Yep.

First rule of statutory (and Constitution) construction: Words that are present are present because they have meaning.

When a phrase or word appears in one place but not another, it's presence in the first place is consequential and deemed intentional unless conclusive proof can be found within the construction of the statute that demonstrates otherwise.

I've been waiting to see if Romney/RNC and/or Rubio would do the right thing and demand a SCOTUS ruling on his eligibility. If they ruled the "right" way, it would invalidate both he and Obama...no partisanship there. After all, Thomas admits they are ducking the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sco3igZmH....

So implicit in your contention about Rubio's and Obama's citizenship is that there is three levels of citizenship, and not two? like this:

1:natural born citizen
2:citizen
3:naturalized citizen

versus the paradigm most people think of, which is:

1:natural born citizen
2:naturalized citizen

or at least that's what I seem to take from it. Correct? Also, that natural born citizenship in the U.S. is jus sanguis and not jus soli?

I just can't believe there are still people who believe citizen is synonyms with natural born citizen or that republicans would attempt to run a non natural born citizen after all the controversy over Obama's status. We never seem to run low on stupid.

Karl is dead on right here. The entire reason behind the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" was to eliminate any possibility that royalty from another nation (esp the UK) couldn't become President. And as Karl has pointed out, children inherit their citizenship from their father.

Obama and Rubio are not eligible. For those that haven't read up on this subject, there is plenty of information out there (including the Federalist Papers and other documents written by the Founders).

Quote:

I just can't believe there are still people who believe citizen is synonyms with natural born citizen or that republicans would attempt to run a non natural born citizen after all the controversy over Obama's status. We never seem to run low on stupid.

I think the idea is that most people seem to think of "natural-born citizenship" as the same as citizenship from birth, whereas pretty much anyone knows that naturalized citizenship is when someone becomes a citizen after birth as the product of a legal process. The only real controversy seems to be over whether it is possible to be a citizen at birth, but yet not a natural born citizen.

Karl, it is my understanding that Rubio is a former member of the LDS church. If you look at the Mormon teachings on apostasy, I don't know how Romney could square those beliefs with the selection of Rubio as his running mate.

Yes Ee...the Constitution used two different terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen". Then the 14th amendment came along and added "naturalized citizen".

Correct me if I'm wrong, Karl-

Eesmith4 wrote..

I think the idea is that most people seem to think of "natural-born citizenship" as the same as citizenship from birth

Why would anyone believe that? That's never been stated anywhere other than in pro-Obama propaganda. Historical documents confirm that natural born citizens are those born in the U.S. to 2 U.S. citizen parents, and therefore have no conflicting foreign allegiances.

For those seeking a Supreme Court definition of the term, "Natural Born Citizen," you need go no further than the 1874 case of Minor v. Happersett. The case (and the attempt to wipe out all references to it...hmmmmm) are discussed at the following site:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/j....

All those saying that the term "Natural Born Citizen" has a different meaning than the term "Citizen" are CORRECT. The rules of statutory construction are very explicit: every word and every phrase have a meaning, and if 2 phrases are similar then they CANNOT mean the same thing - i.e. there's a reason why they are different, because they ARE. Such is clearly the case here, as both the qualifications for Congress and for the President are located in the main body of the Constitution, which was written and ratified as a seamless whole.

Karl - I posted this on my FB page....and the morons who profess to be 'die-hard conservatives' are out enforce quoting the 14th Amendment. Check it out if you have a sec...

The 14th Amendment is immaterial.

Pika...most 'conservatives' have been ducking this for fear of losing position/status/money. Now they'll duck it for Rubio's sake.

Maybe this is part of the grand scheme....Announce Rubio as VP...Have a big battle that brings all the media focus onto Non-Natural Born Citizens as president...

BWAAAAHHAHAAA

I vividly remember this issue being raised in my 11th grade US Government class back in the late 80's. We discussed the "natural born Citizen" requirement for President and talked about what it meant to be eligible. Two US citizen parents and you were born on US soil. We talked about kids being born to US parents in the military in Germany not being eligible (although even our teacher conceded that we kids MIGHT have a case if the child was born on the US military base, and the based was determined to be US soil - similar to a US embassy abroad). We also had one girl in our class who was a US citizen (born in Kansas) but her father was from India (working as a doctor at our local hospital) who was not yet a citizen at the time of her birth (I suspect the same was true for her mother, but apparently we didn't need to discuss the issue with the mother if her father was not a US citizen at her birth) and that she could never be President or Vice President.

To our teacher, this was just "common knowledge" that he passed on to us. Only after this became an issue in late 2007 did I realize how many people have no clue about this important additional requirement for Pres and VP.

I'm amazed at the number of people who have never read the US Constitution. They know it exists and may be able to talk briefly about it from things they've heard from other people. But have read it themselves? An embarrassingly small number...

It would be VERY strong for Romney to come out in favor of Rubio, but say, "No, he is ineligible. My campaign and presidency will follow the constitution."

It would be a very effective indirect attack on Obama. It would also lend credibility against the lesser of two evil argument. Romney would represent, "If the other guy is going to lie, cheat and steal, I will not go there." It is desperately needed.

Effective as this may be, I am not in denial. I don't believe in the lesser of two evils. The GOP continually squanders opportunity just as the Libertarians. Whoever may be pulling the strings will get what they want.

If Rubio is selected by Romney, it really puts a nail in the coffin of the US Constitution. At that point, 99% of the politicians, dems and repubs, judges to reps- state and fed, will have colluded to overthrow the United States.

Romney or Obama, is there really a difference, really?

Sailordeek wrote..

It would be VERY strong for Romney to come out in favor of Rubio, but say, "No, he is ineligible. My campaign and presidency will follow the constitution."

It would be a very effective indirect attack on Obama. It would also lend credibility against the lesser of two evil argument. Romney would represent, "If the other guy is going to lie, cheat and steal, I will not go there." It is desperately needed.

I would LOVE to see that happen.

Quote:

Romney or Obama, is there really a difference, really?

Sadly, no.

I personally would love to see Obama kicked out on his ass for being ineligible.

Well, hell yes! That would work, Steph4!

Um, he is a natural born citizen. He was born in the US. Second paragraph on wiki (if it's wrong, prove how):

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]

He was born in the US. If his parents were not foreign diplomats at the time, he is a 100% pure, natural born citizen and could be president.

Wiki says this has never been directly addressed by the supreme court. However, I assure you further that the vast majority of people would consider a US-born individual to be of sufficient status to be president, so it would be a popular position and one almost certainly backed by the supreme court if it went that far. To argue otherwise is truly grasping at straws, but it's academic in any case as Rubio will never otherwise be president (just speaking statistically).

Oh Poodle

Quote:

He was born in the US.

Prove it. So far, all he's offered up is a birth certificate that is extremely suspect as being forged.

Quote:

However, I assure you further that the vast majority of people would consider a US-born individual to be of sufficient status to be president, so it would be a popular position...

Unfortunately, the law doesn't care what the "vast majority of people" think...rather, the law just "is". If those people don't like how the law is written then change it with an amendment BEFORE putting up a candidate that doesn't meet the law's requirements.

Are we seriously going to ask for birth certs every time a non-white runs for office? Is his place of birth really in question?

"Unfortunately, the law doesn't care what the "vast majority of people" think.."

No, but it cares about legal precedent. And apparently there is a good bit of that in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_bor....

Simply, anybody pretending that a guy BORN in the US is not a "natural born citizen" because both of his parents were not citizens has no leg to stand on, either functionally OR legally according to EXISTING legal precedents in the United States.

Poodlelover wrote..

Um, he is a natural born citizen. He was born in the US. Second paragraph on wiki (if it's wrong, prove how):

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that...

I've already posted that the CRS "source" wiki is quoting is full of misrepresentations and outright lies earlier in this thread, including links to what is the actual truth...
http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs....

What the heck does his race have to do with it?!?! Everyone should have to prove eligibility, in my opinion, because it would prevent all this ridiculousness!