Main Menu

Rubio candidacy fans NBC controversy

I ran across an article, The Marco Rubio Cube of Ambition, Principle, Politics, Duty Constitution & Moral Relativism, at a web site called the International News Magazine. The web site looks a little like a news web site, with a big red rectangle that says “THE WORLD NEWS.” However, you know you’re traveling down the path to the dark side when Lame Cherry gets cited as an authority.

The author, Zach Jones, writes:

However, most know that to be a natural born citizen requires that both of a candidates’ parents [hyperlink is to Mario Apuzzo’s web site] must have been American citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth in the U.S.

In fact, anyone who read a US Civics book for their information doesn’t know that. U.S. Senators don’t know that. Supreme Court justices who have commented don’t know that. No law professor knows that. A court in 1844 said that the opposite, that the children of aliens born in the Unites States were natural born citizens was the “universal impression of the public mind.”

My comment is awaiting approval.

, ,

16 Responses to Rubio candidacy fans NBC controversy

  1. avatar
    Atticus Finch September 2, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    I agree.

    The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that a native born citizen is a person who is born in the United States and is eligible to be President and is therefore a natural born citizen.

    “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738,827 (1830)

    “The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)(internal citations omitted)

    Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)

    In another Supreme Court case, Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665 (1944) Justice Frankfurter equated native citizen with natural born citizen when he wrote:

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Id. at 673

    Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)

    As such, the Supreme Court has recognized that native citizens are eligible to be President and therefore native citizens are natural born citizens.

  2. avatar
    The Magic M September 2, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    I’m convinced that quite a lot of people simply don’t know what a natural born citizen is (either because they never did or because they forgot what they learned).

    In fact, my observation of the postings at WND seems to suggest that quite a lot of people fall for the birther propaganda not because they are actual birthers (i.e. manifest a deep hatred of Obama, “leftists” etc. in their birtherism) but because they read the “two citizen parents” argument, believe it is correct (“hey, it’s on the news!”) and then conclude for themselves “so then Obama must be ineligible”.

    Same with the article on Orly’s latest failure – it’s an impressive propaganda piece. It contains mostly correct facts, but interspersed with one or two mischaracterizations which lead the reader to the planned conclusion – “the judge did not uphold the law, but protects Obama”. And I see much more postings in those threads than in the typical birther threads. They lure in a lot of people who never heard about the birther issue but immediately are taken by a message like “court covers up for criminal officials”.

  3. avatar
    Thrifty September 2, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    We have always been at war with Eastasia. Eurasia has always been our ally.

  4. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 2, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    Considering the real meaning of the famous Vattel phrase – would it not be funny if one of Rubio’s relatives had already acquired US citizenship at the time of his birth? An aunt or uncle who came to the States before his parents did?

  5. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 2, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    Thrifty: We have always been at war with Eastasia.

    Was there a dental chair in Room 101?

  6. avatar
    Rickey September 2, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Every time I ask a Vattelist to cite a textbook which contains the two-citizen parent requirement, deafening silence follows. I asked the question at Dr. Kate’s cesspool and was immediately banned.

  7. avatar
    MaryMitch September 2, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    The Magic M:
    I’m convinced that quite a lot of people simply don’t know what a natural born citizen is (either because they never did or because they forgot what they learned).

    In fact, my observation of the postings at WND seems to suggest that quite a lot of people fall for the birther propaganda not because they are actual birthers (i.e. manifest a deep hatred of Obama, “leftists” etc. in their birtherism) but because they read the “two citizen parents” argument, believe it is correct (“hey, it’s on the news!”) and then conclude for themselves “so then Obama must be ineligible”.

    Same with the article on Orly’s latest failure – it’s an impressive propaganda piece. It contains mostly correct facts, but interspersed with one or two mischaracterizations which lead the reader to the planned conclusion – “the judge did not uphold the law, but protects Obama”. And I see much more postings in those threads than in thetypical birther threads. They lure in a lot of people who never heard about the birther issue but immediately are taken by a message like “court covers up for criminal officials”.

    This is unfortunately true. If asked a year ago, most people would agree with the statement “anyone born in the US can be President”, but with the latest de Vattel garbage getting traction, they are beginning to question this. Like the birth certificate meme, someone of note needs to make an issue of it so the mainstream politicians will state AGAIN that Obama is a natural born citizen. At this point, there is nothing Obama can do that will counter the birther crap just eating away at people’s perceptions.

    Where are you when we need you, Donald Trump?

  8. avatar
    jayHG September 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    The Magic M: I’m convinced that quite a lot of people simply don’t know what a natural born citizen is (either because they never did or because they forgot what they learned).In fact, my observation of the postings at WND seems to suggest that quite a lot of people fall for the birther propaganda not because they are actual birthers (i.e. manifest a deep hatred of Obama, “leftists” etc. in their birtherism) but because they read the “two citizen parents” argument, believe it is correct (“hey, it’s on the news!”) and then conclude for themselves “so then Obama must be ineligible”.Same with the article on Orly’s latest failure – it’s an impressive propaganda piece. It contains mostly correct facts, but interspersed with one or two mischaracterizations which lead the reader to the planned conclusion – “the judge did not uphold the law, but protects Obama”. And I see much more postings in those threads than in the typical birther threads. They lure in a lot of people who never heard about the birther issue but immediately are taken by a message like “court covers up for criminal officials”.

    Actually, I’m not convinced people don’t know this. I think that most folks know that if you’re born IN THE U.S., you’re a natural born citizen. That’s why we hear about the so-called “anchor babies,” children born of someone in the U. S. illegally, and that the parents might get deported, but the child can stay here since it was born here and is an American citizen.

    I think that the both parents rule came up because birthers needed a way to disqualify President obama and since they weren’t getting anywhere with the not born in Hawaii story, and they needed to make sure that even if he were born here he would STILL not be elligible, then VIOLA, the BOTH parents rule cause that was a definite disqualier for President Obama.

    It’s all bs, but birthers are nothing if not desperate!!

  9. avatar
    Atticus Finch September 2, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    The problem with Vattelites in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen is founded on Roman or Civil Law instead of English Common Law is that their argument demonstrate their disregard that the Constitution provisions were framed in the language of the English Common Law and their argument ignore the historical development of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is rooted in the English Common Law.

    Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English. “The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917) (Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) (“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”)

    Likewise, Chief Justice, Holmes in Gompers v. United States, 233 US 604 (1914) noted that courts must considered to common law origin of the provisions of the Constitution when he observed: “[T]the provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.” Id at 610

    Moreover, Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925): “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”

    Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning. “ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).

    Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning
    then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.” [G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911); Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 21 (1999) (It is a well-established rule of construction that “`[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.’) (internal citations omitted)

    Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. “The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific.” Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that “absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction.” Johnson v. First Nat’l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

    In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

    As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

    The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

  10. avatar
    JD Reed September 2, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    Bravo, Atticus Finch!

  11. avatar
    Scientist September 2, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    I really think people are being unfair to the author of this artiicle. He has set himself a daunting task, namely, to prove that 1<0, to somehow find the guy with ZERO citizen parents eligible, whilst finding the guy with ONE citizen parent ineligible. Impossible, you say? Fuggedaboudit? Not at all, at least to one as determined as Zach Jones.

    Throwing the rules of mathematics and common sense to the wind, he bravely attempts to prove that 0=2. He gamely thrusts with a "Cuba was a US protectorate" when Rubio's parents were born, undaunted by the fact that it was a sovereign republic. He then continues with the parry that Cuba joined the Allied side in 1941 and Cubans fought beside US troops in WW II. As to the fact that Britain-along with its colonies, including Kenya-joined the war in 1939 and was an indispensible member of the Alliance, well that hardly matters now. The history books that speak of D-Day as an Anglo-American operation are surely wrong. It must have actually been a Cuban-American operation, no?

    So, Mr Jones concludes that Sen Rubio's parents, though Cuban citizens, were actually US citizens, while Obama's though his mother was a US citizen, were not. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!!

  12. avatar
    Keith September 3, 2011 at 2:55 am #

    We have always been at war with Eurasia. Eastasia has always been our ally.

  13. avatar
    misha September 3, 2011 at 3:00 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Was there a dental chair in Room 101?

    “Is it safe?”

  14. avatar
    ellen September 3, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    Re: “Likewise, Chief Justice, Holmes.”

    I do not believe that Holmes was ever Chief Justice, not that changes the power of his words.

  15. avatar
    Randy September 3, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    misha: “Is it safe?”

    It;s safe, so safe….

  16. avatar
    Randy September 3, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz