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

• 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 citizen born in the country of 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.

• 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.

• 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.       

• No, it doesn't. "Natural-born citizen" is explicitly left undefined by the constitution (presumably to give Congress the authority to make that call).

• "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." This alone makes your interpretation of the court's opinion weak at best. It's a logical fallacy, much like: if all strawberries are red, then everything red must be a strawberry.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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...

• Snicker.  Now that was funny.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha! Not.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.  

• 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...

• 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.   

• 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.

• "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!

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

• 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.

• 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 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.  

• 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.

• 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.

• Opinions noted  --  rejected.  Thanks for playing.

• yawn

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

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

• On what do you base that assertion, Mary?  Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

• Which proves nothing except that the courts (SCOTUS) continue to refuse to do their job.

• Got anything intelligent to say?

• Actually, Article II, Section 1 did that with no help at all from the SCOTUS.  When ratified, the residents all became 'citizens' but recognized that they were not 'natural born citizens' (born of citizen parents) so they rectified that by inserting the grandfather clause. 

• Ark, born on the soil of NON-citizen parents was determined to be a 14th Amendment 'citizen' and NOT an Article II, Section 1 'natural born citizen.  Ark is the cornerstone to the whole debate.  Great effort at spin but it doesn't wash.

• 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?

• "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.

• You might be right but it's a safe bet that we'll scream bloody murder all the way to the swearing in and LONG thereafter if necessary.  This usurpation of the Administration has to stop.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?????

• What's the matter, Joe, got nothing to say that makes any sense? 

• 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.

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

• 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”)?       

• "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...

• 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.

• 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] :-)

• 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.       

• 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.

• 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.      

• 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.

• If "bogus POTUS" means a person who occupied the office but shouldn't have, that would be GWB, who was elected by the SCOTUS, not the people.

• The actual reason no democrat will file lawsuits claiming Rubio is not a natural born citizen is that unlike birfoonicans, democrats are not stupid, obsessive-compulsive liars.

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

• Excellent, like your timeline of the Fraud in Chief, spot on!!  "If Rubio is chosen as the GOP's vice presidential candidate lawsuits will fly." They will be lawsuits by the same brave souls like you, Apuzzo, Kerchner, etc. trying to discharge the Bogus POTUS.  Not a single D-Rat can file one, lest their fraudulent Fly in Chief gets caught in the paperwork!

• Apparently, if you're a Bogus POTUS it is also O.K. to send troops to Uganda if your ticket buyer for the office of POTUS aka Soros has an interest in the oilfields of that country.

• I knew you would be the first cranial rectal inverter to play the race card.  Jokes on you...Amendment XIV was ratified to give blanket citizenship to freed slaves the REAL African-Americans.  It is an early American example of "anti-racism", though not at that time in the lexicon, being upheld by amending the Constitution. The misinterpretation of the Amendment is currently giving citizenship aka native born to anyone born here; jus soli.  Only citizen parents can grant "natural born citizenship"; jus sanguinis.  If O.whodat's ineligibility stands Congressionally or judicially unchallenged or unresolved then in less than 5 years an "anchor baby" or a Chi-com, whose mom had a designer birthing trip to obtain US citizenship, returns to live in the US 14 years before his 35th birthday can run to be another faux POTUS. Maybe you'll have removed your head from your butt by then and will be actually critically thinking without s**t blockage, but after reading the libtard ignorance of your posts, I doubt it.

• With your quote of Amendment XIV you have verified the fact that "citizens of the United States" is a separate concept from "natural born Citizen" from Article. II Section.1. Miami like Hawaii is a part of the United States and Marco was born in one and it is questionable, because of forged nativity documents, that O.whodat was born in the other. I am using my collection of unicorns magic horn powder to develop a new type of fraud-paper to snare the Bogus POTUS.

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

• 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...

• 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.”        

• 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"...

• 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. 

• 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 born natural-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.

• The terms "citizen," "native born," and "natural born" are not equivalent. Native born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil. Natural born means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S Constitution makes no sense if natural born means the same thing as native born, and the "grandfather clause" of the requirement would serve no purpose. (Those who point to the 14th Amendment should be reminded that is has nothing to do with the term natural born citizen and does not even mention it.) Absent a Supreme Court ruling on the issue (which Obama has been fighting for more than two years), it must be resolved by historical documents: On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” In 1866 Bingham stated, “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.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Obama supporters—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.) In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” If Rubio is chosen as the GOP's vice presidential candidate lawsuits will fly. Count on it.

• "Irrefutable proof" ORYR?  No, not even close.  Mario's uhhhh let's call it unique interpretation of Minor is complete hogwash, as is the birthers' interpretation of the 14th Amendment, their tortured reading of the holding in Wonk Kim Ark and their creation of some mythical third type of citizen rather than born or naturalized.  

• Apparently, it is still okay as long as some other country or NATO plays the front man.

• Mario, I addressed your position on this recently at ORYR.  You had no comeback.  I litigate these types of issues all the time.  Would you like to debate your sophmoric interpretation of the Supreme Court opinions that you cite?  There is not a law school in the entire U.S. that has taught your interpretation since Wong.  Up for Big Fella?  Thought not.

• you people need to get a real life

• Is a serious debater better or worse than a master debater?

• You can repeat your crap interpretations all you like Mario, it will not make them true. The proof is in the pudding: President Obama IS POTUS and no one in any authority questions his eligibility or that of Rubio and Jindal. Just like there wasn't a peep about Bill Richardson.

• "born in the USA to two citizen parents" Flat out LIE.

• Minor v. Happersett (1875) told us that an Article II “natural born” Citizen is a child born in the country to "citizen" parents.  It left open the question of whether a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen” of the United States under the 14th Amendment (not to be confused with a “natural born” Citizen under Article II).  U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) answered that question in 1898.      Hence, Wong Kim Ark was a 14th Amendment (“citizen”) case, not an Article II (“natural born” Citizen) case.  It tells us what a “citizen” is under the 14th Amendment.  Regarding an Article II “natural born” Citizen, Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor v. Happersett’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen and confirmed that children born in the U.S. to “citizen” parents are Article II “natural born” Citizens while children born in the U.S. to alien parents (even just one) and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are 14th Amendment “citizens” of the United States.    

• LOL! Facts? More like fantasies of the insane.

• ad hominem attacks do not become you or a serious debater of the facts

• Well aren't you going to be surprised when Rubio is picked for VP and no one but you crazy birfoons says a peep.

• Actually, there were 3 lawsuits challenging McCain's NBC status. They were fought by McCain just like Obama fought his challengers and they were dismissed just like the anti-Obama suits.

• Is Marco Rubio brown?  He looks totally white to me.  He descends from Spanish European stock completely as far as I know.  And besides what is white, black, or brown about the U.S. Constitution being enforced as the fundamental law of the land and being a nation of laws, not men.  John McCain clearly is white and he was challenged by the Democratic Party operatives and had to get a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing SR511 to get their OK.  So you should knock off playing the race card.  This is not about race or political party.  It is about constitutional eligibility to be President of VP and what the founders and framers meant when they wrote the natural born Citizen clause meant when they inserted it into Article II section 1, and what every federal Supreme Court case that touched on that legal term of art in any way since the founding era affirmed that it means born in the USA to two citizen parents.

• Brendon from what I've read here so far is a muck raking ad hominem attacker and pot calling the kettle black.

• Wrong Brendon. Why do you tell untruths here and engage in Orwellian 1984 rewriting of history.  Look up the federal lawsuit Hollander v McCain.  McCain was sued as not being constitutionally eligible. McCain had to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April 2008 to get his status cleared by the Democratic Party controlled Senate to run for the Presidency. Also meet Poppa Birther, Professor Jonathan Turley. http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/meet-poppa-birther-father-of-modern.html

• I hear the purple unicorns will grant you three wishes if you answer a riddle first. Happy hunting!

• I long for the days of GWB where it was okay to travel to a foreign land and bomb the living fuck out of some poor schlubs...  Send them SOBs back into the stone age...  All in the name of Democracy. And may God bless the GOP.

• Too bad Wong Kim Ark disagrees with you, Mario, despite all the circumlocutions and logomachy. You're still wrong. And you'll be sanctioned when you file your next Kerchner case, too, since you were admonished by the 3rd Circuit or your last one, which included this stupid argument.

• The 14th amendment argument -- still used by Sovereign Citizens and Skinheads to minimize the rights of African Americans -- is particularly repulsive. The Supreme Court has held that the 14th amendment was expressive of prior law on place of birth. Go away, racist.

• Including George Hamilton?

• Untrue. The Michigan law Review ran a symposium in early 2008. McCain was eligible. He was never challenged. People who actually know this stuff -- lawyers and legal scholars -- think the rest of you are confabulating like mad to find a "magic bullet" to end your nightmare -- a Democratic President. Sorry, democracy doesn't work that way.

• Only in Apuzzo's fantasy. He should stick to drunk driver defense. Which is where he came from.

• Way to elevate the debate Williamlbaer. Of course, you're wrong since the 14th amendment was held to be merely expressive of prior law as to jus soli. And in Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court laid it all out -- one's parents;' citizenship doesn't matter.  But keep up the insults, because that's all you and the birthers have.

• Irrefutable Proof that Barack Obama (Rubio and Jindal) is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie! http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/irrefutable-proof-that-barack-obama-is.html

• Baraq is so bad the Kenyans are insisting he was born in Hawaii....

• "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." Yup: authorities make law, doubts don't. Not understanding that is one of the reasons you keep getting laughed out of court time after time.

• Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875):  Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.”  Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms.  Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen” without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:    The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.  As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.   Id., at 167-68.  Hence, only a child born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents can be a “natural born” Citizen.  

• Rubio is a native born citizen...NOT a natural born citizen. He is ineligible to be POTUS or VPOTUS. Check out Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. Do you see the grandfather clause? That's there because the Founding Fathers needed an exception for themselves because they too were not natural born citizens! The anti-American Obots continue to cover for the Commie fraud in the White House as they embarrass themselves with their stupidity and ignorance.

• Hey strangelove 262, you moron:  Art 2. Sec 1 of the US Constitution is what addresses the qualifications for POTUS, not the 14th Amendment which you cite. The standard is "natural born citizen", as contrasted with "citizen" in the Art 2 sec. 1 itself. But somehow I think you probably already knew this.

• The Democrats challenged John McCain's natural born Citizen status in the primaries of the 2008 election.  At that time the Constitution was relevant.  The first birthers were people on the far left going after McCain.  The political parties use the Constitution when it is convenient for them and then ignore it when it is not.  And of course the favorite mode of attack is to play the race card.  Well John McCain is not brown skinned and his constitutional eligibility was challenged in 2008.  Explain that one.  Meet the first birthers, Far left liberals.  Meet Poppa Birther -- Professor Jonathan Turley: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/meet-poppa-birther-father-of-modern.html

TotalComments: 93