When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Rubio has the potential to become America’s first Latino President. . .and reinforce Conservative values in our country. If you are not aware of his proven record/actions – not just words – as a leader in the Florida Leislature — please educate yourself. . .
VinceP1974
14 years ago
If Rubio’s parents were not US Citizens when he was born, then he’s not a Natural Born Citizen and cannot be President. Same thing with Jindal.
Both are natural citizen as they were born on American soil. . .our future is bright!!
Marco Rubio (born May 28, 1971, Miami, Florida) –
Piyush Jindal was born on June 10, 1971, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
They even have birth certificates and school records that are not locked up by a team of lawyers. . .how refreshing!
Loplato
13 years ago
Vince is correct. Citizenship and “Natural Born Citizen” are two different things. To be natural born, your parents need to be citizens at the time of your birth. It made sense that our founders wanted a Leader who had no loyalties to any foreign country. This is why Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, but he was never questioned about it. Does anyone know if Rubio’s parents were citizens when Marco was born? I hope they were.
Vince and Loplato are correct. Words and terms have meanings:
One can be a citizen without being native born or natural born. (All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.)
“Native born” means someone born on U.S soil.
“Naturalized” means a citizen of another country who later became a U.S. citizen through the naturalization process.
“Natural born” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.
If the Founding Fathers had meant “native born” they would have written “native born” in the U.S. Constitution. They did not. They wrote:
“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…”
The latter part of the statement was meant to allow George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson (or anyone else who was a new U.S. citizen in 1789) to serve as president. Without that exception, no one could have been president until 35 years later.
The first part of the statement specifically states “natural born Citizen,” a term which all educated persons at the time knew meant born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.
Had the Founding Fathers meant only that the president had to have been born on U.S. soil they would have written simply: “No person except a native born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President…” The document was written in clear and concise terms. They would have written “native born” if that is what they had intended.
To argue that natural born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil contradicts the U.S. Constitution and the meaning of terms as used in 1789. That most Americans are poorly educated and have little understanding of history or the Constitution is no justification for violating the terms of that Constitution.
Like it or not, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. And, depending on when or whether their parents became U.S. citizens, Marci Rubio and Bobby Jindal may not be either. (Obama wants Rubio to lose his election because he does not want him in the running for the GOP vice-presidential slot in 2012. Obama knows that questions of Rubio’s – or Jindal’s – eligibility status will invite questions about his own.)
The Founding Fathers did not want a situation where a president might have divided loyalties. The natural born citizen requirement helps to remove a president from such loyalties. If Kenya went to war with another nation, would Obama be more likely to side with Kenya because of his father’s citizenship – even if that sentiment went against the security of the United States? If India went to war with Pakistan, where would Bobby Jindal’s loyalties lie? Or Rubio’s, if Cuba went to war with Puerto Rico?
The further removed the person from his ancestral ties, the less likely there will be conflicts of interest that place the security of the United States at risk. That was the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement, as made clear by correspondence between the authors of the Constitution and other prominent statesmen of 1789. And that is why Obama does not want the Supreme Court reviewing the question of his eligibility to serve as president. The Court would have to rule against him – unless it places politics ahead of the U.S Constitution and supporting documents.
Read The Obama Timeline to learn how we got into this predicament.
mike
12 years ago
Hey you people who think that the citizenship of the parents at the time of a child doesn’t matter to the question of natural born citizen are greatly incorrect. You need to get out from in front of the MSM and do your homework. The founders clearly defined natural born citizen as well as international law at the time the constitution was ratified. The founder made it clear that to be a natural born citizen the parents had to be us citizens and the child had to be born on US soil. This definition is what make Obama ineligible to be President. I will give him he was born in Hawaii (although there is strong evidence that he wasn’t). His father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Nullifying Obama’s eligibility to be president. If Marco Rubios parents were not citizens at the time of his birth Marco Rubio is ineligible to be president. As much as that pains me to say, but that is simply the facts.
Now what is happening with this constitutional requirement is the communist are intentionally redefining it to keep Obama in office, but more importantly to allow all those children born to illegal aliens the opportunity to be president to further subvert the constitution and our country. Don’t fall for this. Just do your homework so YOU will know the facts.
JORGE DE FERIA
10 years ago
In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that “there is general agreement on the core of the meaning of the Presidential Eligibility Clause. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen'”. In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he clarified his original statement so that it would not be misunderstood as excluding the children of one citizen parent. In a footnote he explained, “based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a ‘natural born citizen’.” He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the “conventional view”. Although Professor Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments “weren’t crazy”, he believes “the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen.”
Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, has remarked “There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law.”
Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University, has commented “It’s a little confusing, but most scholars think it’s a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.”
Professor Chin concurred with that assessment, stating “there is agreement that ‘natural born citizens’ include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment.”
Similarly, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found “quite persuasive” the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had ruled “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”.
Daniel Takaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate’s parents is irrelevant.
Presidents Chester A. Arthur (Republican) and Barack Obama (Democrat) had just one U.S.-citizen parent.
Rubio has the potential to become America’s first Latino President. . .and reinforce Conservative values in our country. If you are not aware of his proven record/actions – not just words – as a leader in the Florida Leislature — please educate yourself. . .
If Rubio’s parents were not US Citizens when he was born, then he’s not a Natural Born Citizen and cannot be President. Same thing with Jindal.
@VinceP1974:
Sorry Vince. That is incorrect.
US Citizenship (or natural born status) is NOT conferred or denied to the child via the parents’ citizenship status.
Both are natural citizen as they were born on American soil. . .our future is bright!!
Marco Rubio (born May 28, 1971, Miami, Florida) –
Piyush Jindal was born on June 10, 1971, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
They even have birth certificates and school records that are not locked up by a team of lawyers. . .how refreshing!
Vince is correct. Citizenship and “Natural Born Citizen” are two different things. To be natural born, your parents need to be citizens at the time of your birth. It made sense that our founders wanted a Leader who had no loyalties to any foreign country. This is why Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, but he was never questioned about it. Does anyone know if Rubio’s parents were citizens when Marco was born? I hope they were.
Vince and Loplato are correct. Words and terms have meanings:
One can be a citizen without being native born or natural born. (All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.)
“Native born” means someone born on U.S soil.
“Naturalized” means a citizen of another country who later became a U.S. citizen through the naturalization process.
“Natural born” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.
If the Founding Fathers had meant “native born” they would have written “native born” in the U.S. Constitution. They did not. They wrote:
“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…”
The latter part of the statement was meant to allow George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson (or anyone else who was a new U.S. citizen in 1789) to serve as president. Without that exception, no one could have been president until 35 years later.
The first part of the statement specifically states “natural born Citizen,” a term which all educated persons at the time knew meant born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.
Had the Founding Fathers meant only that the president had to have been born on U.S. soil they would have written simply: “No person except a native born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President…” The document was written in clear and concise terms. They would have written “native born” if that is what they had intended.
To argue that natural born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil contradicts the U.S. Constitution and the meaning of terms as used in 1789. That most Americans are poorly educated and have little understanding of history or the Constitution is no justification for violating the terms of that Constitution.
Like it or not, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. And, depending on when or whether their parents became U.S. citizens, Marci Rubio and Bobby Jindal may not be either. (Obama wants Rubio to lose his election because he does not want him in the running for the GOP vice-presidential slot in 2012. Obama knows that questions of Rubio’s – or Jindal’s – eligibility status will invite questions about his own.)
The Founding Fathers did not want a situation where a president might have divided loyalties. The natural born citizen requirement helps to remove a president from such loyalties. If Kenya went to war with another nation, would Obama be more likely to side with Kenya because of his father’s citizenship – even if that sentiment went against the security of the United States? If India went to war with Pakistan, where would Bobby Jindal’s loyalties lie? Or Rubio’s, if Cuba went to war with Puerto Rico?
The further removed the person from his ancestral ties, the less likely there will be conflicts of interest that place the security of the United States at risk. That was the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement, as made clear by correspondence between the authors of the Constitution and other prominent statesmen of 1789. And that is why Obama does not want the Supreme Court reviewing the question of his eligibility to serve as president. The Court would have to rule against him – unless it places politics ahead of the U.S Constitution and supporting documents.
Read The Obama Timeline to learn how we got into this predicament.
Hey you people who think that the citizenship of the parents at the time of a child doesn’t matter to the question of natural born citizen are greatly incorrect. You need to get out from in front of the MSM and do your homework. The founders clearly defined natural born citizen as well as international law at the time the constitution was ratified. The founder made it clear that to be a natural born citizen the parents had to be us citizens and the child had to be born on US soil. This definition is what make Obama ineligible to be President. I will give him he was born in Hawaii (although there is strong evidence that he wasn’t). His father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Nullifying Obama’s eligibility to be president. If Marco Rubios parents were not citizens at the time of his birth Marco Rubio is ineligible to be president. As much as that pains me to say, but that is simply the facts.
Now what is happening with this constitutional requirement is the communist are intentionally redefining it to keep Obama in office, but more importantly to allow all those children born to illegal aliens the opportunity to be president to further subvert the constitution and our country. Don’t fall for this. Just do your homework so YOU will know the facts.
In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that “there is general agreement on the core of the meaning of the Presidential Eligibility Clause. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen'”. In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he clarified his original statement so that it would not be misunderstood as excluding the children of one citizen parent. In a footnote he explained, “based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a ‘natural born citizen’.” He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the “conventional view”. Although Professor Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments “weren’t crazy”, he believes “the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen.”
Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, has remarked “There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law.”
Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University, has commented “It’s a little confusing, but most scholars think it’s a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.”
Professor Chin concurred with that assessment, stating “there is agreement that ‘natural born citizens’ include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment.”
Similarly, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found “quite persuasive” the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had ruled “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”.
Daniel Takaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate’s parents is irrelevant.
Presidents Chester A. Arthur (Republican) and Barack Obama (Democrat) had just one U.S.-citizen parent.