PDA

View Full Version : Rubio ineligible for VPOTUS?



Soflasnapper
05-09-2012, 02:58 PM
By the usual birther arguments, he is ineligible to be POTUS, as his parents were both foreign nationals as of his birth. I presume a defect preventing his being president would also prevent his being vice president, as he could not fulfill the absolute requirement of that job, to accede to the presidency in the event the president was dead or disabled under the meaning of the 25th amendment.

llotter
05-09-2012, 03:05 PM
The 'birthers' have a well documented claim that demands both parents must be citizens of America in order claim the status of Natural Born Citizen and therefore qualify to hold the office of POTUS.

eg8r
05-09-2012, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the usual birther arguments, he is ineligible to be POTUS, as his parents were both foreign nationals as of his birth.</div></div>You wish.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-09-2012, 03:47 PM
So we agree.

Soflasnapper
05-09-2012, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the usual birther arguments, he is ineligible to be POTUS, as his parents were both foreign nationals as of his birth.</div></div>You wish.

eg8r </div></div>

No, both his parents WERE foreign nationals as of his birth. Fact. My wishing has nothing to do with it. And see llotter above, agreeing.

LWW
05-09-2012, 04:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So we agree. </div></div>
So you are saying Obama is ineligible.

Soflasnapper
05-09-2012, 06:52 PM
My view is that native born for the purposes of the Constitutional requirement means simply being born in this country, of parents who were not under foreign allegiance (i.e., not of a foreign army's presence, or in the employ of a foreign embassy, etc.).

However, that is not the birthers' view, and I am pointing out their view as it applies to Rubio.

My position side steps the issue, but theirs, steps right in this pile. If you're a Rubio acolyte, anyway.

LWW
05-10-2012, 05:07 AM
No, it doesn't ... but I understand that you will believe that it does if you are told to believe it.

llotter
05-10-2012, 07:09 AM
I am a Rubio fan but I hope the Republican Party doesn't sidestep his NBC status, or lack thereof. So far, both parties have failed to confront the issue and maybe the 'racial/liberal exemption' of The Moron will forever overrule the Rule of Law but I would rather know precisely what the Law says rather than simply ignore it.

The Law, according the the 'birthers' is that both parents must be citizens and that is derived from Vattel's, Law of Nations, a contemporaneous reference used by the Founders. There doesn't seem to be any debate on this or even anything deserving an answer.

eg8r
05-10-2012, 08:36 AM
You wish he would be ineligible. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I personally hope he stays out of this election. I would prefer him to stay as far away from Romney as possible.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-10-2012, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am a Rubio fan but I hope the Republican Party doesn't sidestep his NBC status, or lack thereof. So far, both parties have failed to confront the issue and maybe the 'racial/liberal exemption' of The Moron will forever overrule the Rule of Law but I would rather know precisely what the Law says rather than simply ignore it.

The Law, according the the 'birthers' is that both parents must be citizens and that is derived from Vattel's, Law of Nations, a contemporaneous reference used by the Founders. There doesn't seem to be any debate on this or even anything deserving an answer. </div></div>


You have ignored it throughout. AND additionally, the birthers are wrong.

Now I have already posted all of the information on this before, along with all of the documentation from Hawaii.

I hope this will put the RW BS about the subject to rest, once and for all.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship?
Posted on August 29, 2008 , Corrected on September 3, 2009


Q: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?

A: No. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 23rd birthday.

FULL QUESTION

The Rocky Mountain News has reported (below) that Barack Obama “Holds both American and Kenyan (since 1963) citizenship.” Is this true?

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

The Rocky Mountain News
August 6, 2008



Entered Harvard Law School in 1988, was elected the first African–American editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

Won two Grammys for Best Spoken Word Albums for an autobiography in 1995 “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” and his second book, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream,” published in October 2006.

Mother Ann Dunham died of ovarian cancer in 1995. Father Barack Obama Sr. was killed in a car wreck in 1982.

Spent four years in his stepfather’s native country of Indonesia.

Is the fifth African-American senator in U.S. history

Is the first presidential candidate to come from Hawaii.

Favorite movies: “The Godfather” (Parts I and II) and “Lawrence of Arabia.”

In his early years he was known as Barry.

According to his memoirs, he admitted using alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in his youth.

His first name comes from the word that means “blessed by God” in Arabic.

At his wife’s suggestion, he quit smoking before his campaign to win the Democratic nomination began.

Holds both American and Kenyan (since 1963) citizenship.

Named one of Time magazine’s “100 most influential people in the world” list in 2005 and 2007.

Chosen as one of “10 people would change the world” by New Statesman magazine (2005).

Source: biography.com , Internet Movie Database, Atlanta Journal Constitution


FULL ANSWER

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Rocky Mountain News did in fact run an online article asserting that Barack Obama holds both American and Kenyan citizenship. The article was incorrect, and the paper removed the item from the article and ran a correction. The paper’s editor, John Temple, formally apologized for the error in an Aug. 15, 2007, column. Neither the correction nor the apology has prevented the column from circulating across the Internet as part of the latest set of baseless rumors that Obama is ineligible to run for president.</span>

There was a grain of truth to what the Rocky Mountain News reported, though understanding why requires a brief history lesson.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:</span>

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.</span>

Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.

But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.</span>Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this.

- Joe Miller



</div></div>

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>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</span>.[1]

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.



</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>PRESIDENT OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. </span> </span>

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

Soflasnapper
05-10-2012, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am a Rubio fan but I hope the Republican Party doesn't sidestep his NBC status, or lack thereof. So far, both parties have failed to confront the issue and maybe the 'racial/liberal exemption' of The Moron will forever overrule the Rule of Law but I would rather know precisely what the Law says rather than simply ignore it.

The Law, according the the 'birthers' is that both parents must be citizens and that is derived from Vattel's, Law of Nations, a contemporaneous reference used by the Founders. There doesn't seem to be any debate on this or even anything deserving an answer. </div></div>

My understanding is different, based on this line of argument:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem in the application of de Vattel to the Constitution Article II is that de Vattel was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and we have no evidence that his views on citizenship where shared by the delegates that were there. While the argument could be made that the delegates (some of them at least) were familiar with de Vattel, an argument could also be made that they were familiar with English Common Law (some of them received legal training in London), which takes a wholly different view of natural citizenship. Given the legislation extant in the colonies at the time, I must say that the Common Law approach prevails. This is the conclusion of the Supreme Court as well (US v Wong Kim Ark).

The Wong decision is long and complicated, and you have to be careful to mark whether you are reading the majority opinion or the dissenting opinion (which cites de Vattel!). If you resist the temptation to stick on sound bytes and try to understand it in its entirety, I think you will find it worth the effort. If the definition of natural born citizen is ever debated in court, you can be sure that the Wong precedent will be front and center in the argument.

This is a bit from Wong that supports my statement above:

every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. </div></div>

Among Vattel's divergences from English common law is his naming a native born person as 'naturalized,' instead of natural born.

Moreover, he is laying out 'natural law' here, and explicitly recognizes that civil law may differ from that standard, and then the civil law is determinative, as he agrees. English common law does differ, and it's what we inherited, or else fairly plainly, the first handful of presidents of the US were ineligible as they were born of typically two British subjects.

LWW
05-12-2012, 05:52 AM
Let's be honest ... your definition is whatever the regime tells you that our definition is.

Soflasnapper
05-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Honestly, I go with the evidence, the court rulings, common sense, and logic.

Assuming that guy is right, none of the early presidents were eligible, and although that's what the founders meant by the term, they somehow never noticed that fact. Really?

Since that cannot be the case, by modus ponendo tollens, it's an airtight case that he is wrong.

Ever studied logic, LWW? I recommend it, and it will make many things far more clear for you down the road.

Soflasnapper
05-13-2012, 06:42 PM
I am gratified to have so stunningly silenced all opposition to my argument, apparently from its clear truth.

Don't you love it when questions dogging the right wing world can finally be put to rest, conclusively?

Alternately, a bump for any rejoinders from any who haven't seen this. If there are none, this is my victory bump, and thank you for your (silent) support. Smart.