‘He’s NOT Eligible!” – “Yes – He IS Eligible!”

So says a handful of readers regarding the most recent update from Republican Insider titled:   REPUBLICAN INSIDER: “In Case You Missed It”

(Senator Marco Rubio placed first in a (very) early Iowa poll of potential 2016 presidential candidates)


A sample of those comments both for and against Rubio’s potential candidacy follows:


***Marco Rubio is a good man & a conservative; but ….He is “NOT” a “Natural Born Citizen”!!  His parents were “NOT” Citizens of the United States of America when Marco Rubio was born….. That makes him a US Citizen ; but  “Not” a “Natural Born Citizen” as required by the Constitution!!

***Yes Rubio is eligible to run for president. And frankly people how know about the Cuban American experience and how much they value democracy he is more welcome to run than some 4th generation welfare grabbing asshat that seems to make up about 50% of the country now. I’m still waiting for some more contenders. I do agree with the article saying how its Hillarys if she wants it on the Democrat side. The media is already ramping up for 2016/Hillary. Republicans need to stop shooting inside our own tent and let the process happen and then support the nominee. PS I also think nobody could have beaten Obama last year. Not even Reagan could have done it. Media too corrupt and American too stupid.

***No, Stan. Rubio does not qualify because he is not a natural born citizen. He has the legal right to dual citizenship from CUBA or he had it when he reached age 18. For this reason he can not be a natural born citizen. Sorry to inform you that the US Constitution was well thought out by some not so dumb men.

***Rubio is eligible to run for president. I am starting to think like one of the other replies in here that a lot of the NBC stuff is actually coming from Obama plants. Stir people up, tear down enthusiasm that kind of thing. There was just a court case not too long ago about Obama where the judge said the following:

“The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was\ ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive”

There are either a lot of very stupid people out there or some people intentionally trying to keep the Birther stuff alive to kill the Republican party.

***That’s where the birthers totally lose it. They have to believe that so many people are in on the conspiracy. Congress, the Supreme Court, the Indiana and Georgia judges, it just gets so ridiculous. These people have to be working for the demonrats. That’s the only real explanation that makes any sense.



And so it goes – readers equally passionate about their individual views regarding eligibility.  I can certainly understand why emotions run high on this topic given the millions of dollars spent by Barack Obama hiding his own past from public scrutiny.  That said, it does concern me that some seeming conservative readers are so adamant that Marco Rubio is simply an unacceptable option to be President of the United States.  Could they be right – or simply misinformed?

A review of the matter found far more examples available supporting Senator Rubio’s eligibility than supporting his non-eligibility.  Some such sources are linked here for your own review if you so wish:

Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, and Eligible to Be Mitt Romney VP

…Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot.

Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.

The Good News: Rubio’s Eligible

Conservatives are right to be deeply committed to constitutionalism and to test all government actions against the plumb line of that great charter of liberty.  

Don’t worry, dear readers — be happy.  The good news for us is that Sen. Marco Rubio is eligible to be elected president in 2012.  And so are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley.  There’s been a lot of attention devoted to the original meaning of “natural born citizen of the United States,” the governing phrase from Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. Happily, The Heritage Guide to the Constitutionresolves this question for us.

Clearly, says this respected source, what the Founders sought to avoid was foreign intrigue, or intriguers, becoming president.  Wise Founders.  (Too bad they didn’t also say “Marxists need not apply.”)

Is Rubio Eligible?

I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.

To buttress these arguments, these writers have sent along a number of snippets, quotations and irrelevant comments by judges – often taken out of context – that they say support this position. They are all incorrect.

…Finally, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which states, in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Reading this together with Article 2 would indicate that the additional “natural born” requirement of Article 2 for a citizen to be eligible to be president meant that being “naturalized” would not suffice. He must be born here.

…In 2011 the Congressional Research Service accurately stated, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” …by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”


It would appear, based on the preponderance of evidence I have reviewed so far, Marco Rubio has the Constitution on his side  – he is eligible to be President of the United States.  Recent case law would also support this.  The second link above is based upon a review of the issue by the Heritage Foundation – an  institution that counts among its members some of the most well regarded political minds of our time.

Now for those who may disagree with all of these interpretations, I welcome your input.  Please keep it respectful, and based upon a factual presentation of your position.  I welcome the opportunity for “hearing the other side” as they say, and hope all our conservative readers are willing to do the same, regardless of where you may stand on this, or any other issue.





439 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

57 Comments to ‘He’s NOT Eligible!” – “Yes – He IS Eligible!”
    • JoleneAL
    • I believe these people running around claim he’s not eligible are nothing more than a bunch of Paul Bots. Or like someone noted above, Obama bots.

      • SueK
      • Since you seem to know it all and like to name-call, let me ask you this: Have you read Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations,’ (on which our own Constitution was based), or the SCOTUS case, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)?

        Atty. Leo Donofrio does a good job explaining Minor. Read and learn.


        If you and those like you are still not convinced, according to your ‘theory’, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could come to the U.S., impregnate an American woman and their child could become POTUS. Is that OK with you? Do you think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind: The bastard son of a terrorist as POTUS?

        There is a special requirement for both POTUS and VPOTUS and the Natural Born Citizen requirement is it. The NBC requirement does not hold for any elected office except these two. It is unique.


        • LT9
        • The Fred Thompson link swipes away pretty much everything you’re trying to say.
          Fred Thompson was a lawyer for many years, was on the Watergate counsel team, and of course U.S. Senator. Here is a quote from his take on the silly sideshow about eligibility:

          “To buttress these arguments, these writers have sent along a number of snippets, quotations and irrelevant comments by judges – often taken out of context – that they say support this position. They are all incorrect.”

          “…In 2011 the Congressional Research Service accurately stated, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” …by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”

          Rubio was born an American citizen. He can run for and be president.

          • SueK
          • Talk to Leo Donofrio about it; it’s his research, not mine. I’m more inclined to believe someone who’s been working on this issue for years, rather than Fred Thompson, who brings nothing to the table.

            Also, you plan on believing the Congressional Research Service? HA! They’re a joke and have no credentials to truthfully interpret anything.

            Bottom line: Rubio, Jindal, Santorum, Cruz and their ilk do not qualify based on either their parents’ non-citizenship at the time of their birth, or in Cruz’ case, the fact that he was born in Canada. But what does it matter, anyway; we have a country full of low information voters who have no concept of the Consitution and couldn’t care less about the demise of the once-greatest country ever to exist.

            Finished with this thread; tired of trying to explain the truth to those who refuse to consider another point of view.

            • Kay112
            • I have agreed with everything you have said on this subject, Sally – except…

              I have no clue about Santorum and Cruz qualifications for presidency.

              Both parents must be US citizens when the mother gives birth to the baby for the babe to be classified as a US natural born citizen. There is also a clause for those babes who are born to US military parents who are serving at military bases.

      • E.A.B.
      • That’s very plausible. With Rand Paul trailing in most polls, they’d need Rubio out of the way in order for him to have any chance of getting nominated.

        And then if Rubio did get the nomination, we get a bunch of people who refuse to vote for him for President. Just like with Romney. And then another socialist gets elected.

        Just what the Libertarians and Paulbots want. Just like 2012.

      • Kay112
      • Rubio is a very smart and thus far a great Senator. He is not qualified to be US President.

        I’m not a Ron Paul bot. Welcome to the site,JoleneAL!

    • MEL

    • Enough is enough
    • Rubio is a nice guy and a nice looking guy but if his parents didn’t get citizenship before he was born in the US, he is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the US. He is still not what we need.

    • BigTexas
    • Great job providing those links UM. Seems pretty cut and dry. Rubio is eligible. He was born in America and that makes him eligible. All this “natural born” stuff seems based on interpretation by some people even though the legal record says Rubio can run. Democrats would love to get Republicans fighting each other over this if Rubio runs and wins the nomination.

    • Sallyal
    • If you need an amendment it is impossible to be a NBC. Clearly Rubio was a CUBAN citizen at birth regardless of where he was born. He may even, at some time have held dual citizenship. Dual citizen and Natural Born Citizen are mutally exclusive terms. Using the logic that merely being born here qualifies one as a NBC would make any illegal immigrants child eligible. I have seen no case law that proves your statement and I have followed this issue VERY carefully. None of the lawsuits re: jughead were even heard. All dismissed mostly for standing. And the 14th amendment merely states that would make them citizens. NOT natural born citizens. There is a LOT of info out there that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what was meant by the framers when they used the term NBC as opposed to citizen. When I have more time I will look it up and post here. It is letters between some of the framers and others discussing the issue in detail. Why would the framers distinquish citizen (for any office other than POTUS) and NBC (POTUS only)? Slip of the quill? As for the CSR memo, they WORK for jughead! I read that work of pure fiction with just enough fact thrown in to make it believable for those who were too lazy (or afraid) to do their own research.

      • LT9
      • “If you need an amendment it is impossible to be a NBC.” ?????

        So your logic is saying that women should not be allowed to vote or Blacks, etc.

        Crazy what some of you are coming up with!!! Oh well, takes all kinds I guess!!

        Marco Rubio would make a great POTUS. Great Tea Party candidate!! Go Rubio!!

        • Sallyal
        • “”If you need an amendment it is impossible to be a NBC.” ?????
          So your logic is saying that women should not be allowed to vote or Blacks, etc.”

          Now this is just a lame argument. You only have to be a citizen to vote not a NBC. The 14th only said they were citizens. Not natural born citizens.

          Your turn.

    • Sallyal
    • For your reading pleasure: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

      From the comments section of same:

      In a letter from John Jay to George Washington:

      New York 25 July 1787
      Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

      The above letter from John Jay to George Washington went on to become Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our US Constitution.

      [u][b]John Armor Bingham[/b][/u] – January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900 – [b]Principle framer of the 14th Amendment (which deals with citizenship in the United States)[/b]

      John Bingham confirms the understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:”

      [b][I] find no fault with the introductory clause[/b] [S 61 Bill], [b]which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,[/b] that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States [b]of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is[/b], in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . .

      Lots more where that came from.

      • LT9
      • You’r making a big leap of interpretation here. So in your view the Congressional Research Service, Fred Thompson, the researchers at the Heritage Foundation, a number of judges in recent court cases etc are all in on some kind of conspiracy to fool the American people on eligibility? Really? C’mon you need to fess up and admit you are cashing some Democratic Party checks. Nobody can really be that stupid.

        “…In 2011 the Congressional Research Service accurately stated, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” …by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”

        • LT9
        • Sorry if I offended you with the stupid comment part. Don’t want UM to delete us because I think this is some good conversation even if you are totally wrong. :)

          • Sallyal
          • Hey, I only called your argument lame. Not you! There is not a shred of Democratic party in me. Never has been. THAT was the insulting part. And again I state, the CRS works for jughead. They spun and twisted for all it’s worth. And I gotta go to bed. May check back tomorrow eve. Too busy at work right now.

    • MJM
    • If the GOP is willing to jump aboard the Obama train because the “precedent” has been set that just being born on our shores is enough – then this country is finished. Put a fork in it – it’s done.

      I personally think those that are so bent on Rubio have gone over to the Dark Side and have embraced a “win at all costs” attitude. They are so desperate to retake the White House that they have tossed the Constitution aside and are drooling at the prospect of grabbing all of the Hispanics who normally would pull the “D” lever.

      Since no one seems to want to believe all of the research and study Jerome Corsi put into the matter in his book, I’m curious what Judge Andrew Napolitano has to saw on this subject.

      • LT9
      • No, has nothing to do with winning. It’s just the facts. I argue the same even if was a Democrat in the same position as Rubio. He was born here. He can be president. There was a blog that did a great job of laying it out. You should all read it! It explains it pretty good!

        “Here’s the most common version of the argument that Senator Rubio is ineligible: Neither of his parents were American citizens when he was born, so he’s NOT a natural-born citizen, which the Constitution says you HAVE to be in order to qualify to be President. And every requirement for the President applies to the Vice President, so Marco Rubio can’t be the vice president either!

        This argument is just wrong. Let’s look at the relevant part of the Constitution:

        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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

        The 12th Amendment added:

        But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

        So, they’re right that the Constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency do apply to the vice president as well. Since the original Constitution did not define the term “natural-born citizen,” there would appear to be some room here for interpretation.

        However, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clarifies:

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

        Senator Rubio was born in the United States, so he is therefore a natural-born citizen of the United States. The citizenship status of his parents doesn’t determine his own citizenship status. Their citizenship status would only be a factor if he was born outside of the United States, and he wasn’t. So, he’s eligible to be both vice president and president. I’m not endorsing Senator Rubio here, I’m just clarifying a strangely common misconception.”


        • Bugs
        • Now this post makes some sense. Finally someone who can explain it in a way that I can understand. Rubio can run for prez. Got it.

        • Kay112
        • LT9, I have a few questions which I am addressing because of this paragraph

          QUOTING LT9 “Senator Rubio was born in the United States, so he is therefore a natural-born citizen of the United States. The citizenship status of his parents doesn’t determine his own citizenship status. Their citizenship status would only be a factor if he was born outside of the United States, and he wasn’t. So, he’s eligible to be both vice president and president. I’m not endorsing Senator Rubio here, I’m just clarifying a strangely common misconception.”

          Kay~ Senator Rubio was born in the United States, therefore he is a citizen of the USA. No one goes around calling people natural born citizens of the USA. So why did the architects of the US Constitution come up with the strange phrase “natural born citizen” instead of “Citizens who are not naturalized”?

          Why under this definition which you use for natural born citizen, an anchor baby, which is born a US citizen because it is born on US soil to “illegal aliens”, can one day qualify for president of the USA?

          An anchor baby has a right to dual citizenship when he or she turns 18 and so do babies who’s parents of different nationalities.

          Actually, an anchor babe in the USA could have both parents of different nationalities other than the USA and one day the babe could become a citizen of three countries.

          Would you be fine with a president who is a dual citizen because he was an anchor babe in the USA?

      • Sallyal
      • Agreed! And I don’t think Rubio is all that great anyway. He seems to be a “climber” just trying to get ahead. Him pushing this immigration thing was the last straw. He says no citizenship until the borders are secure but they would still be here legally AND big sis says the border IS secure!

        So now what Ollie?

      • Lindandy
      • Totally agree, ATB. Actually, there were varied issues with Obama’s eligibility but none of them got anywhere and he got elected… twice. If the liberals/progressives decide to argue that Rubio is ineligible to be Prez, then everything Obama has done should be nullified and he should lose his retirement… that is, if he doesn’t decide he wants to stay permanently as our king or dictator. :(

        BTW, I’m not saying the “birthers” are wrong (just not sure on which grounds they might be right because of the varied ideas about it) but the NBC issue got nowhere… we should be listening to Whistle Blower and start looking toward Chicago and, just maybe, get Obama ousted for something even more ominous than his eligibility. Any birthers recall Orly Taitz (allegedly) had a “chit chat” with Patrick Fitzgerald after Blago was arrested. Little did she know that Fitzgerald is/was hiding the criminal truth about Obama, and Orly accomplished nothing useful for the birther issue, despite her intentions.

        Time to give up the birther issue and join forces to get behind a conservative candidate that is loyal to this country and its citizens… remember, loyalty was the reason for the NBC requirement. We should look at the person’s background, actions and heart, and don’t fall into the same trap as before. NBC or not, I knew Obama was a very bad person with no good intentions for our country. So much time was wasted on the NBC issue instead of looking deeper. Obama does not deserve to be our president because he has no loyalty to us or our country.

        As ATB said, “Keep arguing and we’ll have another Communist in the WH…”

    • Chunkdog
    • I like Rubio, and would probably vote for him if he were allowed to run, but there is enough information, in other documents, to show the intent of the NBC clause.

      Sallyal’s link clearly shows what our forefathers intended, and the case of James McClure really spells it out. Keep in mind, when reading this link that Publius was James Madison’s nom de plume. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/

      America just got it’s freedom, after a long and nasty war.

      They were just starting to build a country, which at times was most likely very difficult, and the last thing they needed was some pregnant woman to come to the US to give birth, and find out 30 years later, when that baby was involved in government, that he was a child of an English royal. Especially when the country was still so vulnerable.

      30 or 40 years seems far-fetched now, but don’t forget, England was one of the countries involved in the Hundred Years War, and they hated to lose.

      But, I guarantee you that if one of the courts doesn’t look at, and address the Obama evidence now, when and if Rubio runs, the democrats will do everything they can to slam Rubio with it.

      Clarence Thomas said, “We’re evading that one”, referring to natural born citizen eligibility, but it’s time to clear this up once and for all.

        • Chunkdog
        • What would ever give you the idea that I work in the WH?

          I guess my mind is on the problem at hand, which is Obama, not something that might happen, in the future.

          If you agree that James Madison’s intent was, 1)US baby 2)born to US citizens 3)on US soil = natural-born citizen, then Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, and everything he has done since arriving in office should be undone, and he should be out of office.

          I detest Obama, and a large part of that comes from him using the Constitution as his own private toilet paper. The fact is, if this eligibility question had been settled while Obama was running, in 2008, then there is a good chance there would be no President Obama today, just a former Senator Obama.

          Although it has it’s flaws, I think the Constitution, when left intact, is the one thing that makes this country great. This framework built the greatest country in the world.

          No other president, until Obama, has treated the Constitution like it was nothing more than a list of hints, on how things should be done, rather than a list of absolutes, on what must be done.

          It’s just when Obama came along, and started mutilating it, is when the country started it’s quick, downhill slide, from one it might never recover.

          So, if that tells us anything, it is that no matter how much we like any candidate or how great a president they could be, Democratic or Republican, the Constitution and it’s intentions, should prevail.

          The Constitution is the conscience of America. It tells us what’s right and wrong, good and bad, etc. When you start ignoring your conscience is the time you start getting into trouble. This is the problem with the US today. Obama has totally ignored the “Conscience of America”, and we are now in big trouble, because of that.

          This country will survive, but the only way it’s going to do that is with an intact Constitution.

          Once you start screwing around with it, where do you stop? What happens in 15 years, when someone, who was born in the US but raised, in Iraq, by 2 foreign born parents who believe in Shariah Law, honor killings and head to foot Burkas, runs for President, and because of the idiot Democrats could possibly win?

          Do you look the other way with Obama, because we were stupid, and with Rubio, because he’s a good guy, but not with this guy? This example is exactly why I think Madison wanted 2 citizen parents and a native born child.

          I’m not a “constitutional law professor”, like some people. And I could be wrong, but IMHO neither Obama or Rubio are eligible.

          Sorry. And I am very svelte.

    • CitizenWatcher
    • Leave it to a european to promote obama propaganda. We all know what the constitution says and what natural born citizen means. Both parents born here in the United States of America and their son or daughter is born on American soil.

      Case closed. Slander, argue and use saul alinsky tactics all you want. And I’m not sure you can call rubio a conservative. More like an appeaser.

      • Kay112
      • I can go on record saying most naturalized citizens know the definition of natural born citizen. You just gave it. I doubt most Americans could pass the citizenship test though.

        Tis a sad day when most Americans think natural born citizen means you were born on US soil so you are qualified for the presidency. This includes anchor babies who’s parents are from other countries illegally here.

        Amazing! Simply amazing people are so gullible. I have travelled outside of this countries many times and lived aboard. I don’t know of any country which would allow an anchor baby to be president!

    • LT9
    • UM posted some very strong links explaining why Rubio is eligible to run. Some other people in here posted links to blogs that are pretty thin on explaining why he wouldn’t be. A lot of “they meant this when they said that” stuff. So far the Rubio 2016 crowd is winning this debate hands down. Not even close. Thats my opinion. Carry on.

      • SteveM
      • It’s not a popularity contest LT. Chunky said it best (see previous comments). Just how far will you compromise the constitution to get your guy elected?

    • jms
    • What people need to take to heart is that the derision poured on “birthers” by the left is NOT based on principle, documentation, evidence, legal theory, or anything else except for simple expediency. Right now the supporters of this theory — that a Natural Born Citizen is the American born citizen of two American citizens — are demonized and derided by the left.

      If Marco Rubio is nominated for the Presidency, and the Democrats run in opposition a candidate who was the American-born citizen of two American citizens, the left will turn the narrative around on a heartbeat. Suddenly they will rediscover the historic meaning of Natural Born Citizen. They will find documentation. They will spend hours making the utterly convincing argument that Rubio is not eligible. If you ask them about Obama, they will ignore you or say that that is in the past. And most importantly, they will split the vote between the conservatives who sided with them against the “birthers” and the Natural Born Citizen conservatives who spent eight years emotionally investing in the belief that Obama was not eligible, and Rubio is not eligible for the same reason.

      Do you really think that people who have spent four years investing in the Constitutional principle that Rubio is disqualified are going to flip on a dime? Are they the unprincipled ones? Are they the ones who are going to hold their noses and vote for Rubio after years of principled opposition to Obama’s legitimacy? What is happening here is a red flag. Rubio is a trap. Democrats will tacitly support him like they tacitly supported McCain and Romney, and then once he has the nomination they will spring the trap. Everything they have been hiding, glossing over and making fun of will suddenly become the cornerstone of the Constitution. And they will be right. And Rubio will lose.

      Wake up.

    • Randall
    • What a tremendous waste of time. Rubio can, and in my opinion should, be defeated on the merit of his positions. His immigration stance is a non-starter for most conservatives because it will spell the doom of the Republican Party. Then there’s always the remote possibility that he has more to do with Castro than he’d like to admit. Not saying that’s true, but Castro does have a history of recruiting from both parties. Don’t badger me on this point – I’m only raising it because it has to be raised, not accusing him of anything. (Chris Dodd and Jesse Jackson know something about this topic. As did that nut George Lincoln Rockwell.)

      Rand Paul, well, just look at what his father said about the late sniper. The apple does not fall far from the tree. This is very worrying. Also, note when Ron left Congress. Right around the time that Rand decided it was OK to back Israel. Who else switched their position on Israel at this time? I’ll leave this up to an enterprising researcher.

      • E.A.B.
      • Disagree on Rubio’s immigration stance being bad for the GOP.

        Doing *nothing* on immigration is what has been killing the GOP. So long as the issue is on the table, the Democrats have had free reign to portray the Republicans as favoring mass deportation bordering on ethnic cleansing, mass arrests bordering on concentration camps, etc.

        The Left will continue to hammer us with the immigration issue as long as it remains unresolved.

        What Rubio’s proposal will do is bite the bullet and take this issue off the table. Then, and ONLY then, will Hispanics feel free to vote their morals and their wallets. Better yet if Republicans can take credit for part of it.

        And as it turns out, a huge number of Hispanics are socially conservative Catholics. Most of the illegal immigrants are extremely hard-working. Sounds like a potential Republican voting bloc, doesn’t it?

        • Randall
        • I believe it as last week when Mark Levin ran down the historical support of “hispanics” (a manufactured term) for Republicans. Never has it risen above, I believe, ~45%. Despite effort after effort at outreach, appeasement, and politically correct talk. Yes, they’re socially conservative. But we don’t have a problem with legal immigrants. They’re the ones who can vote, after all.

          Most legal immigrants from south of the border that I know detest illegal immigration. They’re incensed, outraged, embarrassed.

          Rubio should have taken the stand that before anything is proposed, Obama should protect the border. If Obama still refused to move, cite the DHS admission that the Zetas work with al Qaeda. Make it the national security issue it really is.

          Beyond immigration, what exactly are the Republicans doing being led around by the nose by the Democrat Party? It’s embarrassing. The economy is a nightmare, the worst since the Great Depression. The American family is suffering terribly, what with divorces, financial strains, moral nihilism. Gay, straight, bi, whatever – this is a major problem and one that deserves attention. Soldiers returning from war are committing suicide at an alarmingly high rate. Overseas, our foreign policy is basically isolationism and covert arming of very questionable militia and terrorist groups.

          To think that this is the time to deal with “undocumented workers” boggles the mind. Get rid of Log Cabin Rove and find someone who can articulate the challenges faced by America (and the world!) before something happens that we all regret.

          • E.A.B.
          • The reason Hispanic support for Republicans has never been very high is because of the immigration issue. As long as we refuse to bite the bullet and get that issue off the table once and for all, we are just giving the Democrats all the rope they need to hang us.

        • Mark
        • How well did this strategy work for Amnesty McCain in 08??? Close to 70% of Hispanic votes went for Obama and McCain struggled to get 33% and McCain has been a long time champion of amnesty.

          Ted Cruz received 36% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. Isn’t he Hispanic?

          Equating enforcement of immigration laws with ethnic cleansing is something out of the Marxist playbook.

          • E.A.B.
          • “This strategy” has never been carried out.

            McCain lost the Hispanic vote badly because the immigration issue was still on the table. It didn’t matter what McCain’s position actually was, the fact that the issue was still on the table is what hurt him and the GOP that year.

            It’s also what hurt Romney with Hispanics last year. It’s what hurt Angle in Nevada in 2010 (that and her own self-inflicted injuries).

            The immigration issue is a gaping wound. As long as we avoid settling it, we will keep bleeding what little Hispanic support we have left, until we can no longer win elections at all.

            And here’s news for you: When “enforcement of immigration laws” requires deporting some 10 million people, all of basically the same ethnicity, it IS ethnic cleansing. The fact that it’s legal doesn’t change the fact that it’s ethnic cleansing.

            When a problem reaches the point that enforcing the law pertaining to that problem becomes neither feasible nor moral, the law must be changed. There is no other alternative.

            We can either work to change the law in a sensible way, as Rubio has, or you can become that lunatic voice calling for politically motivated ethnic cleansing. Guess who’s going to win every election if you go the second route?

            You’ll also be giving the U.N. the perfect excuse to intervene. But then maybe that’s what your faction wants…

            • Mark
            • The illegals in the country are just that…illegal. Upholding the laws and deporting them is not ethnic cleansing. It is executing the law.

              I’ll indulge you here…lets say we do deport them in an “ethnic cleansing” action. So what? They’re here illegally to begin with. Millions upon millions of others have come to these shores and have abided by the law since our country’s exception and have gone through the process to obtain citizenship legally. Why are these current illegal people any different than the Irish, Italians, Germans, Asians, you know…everyone else?
              Again we are left with the choice of enforcing our laws or being called names. I choose the former.

              To your point about changing laws that are neither feasible nor moral, which need to be changed you’re on slippery ground. Prohibition is an example of changing the law that was not feasable to enforce. An invasion of millions upon millions of illegal invaders that has been aided and abetted by numerous administrations with no intent to enforce the current law doesn’t indicate the failure of the law..it exposes the intent or lack thereof to uphold the law.

              To your point about giving the UN an excuse to intervene….who cares what the UN does? We’re supposed to be a soveriegn country no? No other country has any standing to administer immigration policy in the US.

              McCain has been pandering to illegals for years….see McCain – Kennedy bill on 2007. Thank God it never saw a vote….but it was a well known fact that McCain was a supporter of amnesty and co-sponsored this bill. His reward was a resounding 33% vote of Hispanics in his run against Obama.

              Ted Cruz is a Hispanic yes? He only received 36% of Hispanic vote for his senate campaign.

              Randall has stated it perfectly….the majority of Hispanics have voted for Democrats consistently despite numerous overtures Republicans have made. Bush had campaigned speaking Spanish at many campaign stops for Christs sake and he still only got 43% of the vote. He couldn’t split the vote despite campaigning in Spanish and having a Latino nephew.

              We need to rid ourselves of the neocon mindset and return to “Old American Right” types of candidates who are not warhawks, high spending etc while we still are relevant.

    • NameBM
    • LT9 and others,

      Please understand that the vast majority of present opinions are heavily biaised. A vast majority of both parties players WANT the Obama, Rubio, Jindal and al to be elligible. They are excellent politicians and refusing them the possibility of the White House is decimating the ranks of good candidates.

      Therefore I would encourage you to weight more the opinions passed before the Obama’s presidency.

      First, NO COURTS has ever judge the elligibility on MERRITS, because it would have meant reviewing the FACTS about the BC. Therefore all the cases were judged on standing (Do the parties have the right to file a law suit). And to refuse standing in the hundreds of law suits filed since 2008, Judges have gone where no decent judicial minds should dare and still keep their jobs.

      It is actually a very scary pattern. A judge hears the preliminary steps about the case. The judge is receptive to the arguments made to hear the case on merrits. The judge indicate to the parties they should get ready to go to trail. Few days pass and THE JUDGE MAKES A 180 DEGREES on the case. Goes to the far limits of legal decency to justify the unjustifiable et voila! The case is dismissed. Obama is elligible. Just go away….

      Second, it leaves us with the question: Who is elligible to be a President and a Vice President.

      We know it has to be an American Citizen. But it has to be a certain kind of American Citizen.

      One of the Alinsky tactics used by the White House in diverting the elligilibily question for Obama, was to used the term Native Born rather than Natural Born, and therefore attempt to erase the difference between the two terms.

      Native born and Natural Born are not the same thing, eventhough they are often used one for another by uninformed people and lawyers.

      You will never hear the WH says that Obama is a Natural Born. But they have say numerous time he is a Native.

      *****A Native Born American Citizen is an American Citizen who acquired his/her citizenship at the time of his/her birth.

      A Natural Born American Citizen is an American Citizen who acquired his/her citizenship at the time of his/her birth EXCLUSIVELY OF ANY OTHERS.*****

      There are two ways one aquires citizenship at birth.

      Through the Blood line or Parentage (that’s the Natural Way, the Law of Nature, the offspring takes the attributes of the parents) and through the soil, the location of the birth. You are born on a certain territory and therefore you are subjected to the law of such territory. Such laws may or may not confere you citizenship. In the States, being born on the territory gives you citizenship, but interestingly enough in most of the countries in the world it does not.

      An American Citizen is consider NATIVE when by, either being born in this country or having at least one American Citizen for parent, he gets his/her America citizenship at birth.

      The term Native is opposed to Naturalized. A Naturalized Citizen acquires his/her citizenship AFTER his/her birth.

      Among the Native Born American Citizens there is a sub-group formed by people who acquired the American citizenship at birth and no other citizenship. Meaning that because they were born on the territory of the US, they could not acquired another citizenship via the right of the soil (Jus Soili is the latin word) and that because their parents had no other citizenship but the American one, they could not pass to their offspring another citizenship (Jus Sangui).


      Now why is it that the founders restricted the Presidency and Vice Presidency to Natural Born?

      Because they were concerned with allegiance and undivided loyalties.

      They had personnaly fought a war, the revolutionnary war, a war which has divided families, some chosing to be faithful to a King they had never seen, to the English nation they had never put a foot on and to a system they had very little say in.

      The founders knew first hand the psychological inprint a citizenship leaves on a soul. And because they were designing a Republic system in which the President was also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces (Not all Republics function like that. Sometimes for instance the role of Commander-in-Chief is the Head of an Elder Council) they wanted to make sure, that once their generation had died off, the Commander-in-chief would have no undivided loyalty coming from allegiance to another flag. More importantly they wanted to make sure that the troups would have no reason to question the decisions of the Commander-in-Chief on the grounds of possible divided loyalty.

      Most of us do not know that this elligibility question has already come up in our history.

      Chester Arthur was our 21st President. He became so in 1881 after the assassination of President Garfield.

      When Arthur was elected Vice President and thoughout his presidency, many said he was not elligible on the grounds his father was Canadian at the time of his birth, and that therefore Arthur had acquired the Canadian citizenship at the time of his birth and could not be a Natural Born American Citizen.

      Arthur always denied this and always said his father had taken the American citizenship BEFORE the time of Arthur’s Birth, making Arthur a bonified Narural Born American Citizen.

      Arthur LIED over and over.

      Recent research has now encovered buried in the National Archives the naturalization decree of Arthur’s father. Arthur’s father was naturalized when Arthur was 8 year old. Arthur was not elligible. He knew it and lied and lied.

      Now why would Arthur lied if the having one foreigner as parent was not an issue?

      Arthur was born in the US, in Vermont near the Canadian border. The location of his birth was not the issue. His parentage was.

      And parentage was the issue taken by the Senate in 2008, when questions were raised about McCain’s elligility. The resolution passed by the Senate (worthless legally but indicative of a mindset nonetheless) specifically says that a Natural Born American Citizen has to have TWO American citizens for parents. (the resolution was sponsored by Senator Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator McCaskill, and voted unanimously by all Senators present. Let’s note the arrogance of Obama:sponsoring and voting on a resolution clearly declaring him unelligible all the while campaigning for the Presidency)

      (McCain was born in Panama in the maternity ward of the Colon hospital. McCain was not born on an American base). Panama grants citizenship to children born on its territory (Jus soili). Therefore McCain was born with the dual citizenship. The fact that he never claimed it is irrelevant in legal terms. That said exceptions to the Jus soili rule have historically been considered for children of diplomats and armed forces personel. Vatel is clear on the matter. Being born abroad while your parents were sent there in official service does not preclude such children from being considered Natural Born)

      By the way Vattel is this 18th Century scholer who wrote the defining book on International law. We know that the founders had read him and were guided by the principles established in the book, because we have the receipt of purchase by Franklin for several copies. Vattel is also mentionned in other matters of International law by the founders in their correspondance)

      I hope this clarify an issue which only became controversial since BOTH parties had interests to make it so.

      I could go in much more details about the distinction between Native and Natural and the why and how of the 14th amendment. May be on another post. I do not want to try your patience. One step at a time.

    • Kay112
    • I have a few questions~~

      Why would the architects of the US Constitution place the phrase “natural born citizen” as a requirement to be US President if it means a citizen who was born in the USA? Why not call these people “US born citizens” as a requirement in the constitution? Or “native born US citizen” or a “US citizen who is not naturalized”? Why come up with the strange term “natural born citizen” if it only means you were born on US soil?

      I ask because some people should think deeply about these shallow questions I pose. Perhaps they are not half as shallow as they may appear, but this is the technicality of how law works.

      • MJM
      • Kay112: As I posted in the other Rubio-related thread, the Founding Fathers did not define what a Natural Born citizen was because they never envisioned the dumbing down of America. At the time this nation was founded, people were well versed in the concept of Natural Law, on which much of Constitution and the Rights we have were based.

      • Randall
      • Anonymity in any form is reason for pause. I would suggest that DHS insider, who is interviewed by Doug Haggmann (appears on infowars) is likely Iranian or Russian disinfo. If someone you don’t know is going to present you with an explanation, they should be able to cite public, credible sources. Otherwise it’s almost certainly garbage. Just keep that in mind.

    • 57th State
    • At the time of Rubio’s birth in 1971, his Father and Mother were Cuban nationals. Accordingly, a priori, Rubio is not a “natural born Citizen” as required to be eligible to be President of the United States under Article II, §1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as he is not the child of two United States citizen parents.

      The phrase “natural born Citizen” is an 18th Century legal-term-of-art with a definite meaning well known to the Framers of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that phrase was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, § 212). Notably, there are two requirements: (i) born in the United States and (ii) of two parents, both of whom must be United States citizens. Clearly, Rubio fails to qualify for this level of citizenship and thus is ineligible to be President. Significantly, Congress exercised its authority to expand beyond de Vattel’s definition of “natural born Citizen” in the Act of 1790, stating: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” 1 Stat. 104.

      Thus, until the act of 1790 was replaced by subsequent statutes regarding citizenship, if both parents were citizens, then the place of birth was immaterial and the resulting offspring was a “natural born Citizen” and thus eligible to be President. Notably, Congress subsequently removed the legal-term-of-art “natural born Citizen” from all citizenship statutes post-1790 and now solely confers “citizenship”. See: 8 U.S.C. §1401 – “Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”, supra.

      Moreover, Rubio is not a “natural-born Citizen” of the United States as defined by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):

      The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born
      citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
      common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
      Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born
      in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves,
      upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born
      citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
      Minor v. Happersett at 168.

      Therefore, the “natural-born Citizen” clause only pertains to a requirement for holding the highest public office, that of President and requires both parents to be U.S. Citizens. Thus, as a matter of law, Rubio is ineligible to be President as his Father and Mother were not U.S. Citizens.

    • forfreedom
    • Why bother arguing a null point, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats, and by the time the next election rolls around???? We do not need a leader from the establishment, we need a leader of Men by the grace of God, may they be of high moral character and value and the fear of God outweigh that of any man. Stop looking to man and get on your knees and appeal to the creator, yes God and our Savior Jesus Christ, or continue into the dismal pit of the world and self righteousness.

    • LT9
    • The birther people in here keep going back to the same arguments that the links by UM blow right out of the water. I’m starting to think none of you actually read the UM article or all the links. When the Heritage Foundation and recent case law, and the Congressional research center and former big time legal minds and Senators like Fred Thompson all say that Rubio is eligible to run and explain why, then I have made up my own mind on the issue. Rubio can run. And I can say that after I read through all your posts and info, as well as took the time to read through all the UM post and links. But hey you are free to think what you want. No worries! :)

    • LT9
    • Also want to thank UM for providing the story so we can have this discussion. Thank you! I mgiht disagree with some of the positions in these comments, but some of you seem to be smart and interesting people and its always nice to hear your thoughts on things even if you’re wrong. :)

    • sartana
    • I disagree that with the assertion that Rubio is a good man and a Conservative.

      Set aside for now that this Amnesty he’s pushing is insane and will lead to the break-up of this nation, and that he knows it’s unpopular and would be defeated if put up as a national referendum.

      He is a liar. He states very clearly in every interview he gives on his super-shanabulous “immigration overhaul” that the current number of illegals in our country is eleven million. An honest Amnesty advocate would at least admit that the number of illegals is not really known. Anyone who’s traveled to multiple big cites across America within the last few years knows that number is probably closer to fifteen or even twenty million. Either way, people on different sides of the debate can at least agree that these numbers are not exact. Yet Rubio states emphatically eleven million. This might seem a small point, but it’s telling. He’s deliberately fudging the numbers to make his plan go down more easily to a skeptical audience- just like the Dems did in so many ways with Obamacare, and their “Healthcare Overhaul.” You better believe that if an Amnesty is passed, those numbers will shoot up wildly. Not to mention the chain migration that will occur once the newly-Amnestied citizens begin bringing their family from the home country. Which is an aspect of this debate that Rubio has not mentioned. Whether the number of illegals is closer to eleven or twenty million, once an Amnesty would result in a population increase of likely thirty of forty million within a decade of being passed- not counting the continued million or more that we now take in legally every year.

      He’s a flim-flam man. I could go on deconstructing his dishonesty on this but there will be time enough for that.

      And he’s neither Conservative nor Tea Party. On every larger issue before Congress during the last couple years on which their was a fight between the new Tea Party people and the establishment GOP, Rubio has sided with the RINOS. Every time. He says he sympathizes with the Tea Party but it’s necessary to make the crap compromise and it really hurts him more than you blah blah blah.

      He’s was co-opted before he was sworn in to the Senate. He’s nothing more than an errand boy for the Bush Crime Family.

      • SallyAl
      • Oh I so VERY MUCH agree with all you just said! But, I daresay he was better than the alternative. (Kinda like Scott Brown). All the more reason to make people understand the eligibility issue. This is one of the reasons the eligibility issue is not going to go away. It sets a very dangerous precedent for both parties. If you disregard the Constitution on something so vital as the meaning of NBC and the requirement to be one to qualify for POTUS/VPOTUS you can (and will in jugheads case) just pick the parts you like and use it as toilet paper. And for the doubters, can someone please tell me why there have been NO LESS than 8 attempts in the last 10 years to change the requirement of NBC for POTUS? Hmmmmmm?

    • CapitalG
    • I know what I was taught back in grammar school. Natural Born Citizen = Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents. Had to memorize it right along with multiplication and division tables. Was tested on it. I can no more dismiss that definition than I can 2 x 2 = 4.

      I was not taught where the definition came from Didn’t know, didn’t care. Then FAUXbama was ran for POTUS and I researched the issue a bit. It was the definition laid out in VAttel’s Law of Nations. The FOunding Fathers referred to Vattel often when drafting the Constitution.

      There is also written correspondence from John Jay and Alexander Hamilton addressing the issue. Hamilton wanted a more lenient definition. John Jay advocated Vattels’ Born in the country to parents who were both citizens.

      I could care less what others think. This is what I was taught and I cannot vote for Rubio knowing he is ineligible. Bobby Jindal is also ineligible. Rick Santorum MAY be ineligible – his father came to the US and became a US Citizen at some point – but he needed to do so before Rick was born. We don’t know when Rick’s father became a US Citizen.

      Frankly I’m disgusted with people who claim these folks are eligible and then make up their own definition of Natural Born Citizen. Being born in the US is simply not enough. Neither is having one parent a US Citizen enough.

      Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents. Seems pretty clear to me.

    • Mark
    • Anyone see the cover of the latest TIME magazine……Rubio on cover with the word “Savior” underneath. Seems the same crew who did up the messianic Obama image has now told us who OUR savior is going to be.

Leave A Response

* Required