no public claim,there is nothing else he CAN be besides an alien, and an illegal alien at that, unless he is documented with a green card as a legal resident.

"Mr. Obama, as a citizen of the United States, I employ you. May I see your green card?"

And if not, yer fired, ya Chi-town crook. ICE has a place for illegal aliens like you... a place called "NOT HERE" . . . a.k.a. GITMO.

Paul Smith
Paul Smith

Hey, Joe.  {shhh} <whisper> nobody said it does </whisper>. 

To my mind, Ark is far more powerful than Minor.  It is the decision the established that a person born on the soil of NON-citizen parents is a 'citizen' and not a 'natural born citizen'.  Course Ark changed nothing, the constitutional authors told us precisely the same thing in Article II, Section 1.

Joe Acerbic
Joe Acerbic

Obama is clearly not an “original citizen.”  And he's clearly not a naturalized citizen. Hence, he can only be a “natural-born citizen.”  Thank you very much for yet another self-debunking.

Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

You said:  “Minor v. Happersett does not say that ONLY a child born in the country to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.” Well, let’s take a look at what options the Minor Court had when it came to Virginia Minor’s citizenship.  She clearly was not an “original citizen.”  And she clearly was not a naturalized citizen.  Hence, she could only be a “natural-born citizen.”   The Court said that under “common-law,” “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 as distinguished from aliens or foreigner.”   The Court did add that “some authorities” maintained that a person could also be a “citizen” by being born in the country to alien parents.  The Court said that “there have been doubts” whether a person born under such circumstances could be a “citizen.”  The Court did not say that these authorities considered these other “citizens” to be “natives or natural-born citizens” like the children born in the country to citizen parents were.       So the Court stated what conditions were both necessary and sufficient to be a “natural-born citizen.”  Those conditions were (1) born in the country and (2) of parents who were its citizens.  The Court did not give us any other birth circumstances which could make one a “natural-born citizen.”  It did state that there was an open question whether one could be a “citizen” by simply being born in the country to alien parents.  But as we know from a simple reading of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, today a “citizen” is not eligible to be President unless that “citizen” is also a “natural born” Citizen.  This all demonstrates that Minor’s rationale shows that “ONLY” a child born in the country to citizen parents is a “natural-born citizen.”  From what Minor said, there simply is no other way that one can be a “natural-born citizen.”   Finally, following your logic, I was wondering whether you believe that the Fourteenth Amendment does not say that “ONLY” a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can be a born “citizen of the United States” under that amendment.      

Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

I did not ask the mental giant for the price of bread on Tuesday.  

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...