Detailed market commentary at The Market Ticker and Ticker Classics
(The Year 2012 In Review)
Donations accepted; we offer GOLD ACCESS for enhanced privileges. T-Shirts, caps, coffee mugs? Click here.
BlogTalkRadio - Mondays at 3:30 Central - Yes, TickerGuy has a radio show (kinda)
RSS available You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|MarketTicker Forums Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||Deconstructing Marco Rubio: INELIGIBLE; entered at 2012-04-24 12:24:22|
Registered: 2009-03-25 Land of the Lost
And as for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, that only seems to apply to children of diplomats and foreign military.You and many others have probably been *told* that but it simply isn't true. You were manipulated into thinking what they want you to think.
The actual intent of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, straight from the original source:
[Sen. Trumbull:] What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it meanshttp://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?col....
Obama was born a Brit via his father. He owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth. Even the Democratic National Committee admitted that Obama's citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his British non-U.S. citizen father on their Fight the Smears website during the 2008 campaign.
Read about the Senate Judiciary Committee's and Chairman Trumbull's role in the drafting of the 14th Amendment here, scroll down to 'Amendments to the Constitution':
And as for the CRS Report you linked? The author, Jack Maskell, lies repeatedly in the report. Just one example...
In that CRS report, Maskell writes:
"In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “it is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen....”http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.p....
But what SCOTUS actually said in that case was:
"It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country."http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/25....
There are significant differences between what Maskell wrote and what SCOTUS actually said. "Physically in" is not the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." They're not interchangeable. I can be "physically in" France, etc., but my passport would list my "permanent domicile" as an address in the U.S. And "natural born citizen" is not the same as "citizen." If they were the same, Constitutional Presidential eligibility would only require citizenship. It doesn't. It specifically requires 'natural born' citizenship.
Congress never actually bothered to do any real research on this. If they had they would have found that Jack Maskell was being deliberately deceptive in his misrepresentation of SCOTUS, etc., in his very flawed CRS report. ...But they just point to the report and say "See? The 'report' says so," and use that to absolve themselves of any further responsibility for upholding the Constitution's NBC presidential eligibility requirement. And apparently, they and others are using Maskell's CRS report full of lies to manipulate you and others.