But, but, Romney needs the Hispanic vote.

What a sad country it is when both party's put up ineligible candidates.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

I've got a suspicion that the left is pulling for this nomination big time so they can point out the hypocrisy of the right and the "birthers". And they might just pull it off.

Of course, that's assuming Rubio has been lying this whole time when he says he will not accept the nomination.

President Schwarzenegger will fix it.

Karl wrote..

If you want to change this the proper thing to do is to amend The Constitution before you run someone who is currently ineligible.

They tried that. There have been no less than 24 attempts to amend The Constitution to change the presidential eligibility requirement from 'natural born citizen' to 'citizen' since the late 19th century, several within the last decade alone:

June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-AR] H.J.R 59

September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [D-MI] H.J.R. 67

September 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] H.J.R. 104

January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [D-MI] H.J.R. 2

February 1, 2005, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] H.J.R. 15

April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-AR] H.J.R. 42

NONE of the proposed Amendments succeeded, so they ran an ineligible candidate anyway. Couldn't get an Amendment so they did an end run around The Constitution and established precedent while SCOTUS just stood by and let it happen.

The Constitution and rule of law in this country? They're nothing but a joke!

KD - thanks for posting this! I have said it over and over again. If you don't like the natural born Citizen requirement for POTUS, then there is an simple solution. Amend Art. II, Section 1, Clause 5. Otherwise, being born to one or two parents that were not US Citizens at the time of your birth means that you cannot serve as President of the United States. It's pretty simple, and hopefully Mr. Rubio is honorable enough to accept this legal fact . . . even if all of the courts want to play hot potato with the issue and claim that it was some other entity, legislative body, party rep, secretary of state, electoral college rep, etc. that was responsible for vetting Mr. Obama.

Like they care.

And it doesn't matter since Romney will lose.

Agreed, 100%. It makes me sick to death that the R's might choose Rubio - even though I like the guy a lot. Let him be a Senator, Governor or Cabinet officer, but he simply CANNOT hold the office of POTUS or Veep.

My own kids are not NBC's, owing to the fact that my wife didn't become a citizen until after they were both born. Sad, and my wife objects, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Anyhow they won't ever run for President, but that's not the point.

The law is the law, PERIOD. If the R's nominate Rubio, I will be furious. I keep pointing this FACT out to people about Rubio lacking the qualification of NBC, and I hope that everyone reading this thread will do so. He MUST not be nominated!

Anyhow, there are far more qualified people to be ready to step into the shoes of the POTUS than a first term Senator - haven't we learned ANYTHING from the inexperience of Obozo?

Quote:

They were here in the country and he was born here...,

Oh yes, he's eligible! The bottom line is this, if you're born here, you're a U.S citizen automatically!
Rubio's parents are naturalized Americans but he's a "real" American by virtue of being born stateside.

Marge? Constitution? Whutz that? Hey, didja see the new iPad? American Idol's on!

Edit: Maybe the Republicrats are putting Rubio out there to raise awareness on the 'natural born citizen' issue -- baiting a trap so to speak. Naaaaah.

Richard112360 wrote..

Oh yes, he's eligible! The bottom line is this, if you're born here, you're a U.S citizen automatically!
Rubio's parents are naturalized Americans but he's a "real" American by virtue of being born stateside.

Methinks you left out the /sarc tags...

Richard112360 wrote..

The bottom line is this, if you're born here, you're a U.S citizen automatically!

Rubio is a citizen ...NOT a natural born citizen.

Read The Constitution. Pres and VP eligibility require one to be a natural born citizen. Congressional eligibility only requires one to be a citizen. The difference in the requirements is intentional. The intent of the natural born citizen requirement was to prevent anyone born with conflicting allegiances from serving at the very highest level of our federal government and military.

Your legal argument might be right. However according most people Born here=Natural born. You would probably get riots if you disqualified somebody because of where their parents where born. The wonderful thing about being American is that what ever kind of life you parents came from doesn't matter. Every man has a chance to make it on their own merits.

Then amend the Constitution.

If there would be "riots" then there should be NO PROBLEM getting that amendment.

Quote:

Your legal argument might be right. However according most people Born here=Natural born.

So, screw The Constitution? We're now run by mob rule?

What do you want to bet those very same 'most people' would demand *their* Constitutional rights, as needed?

The Constitution's Bill of Rights:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/....

Honestly, this is the only place I've ever heard that people born in the U.S. to alien parents were "citizens", but not "natural born citizens" I can't find anything anywhere else that supports that interpretation, the only stuff I can find either says it hasn't been settled or that common law implies that jus soli birth is all that is required for natural born citizenship.

And as for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, that only seems to apply to children of diplomats and foreign military.

This is the clearest thing I could find:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.p....


"Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...”
"
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President."

Quote:

Edit: Maybe the Republicrats are putting Rubio out there to raise awareness on the 'natural born citizen' issue -- baiting a trap so to speak. Naaaaah.

Sure, because the Republicans are that smart.

They're going to look like serious idiots for putting forth anyone with even a slightly off odor birth certificate.

And according to Barry's lawyer the only thing that matters is the candidates popularity (even if it's fabricated through MSM)

I can't claim to be a lawyer, but after doing a bit of quick research I can't find any case law regarding whether or not one's parents have to be citizens for the child to be considered a "natural-born-citizen".

A good summary can be found here, with the synopsis that there isn't any case law to support it either way, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-bo....

I agree with Eesmith4 -- the term "natural-born-citizen" is not defined in the Constitution. Common-sense would dictate that it is "someone who was born in the US".

If we have a law saying that a "natural born citizen" is one whose parents were born in the US, or case law setting a precedent, I'm all ears.

I don't think as a Nation you want to find out why having a President with divided loyalties is very far from a good thing.

Well, maybe you are already getting hints of it.

All you have to do is look up anchor baby.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anchor+baby

Born here = citizen.

It wouldn't surprise me if Romney nominated Rubio, if only to legitimize Obama.
After all, they (Soetoro and Romney) are essentially on the same team: TPTB team!

www

AMEN Karl. I have been arguing this point with a few who don't get it or don;t like it.

I tell them the same thing. Tough ****.. Fix the law if it is a bad law. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Now, what I would like to see happen is the Republicans petition the SCOTUS to make a determination of Rubio's ability to be nominated AND SERVE. This would force the issue, without looking like the racists anyone claims you to be if you challenge the birth certificate. I would do this quickly and demand an answer PRIOR to the SCOTUS going on break.

Born here = CITIZEN.

Natural Born Citizen = NO OUTSIDE LOYALTIES.

Which means either:

1. Both parents are citizens at the time of birth (most-conservative definition)

OR

2. Father is a citizen at the time of birth AND birth occurs in the United States (under the doctrine of nationality passes from the sire, which has historical backing -- yes, I know, it's sexist.)

(There are other combinations that "work" but these are the two simplest; McCain got a proclamation passed on this but I argue it wasn't necessary -- he thought it was.)

The issue is divided loyalties; there is only one office (that of President and, by 12th Amendment, VP) where the extra requirement is attached. You can be a Senator as a citizen but you must be natural-born to be President.

To argue otherwise is to argue that the founders included those two words for no reason, which fails on the first rules of statutory construction (that which is present in the law is in fact present for a reason and not by accident.)

Rubio is ineligible as is Obama.

Incidentally I'm potentially ineligible as I'm adopted and while I can prove where I was born (in the US) I almost-certainly cannot prove the citizenship of both of my natural parents. I am therefore ineligible to be President of the United States unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed first.

As for those of you who claim you find nothing citing this interpretation of the law...go read.. The Law of Nations. This is what our Constituion was based on.

Quote:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President

- Constitution

Quote:

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

- The Law of Nations.

Eesmith and sparticle - go read the brief at this link then report back here please. It goes into great depth about "natural born citizen" versus "citizen".

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpres....

In addition, if citizen and natural born citizen were the same thing, then the framers of the Constitution would not have used the different words/language when specifying who could be Congressmen/Senators and who could be Pres/VP. Language was very specific for a reason...

Eesmith4 wrote..

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:

Quote:

[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 means

http://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':
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/hi....

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:

Quote:

"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:

Quote:

"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.