Althouse: Rubio declares.

April 13, 2015

Rubio declares.

"Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a telegenic rising star with appeal to conservative and establishment Republicans, told donors in a conference call today that he will run for president...."

86 comments:

rhhardin said...: Iowahawk reports that me met Rubio once and told him a joke, and Rubio didn't laugh.

Rubio the Red would be a nice epithet.; 4/13/15, 10:11 AM
Michael K said...: Sounds like Jeb isn't taking off. If Jeb were doing well with new members of his team, Rubio would probably say out.

Immigration is going to be his weak point with support. Immigration will be critical for the GOP this time.

If not, say Hi to Hillary.; 4/13/15, 10:13 AM
Michael K said...: Stay out !; 4/13/15, 10:13 AM
traditionalguy said...: Rubio is a very good communicator. Now if he can just stick to one side messaging he will do well. VP ?; 4/13/15, 10:13 AM
MadisonMan said...: Oh good, a Senator.; 4/13/15, 10:34 AM
cubanbob said...: What a country! Two Cubans running for president.
We Cubans have finally made it big in America.; 4/13/15, 10:35 AM
cubanbob said...: MadisonMan said...
Oh good, a Senator.

4/13/15, 10:34 AM"

Considering Obama and now Hillary why is another senator a problem?; 4/13/15, 10:38 AM
Etienne said...: If he's still talking to donors on conference calls, then he isn't really ready for prime time.

His donors should have been all-in last Winter. He should be executing the strategy at this late date.; 4/13/15, 10:40 AM
tim maguire said...: cubanbob said...Considering Obama and now Hillary why is another senator a problem?

Because the skills that make for a good senator do not make for a good president. Which is why you haven't seen many make that leap.

I saw Rubio on a talk show once, thought he was boring, didn't have much to say and didn't say it well.; 4/13/15, 10:44 AM
bleh said...: If Republicans aren't stupid, they won't let the immigration debate derail Rubio's candidacy. I know that's asking a lot.

Because most Republicans, like most Democrats, are stupid.; 4/13/15, 10:48 AM
lgv said...: I like Rubio, but I think he is a bit of a lightweight.

I put my chips on Romney early last time. My chips are on Rand Paul this time, but more out of like than likelihood. Last go around had a bunch of flash-in-the-pan candidates who wilted under the microscope, e.g. Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry.

This time we have a much more credible cast of candidates to choose from. Paul should stick to his small l libertarian strengths and not do the pretend right wing conservative thing.; 4/13/15, 10:50 AM
Brando said...: Bad idea--he'll be splitting donors with his old mentor Jeb, and worsen his relationship with the Bushes. Plus, the Tea Party vote is already split quite a bit. Unless Rubio has some way to pull ahead of the pack and really surprise everyone, this is just going to hurt his chances for reeelction.

A better move is get reelected, then run for governor, then think about the White House for 2020 or 2024. He's still young, but can improve his profile and expand his base of support. He'd have more to gain from saving the Senate seat and endorsing someone else.; 4/13/15, 10:54 AM
tim maguire said...: BDNYC said...If Republicans aren't stupid, they won't let the immigration debate derail Rubio's candidacy.

You don't think it's a big deal ,s o nobody should? Controlling immigration has to be a key feature of any realistic plan to improve the lives of most Americans.; 4/13/15, 11:00 AM
Sebastian said...: The GOP won't vote for senator as POTUS. VP, maybe.

But Paul, Cruz, and Rubio will show that the GOP is far more diverse and inclusive than the Dems.

Won't persuade the diverse-and-inclusive Prog crowd, of course, but may help in GOP battle space prep with otherwise lukewarm groups, if Paul and Cruz don't go overboard.

Since FL is key, Rubio has a shot at VP if Walker wins. If Jeb wins, Martinez is the logical complement.

Agree with Michael K. that this signals weakness in Jeb. Rubio will take some moderate GOP voters in the primaries.; 4/13/15, 11:07 AM
bleh said...: Brando said... Bad idea--he'll be splitting donors with his old mentor Jeb, and worsen his relationship with the Bushes.

Rubio will not have to compete with Bush for Bush's national or even Florida donors. Rubio is clearly making a play for Romney's donors.

If Romney wanted Jeb to win the nomination, there's no way Rubio would or could run.

Behind the scenes, Romney is helping Rubio.; 4/13/15, 11:10 AM
MayBee said...: I really like Rubio.

He can communicate the conservative case like almost nobody else.; 4/13/15, 11:18 AM
cubanbob said...: tim maguire said...
cubanbob said...Considering Obama and now Hillary why is another senator a problem?

Because the skills that make for a good senator do not make for a good president. Which is why you haven't seen many make that leap.

I saw Rubio on a talk show once, thought he was boring, didn't have much to say and didn't say it well.

4/13/15, 10:44 AM

I suppose I didn't make my point clear-cynic that I am, if being a senator qualifies a Democrat to be president why not for a Republican? Perhaps Madison Man can answer since it was he who did the eye roll of another senator for president.; 4/13/15, 11:18 AM
mccullough said...: Does this mean he is not running for re-election to the Senate?; 4/13/15, 11:18 AM
Mick said...: Rubio is NOT ELIGIBLE.

Until the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) one born of Legal Resident Alien parents would not have been considered even a US Citizen under US law, much less a natural born Citizen eligible for POTUS. That is what WKA was all about.

This fact alone illustrates perfectly that he is not eligible.

A2S1C5 has never been amended, so it's meaning certainly did not encompass those born of legal resident alien parents in 1898.

Wong Kim Ark held that the children of legal resident aliens were Citizens, since they were born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" due to the temporary allegiance to the host country gained by the legal resident parents. Those children "are as much a CITIZEN AS THE NATURAL BORN CHILD OF A CITIZEN", citing Binny, Alleginae. That is the HOLDING OF THE CASE. (See Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, @ 693 (1898)

The requirement is not "born a Citizen", it is "natural born Citizen", a term of art explicitly defined by the Original Common Law of the US, law of nations, as one "born in a country of parents who are its citizens".

As for Cruz, born to a US Citizen mother and a Cuban father in Canada, he would not have even been considered a US Citizen prior to 1934, when women were given the ability to pass US Citizenship by statute. So it is impossible, since A2S1C5 has never been amended, that he could be considered a natural born Citizen.

BOTH are naturalized citizens at birth (8 US Code 1401(1)), due to birth subject to the jurisdiction of the US. FACT.; 4/13/15, 11:28 AM
tim maguire said...: Mick said...Rubio is NOT ELIGIBLE.

Until the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898)...

Oh good lord...

cubanbob, my first choice would be that the Democratic senator not be seen as qualifying either.; 4/13/15, 11:32 AM
richard mcenroe said...: I'd have felt better if his coming-out speech hadn't been in Spanish with English subtitles.; 4/13/15, 11:37 AM
richard mcenroe said...: traditionalguy -- not screwing over the people who elected him for photo ops with Chuckie Schumer would have helped too.; 4/13/15, 11:38 AM
richard mcenroe said...: Rubio will NOT get the "Tea Party" vote. No way they trust him twice after his flip flop on Amnesty.; 4/13/15, 11:40 AM
Mick said...: tim maguire said...
"Mick said...Rubio is NOT ELIGIBLE.

Until the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898)...

Oh good lord..."

And of course, as per typical, you cannot disprove any fact that I presented.

This is why the Usurpation and overthrow of the US government has been possible. A lazy, stupid populace, a fearful, politicized academia, and a complicit media and judiciary.

There is no United States when the executor of the laws is an illegal entity. Look around. Do any laws apply to the .1%? Is John Corzine (Obama Bundler) in jail for stealing $1.3 Billion in segregated funds at MF Global? Have any Bankers gone to jail for the reckless behavior that caused the last crash and will cause the next? Does Hussein Obama rule by executive fiat? Did HRC violate the emoluments clause? Did HRC violate US Law by using a private email for gov. business? Has TRILLIONS of our money been given to foreign banks? I could go on and on.

Are you all blind?; 4/13/15, 11:45 AM
Michael K said...: "A better move is get reelected, then run for governor, then think about the White House for 2020 or 2024. He's still young, "

I agree. He looks 15 years old.; 4/13/15, 11:47 AM
tim maguire said...: It's just not that complicated, Mick. When you're trying to claim that someone born in the U.S. is not eligible to be president under the natural born citizen requirment, you've gone off the rails, jumped the shark.

And no parade of horribles is going to change that.; 4/13/15, 11:49 AM
Mick said...: "It's just not that complicated, Mick. When you're trying to claim that someone born in the U.S. is not eligible to be president under the natural born citizen requirment, you've gone off the rails, jumped the shark.

And no parade of horribles is going to change that".

No, you just cannot state any FACT that legalizes your OPINION nor one that disproves mine.

So a child born a day after mamasita illegal alien swims across the Rio Grande is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? Says who?; 4/13/15, 11:59 AM
JD said...: "What a country! Two Cubans running for president.
We Cubans have finally made it big in America."

Yes, considering most of them came here illegally.; 4/13/15, 12:03 PM
Brando said...: Immigration may hurt Rubio, but it shouldn't--his stance isn't much different from Bush or Perry's, and frankly it's an honest realist stance--any Republican becoming president is going to have to do something about the large number of illegals in this country and the options of (1) status quo or (2) round up and deport them all are either unreal or unattractive. Securing the border alone won't fix the problem--a huge number of the illegals got here legally but overstayed their visas, and of course adding more troops to the border won't do anything about those who are here. A president who doesn't kick the can down the road will have to try some combination of border security, visa reform, deportation and partial amnesty (with fines, etc.). A smart president would consider how to make it easier for immigrants with rare skills to jump the line.

At any rate, if anything's to be done it'll have to be a combination of approaches, both to get the votes in Congress and to address the fact that not all illegals are in the same boat--in some cases the economy can benefit more from cutting a deal with them than from finding and deporting them (an expensive and time consuming process). Simply acknowledging that should not be disqualifying in a candidate.

At any rate, I'd rather a president Rubio (who shouldn't run for other reasons) deal with this than find out what President Hillary pulls off.; 4/13/15, 12:04 PM
Brando said...: I think Mick might be a leftist troll making a joke about right wing "birthers", trying to give us a taste of our own medicine. The thing is, most of us weren't Obama birthers in the first place, so this is irrelevant.; 4/13/15, 12:05 PM
tim maguire said...: Mick said...So a child born a day after mamasita illegal alien swims across the Rio Grande is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? Says who?

Says the United States Constitution. I'm thinking Brando is right about you, your posts are too obviously racist to be real. Besides, there are few if any birthers here and there the argument was not about whether someone born in Hawaii is eligible to be president, it was whether someone born in Kenya is.; 4/13/15, 12:11 PM
Mick said...: Brando said...
"I think Mick might be a leftist troll making a joke about right wing "birthers", trying to give us a taste of our own medicine. The thing is, most of us weren't Obama birthers in the first place, so this is irrelevant".

Oh yeah, that's it. That's why I argued against the Marxist God Hussein Obama.

You know nothing. If you do then disprove the facts I have presented.

Even the "law prof" Althouse, a supposed Con Law professor, cannot support her position that Rubio and Cruz are eligible because they are "citizens at birth" (using SCOTUS precedent, or Federalist papers or actual law, not the easily refuted talking points of the CRS paper by Maskell or the Harvard Law Review paper by Usurper Solitor Gen Kayatal-- both full of more holes than swiss cheese); 4/13/15, 12:13 PM
lgv said...: "Because the skills that make for a good senator do not make for a good president. Which is why you haven't seen many make that leap."

That dude in 1960 did it.

Obama, McCain, HRC, Mondale. I think it is OK, but I think the longer the tenure as Senator, the worse. It is a much harder road to the Whitehouse directly from the Senate. it was easier for Obama because he didn't have time to demonstrate any skills that made him a good senator.; 4/13/15, 12:20 PM
MayBee said...: Immigration is an incredibly difficult issue. We need to have a candidate who can talk about it in ways other than offering soundbites and platitudes (No person is illegal!).

The people of this country have very complicated views on it, and I hope Republican voters will listen and discuss reasonably without drawing some line in the sand and being willing to lose it all to Hillary.; 4/13/15, 12:20 PM
cubanbob said...: LindaH. said...
"What a country! Two Cubans running for president.
We Cubans have finally made it big in America."

Yes, considering most of them came here illegally.

4/13/15, 12:03 PM"

No dear, we aren't Mexicans. We came here legally. Consider it a guilt offering for cutting off Batista's ability to put down Castrp's takeover although now with our Communist president making nice with Cuba's Communist regime going forward I suppose those Cuban's will become illegal aliens.; 4/13/15, 12:20 PM
Mick said...: Maguire said,

"Says the United States Constitution. I'm thinking Brando is right about you, your posts are too obviously racist to be real. Besides, there are few if any birthers here and there the argument was not about whether someone born in Hawaii is eligible to be president, it was whether someone born in Kenya is."

The US Constitution puts a condition on citizenship for those born in the US, "and subject to the jurisdiction of the US".
Those children born of illegal alien mamasitas are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents and Mexico, not the US. Anything else is kidnapping.

"Subject to the Jurisdiction of the US" means subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other country (See the definition of "Citizen" in Revised Statutes 1872 (done AFTER the 14th Amendment).

It is also well held that the 14th Amendment did not "amend" the US Const., only reaffirmed the rights already had from god. So even if you think anyone born in the US regardless of parentage is a US Citizen, that thought does not change the meaning of nbC.

Besides that, by the laws of statutory construction, "natural born Citizen" and "citizen" cannot mean the same thing.

As for your thought about "birthers", you're just wrong.; 4/13/15, 12:28 PM
cubanbob said...: Who wants to bet against if either Rubio or Cruz become the Republican nominee the Democrats will go full Mick and try to litigate against the Republican candidate from running for president on the very same grounds Mick is arguing from?; 4/13/15, 12:42 PM
MayBee said...: I'm not hearing the media and pundits celebrating the First Cuban American/First Hispanic Presidential Candidates they way they did with Obama/black or Hillary/Woman.

That surprises and perplexes me. i thought they were all about diversity!!!; 4/13/15, 12:44 PM
Brando said...: "Oh yeah, that's it. That's why I argued against the Marxist God Hussein Obama."

Yes, that certainly sounds nothing like trolling. But you left out the part about the illuminati and the flouride in our precious bodily fluids.; 4/13/15, 12:45 PM
Brando said...: "I'm not hearing the media and pundits celebrating the First Cuban American/First Hispanic Presidential Candidates they way they did with Obama/black or Hillary/Woman.

That surprises and perplexes me. i thought they were all about diversity!!!"

I'm waiting for the first media outlet to refer to Cruz or Rubio as a "white Hispanic". Which won't be quite as fantastic as when they call Ben Carson a "white black."; 4/13/15, 12:46 PM
Mick said...: Brando said...

"Yes, that certainly sounds nothing like trolling. But you left out the part about the illuminati and the flouride in our precious bodily fluids."

You left out "moon landing skeptic" and "truther".
Your "response" is common.
It's also common that you cannot present any facts, nor disprove the ones I presented.
Your opinion means nothing.
Which SCOTUS case HOLDS that anyone born in the US regardless of parentage is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?

I'm waiting.; 4/13/15, 12:53 PM
Brando said...: "The people of this country have very complicated views on it, and I hope Republican voters will listen and discuss reasonably without drawing some line in the sand and being willing to lose it all to Hillary."

I agree, and will add that the concern that "amnesty" will encourage more people to come here illegally (or as often, overstay their visas) doesn't make much sense. Who would sneak in here (over a dangerous desert path, I might add), risk decades of abuse by criminals and hiding from the authorities, using hospitals or going to the police only sparingly out of constant fear of deportation, and required to work off the books and at risk of getting screwed over by employers, out of hope that maybe every thirty years you might be eligible to stay after paying some fine? I don't think any of the proposed "amnesty" deals are so attractive that they make coming here illegally attractive--what makes coming here illegally attractive is the idea that even the hardships and risks are better than what they left behind. The chances of getting amnesty on a rare occasion hardly seems like a factor in this.; 4/13/15, 12:53 PM
Brando said...: "Which SCOTUS case HOLDS that anyone born in the US regardless of parentage is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?"

Hey, I don't go to Democratic Underground and pretend to be a swampy leftist social justice warrior in their comments section. Why do you feel the need to do this on Althouse's?; 4/13/15, 12:55 PM
garage mahal said...: Mick
Don't let conservatives bully you. Keep speaking the truth.; 4/13/15, 1:07 PM
Mick said...: Brando said,

"Hey, I don't go to Democratic Underground and pretend to be a swampy leftist social justice warrior in their comments section. Why do you feel the need to do this on Althouse's?"

OOOHH touchy. I am on neither the "R Team" or the "D Team".

You are obviously just as bad as the D Team and their messiah worship, which is why G. Washington warned against political parties in his farewell address, where he also said "let there be no change by Usurpation".

You obviously do not care that the Constitution is followed, therefor you deserve no protection from it.

Still waiting for that SCOTUS case that says anyone born in the US regardless of parentage is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS.

Cat got your tongue?; 4/13/15, 1:08 PM
Drago said...: garage mahal: "Mick Don't let conservatives bully you. Keep speaking the truth."

A Mick truth: "That's why I argued against the Marxist God Hussein Obama."; 4/13/15, 1:25 PM
Mick said...: garage mahal said...
"Mick
Don't let conservatives bully you. Keep speaking the truth."

Both parties are the same. Both are subverting the Constitution. Neither serves the people. A finding of ineligibility as to Rubio or Cruz also casts doubt on Hussein Obama--- that they be deemed eligible has the purpose of protecting the Usurper Obama.
It's a disgusting spectacle to watch supposed "Constitutionalists" protect an illegal Usurper, and be supported by blind allegiance to the "R Team".; 4/13/15, 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Working off of the theory that you can keep all the money you raise for president and use it for your senate campaign, I'm going to say Rubio is really running for reelection as Senator in Florida.; 4/13/15, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick, you come off as a serious nutcase.

Even if you were right, which you aren't, you'd still agree that these people, all of them, are citizens. Not natural born, o'er your usual blather, but still citizens.

And yet you use words like traitors and usurpors.

Which is why no one listens to you, except to tease and mock you.; 4/13/15, 1:35 PM
Mick said...: eric said...
"Mick, you come off as a serious nutcase.

Even if you were right, which you aren't, you'd still agree that these people, all of them, are citizens. Not natural born, o'er your usual blather, but still citizens".

I don't really care what you think, but I have already said Rubio and Cruz are NATURALIZED citizens.

The problem is that the requirement is "natural born Citizen". You still don't get that yet?

And yes they are traitors. All of Congress knows Obama, Rubio and Cruz are not eligible.

So... which SCOTUS case HOLDS that anyone born in America is a natural born Citizen eligible for POTUS, w/o regard for the nationality of the parents?

If I am so stupid why can't anyone answer, including the "law prof".; 4/13/15, 1:56 PM
garage mahal said...: The only two Republican candidates for POTUS have questionable eligibility credentials. Interesting. This must be a form of New Textualism.; 4/13/15, 2:19 PM
Mick said...: garage mahal said...
"The only two Republican candidates for POTUS have questionable eligibility credentials. Interesting. This must be a form of New Textualism".

No, it's to protect the Usurper Obama, and the "R Team" fans are falling right into it.
If Rubio and Cruz were real patriots they would say they are not eligible and why.; 4/13/15, 2:24 PM
jr565 said...: Rubio is good so long as he can renounce his push for amnesty (or if he can say he wasn't in fact doing that).
He speaks pretty well, and he would be a historic vote.; 4/13/15, 2:31 PM
jr565 said...: Maybee wrote:
The people of this country have very complicated views on it, and I hope Republican voters will listen and discuss reasonably without drawing some line in the sand and being willing to lose it all to Hillary.

Well, is Hillary going to talk about it reasonably? Or is she going to call all Repubs vicious bigots if they don't want to legalize 15 million illegals?; 4/13/15, 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick wrote;

I don't really care what you think, but I have already said Rubio and Cruz are NATURALIZED citizens.

The problem you're coming up against is, no one cares. No one see's why anyone should care.

I'd be with you if someone was raised in another country, lived under that countries banners, didn't understand our language and our culture, and weren't citizens or were recent citizens.

But why should we care over a technicality? I've said before I think you're wrong. We disagree.

But even if I agreed with you, so what? Why does the distinction matter so much to you?

What is the magic that happens between being a natural born citizen vs a born citizen?; 4/13/15, 2:44 PM
garage mahal said...: I mean, I'm not necessarily concerned about Rubio's or Cruz's eligibility status, and I don't need to see their birth certificates. But the fact they have presented us with anything tells me they are hiding something?; 4/13/15, 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger garage mahal said...
I mean, I'm not necessarily concerned about Rubio's or Cruz's eligibility status, and I don't need to see their birth certificates. But the fact they have presented us with anything tells me they are hiding something?

As is the current standard, they should present us with proof of citizenship, just as President Obama had to do.

However, they shouldn't have to give us anything regarding college records. Or previous work experience. Or anything showing that they've done any jobs that qualify them for the position other than being back benchers in the Senate.; 4/13/15, 3:05 PM
Brando said...: "Well, is Hillary going to talk about it reasonably? Or is she going to call all Repubs vicious bigots if they don't want to legalize 15 million illegals?"

Hopefully she does exactly that and turns off the middle. But if she has smart advisers this time she'll keep her mouth shut or make some bland statement that keeps her above the fray while the GOP candidates do what they do best--tear each other to shreds until they've tainted themselves to the electorate.

It's certainly worth debating what form immigration reform should take, and why some measures would be good and others harmful. As far as I can tell, the Democrats don't seem to be having a similar debate, which is odd as their own constituency is hardly monolithical on the issue (just check in with any union officials about immigration). Hopefully the GOP can debate the issue better than they did in 2012 when it became a cheap attempt to tar and smear each other.; 4/13/15, 3:06 PM
garage mahal said...: Just make it's the LONG FORM birth certificate.; 4/13/15, 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger garage mahal said...
Just make it's the LONG FORM birth certificate.

There is only one type of birth certificate. And it's called a birth certificate.; 4/13/15, 3:14 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Mick:

Wong Kim Ark held that the children of legal resident aliens were Citizens, since they were born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" due to the temporary allegiance to the host country gained by the legal resident parents. Those children "are as much a CITIZEN AS THE NATURAL BORN CHILD OF A CITIZEN", citing Binny, Alleginae. That is the HOLDING OF THE CASE. (See Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, @ 693 (1898)

Mick, the opinion is contrasting the child of an alien with the "natural born child of a citizen," not a "natural born citizen."

The requirement is not "born a Citizen", it is "natural born Citizen", a term of art explicitly defined by the Original Common Law of the US, law of nations, as one "born in a country of parents who are its citizens".

Re-read that case again. The majority opinion cites precedents going back to 1608 to the effect that the common law rule has always been that the children of aliens lawfully resident on English territory and subject to the English Crown are themselves "natural born subjects" of the English crown:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Under the common law, the children of illegal aliens are probably not "natural born citizens," as they are not really in "amity" with the sovereign US power, being closer in character to an occupying foreign army than to lawful foreign residents. That is not, so far as I am aware, the situation with Rubio. The situation with Cruz is a little different, and I will grant that as he was born a natural-born subject of the British crown in Canada (by the same principle of the common-law precedents adduced in Wong Kim Ark), there is a stronger argument that he is not a natural born citizen of the US.

I still don't think it's clear-cut, though, and that shouldn't be the obstacle in Cruz's path.; 4/13/15, 3:14 PM
Brando said...: Balfegor--Mick here is trolling. No serious person thinks that "natural born citizen" does not include people born in this country whose parents weren't U.S. citizens--otherwise any of our presidents who were born pre-1787 would have been illegitimate. It's just not a serious argument, and (s)he's trying to make a point about the "birthers" who railed on about Obama. It doesn't matter what you say to him/her, he'll go back to his same old trolling talking points.; 4/13/15, 3:19 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Brando --

Perhaps. But I think it's still worthwhile to point out that the precedents he is citing don't say anything at all like what he is claiming they say, and in fact directly contradict his claims.; 4/13/15, 3:22 PM
Brando said...: "Perhaps. But I think it's still worthwhile to point out that the precedents he is citing don't say anything at all like what he is claiming they say, and in fact directly contradict his claims."

No doubt.; 4/13/15, 3:23 PM
Mick said...: Eric said,

"The problem you're coming up against is, no one cares. No one see's why anyone should care.

I'd be with you if someone was raised in another country, lived under that countries banners, didn't understand our language and our culture, and weren't citizens or were recent citizens."

That you don't care if the POTUS is eligible is disgusting. You deserve no protection from that document.

Again, if there is no legal executor of the laws then there is no law, and the law is only what greedy selfish criminals and or their puppeteers say it is.

Barack Obama, raised in a rats den of anti-Americans and Communists is the perfect example of why a nbC is required. It is a security measure designed to ensure, to the highest degree possible allegiance and attachment to country--- which the Usurper Hussein Obama does NOT HAVE.
If you don't see that then you are blind.

Obama never produced proof of anything. A picture on a website is proof of nothing. NO ONE has ever touched the supposed raised seal from Hi. which gives it legality. The Hi. Dept. of Health Director that was "vouching" for its authenticity (Fuddy) has been linked to Obama's mother in the "Sobud" cult., and was killed in a soft water landing plane crash under mysterious circumstances.

He has also by executive order hidden all of his past history.

But I guess you are comfortable with that.

Seriously, you don't care if the POTUS is eligible? May the chains fall lightly at your feet...; 4/13/15, 3:24 PM
garage mahal said...: There is only one type of birth certificate. And it's called a birth certificate.

I seem to remember a lot of confusion about whether Obama's birth certificate was the real deal. Fascinating article on that here. 10 Facts That Suggest Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Fake.

Love the last comment. HE MURDERED AMERICANS IN BENGHAZI!; 4/13/15, 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Seriously, you don't care if the POTUS is eligible? May the chains fall lightly at your feet...

I didn't say I didn't care. I said I disagree with you and think the POTUS is eligible.

But you ignored my larger point, which is, so what?

If you want people to care, you have to tell us what the magic is between being an Natural citizen vs being a born citizen.

Otherwise, no one is going to care. And you ignored that in your last message, except to stomp your feet and shout, "What! You don't care what the constitution says!"

No, I don't care that we disagree. Because if I'm wrong, so what? What's the magic difference between a born citizen and a natural born citizen?

I don't hold out hope that you've got a clue what it might be.; 4/13/15, 3:28 PM
Mick said...: Brando said...
"Balfegor--Mick here is trolling. No serious person thinks that "natural born citizen" does not include people born in this country whose parents weren't U.S. citizens--otherwise any of our presidents who were born pre-1787 would have been illegitimate. It's just not a serious argument, and (s)he's trying to make a point about the "birthers" who railed on about Obama. It doesn't matter what you say to him/her, he'll go back to his same old trolling talking points."

And you just exposed yourself as the .gov troll you are.

Those Presidents were grandfathered in by A2S1C5, "or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this Constitution". The first nbCs, born since 1776 were only 13. That is a typical .gov troll response by you.

Really, nice blanket statement, saying that the facts I post don't say what I think they say. Where is that? Typical .gov troll, now coming in for damage control, and disinfo.

Notice there is no SCOTUS case cited by .gov troll that HOLDS that anyone born in the US is a natural born Citizen? No facts whatsoever.

Refute with facts or your opinion means nothing.; 4/13/15, 3:39 PM
Mick said...: Eric said,

"But you ignored my larger point, which is, so what?"

Of course I did. Obama is the most destructive force as POTUS ... EVER. Because that is the mission. He has no allegiance.; 4/13/15, 3:41 PM
Mick said...: As usual, the .gov trolls and disinfo agents go from one blanket statement or false assertion to the next. Never admitting or acknowledging when proven wrong.

Here is SCOTUS precedent:

"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, 88 US 162, 167 (1874)

The Common Law is law of nations, which is held to be Original Common Law by SCOTUS Sosa v. Alvarez (2004), recently. Law of nations explicitly defines nbC the same exact way as M v. H.

Where is the SCOTUS holding that says anyone born in the US is a natural born Citizen. I'm still waiting...; 4/13/15, 3:47 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Mick:

Where is the SCOTUS holding that says anyone born in the US is a natural born Citizen. I'm still waiting....

There's no case holding that just "anyone" born in the US is a natural born citizen, because that's not the case. Children born to occupying foreign armies and children born to foreign diplomats are excluded from the operation of the common law principle.

But there are Supreme Court cases holding that under the common law the children of aliens legally present in the US are natural born citizens. Like, um, the case of Wong Kim Ark. Which you conveniently cited for us, even if you misrepresented the holding.; 4/13/15, 3:50 PM
Mick said...: Balfegor said,

"Re-read that case again. The majority opinion cites precedents going back to 1608 to the effect that the common law rule has always been that the children of aliens lawfully resident on English territory and subject to the English Crown are themselves "natural born subjects" of the English crown"

Wrong. Subjects are not citizens, and our Original Common Law is law of nations (See Sosa v. Alvarez , 2004)

There is no need to make citizens "subjects", as law of nations explicitly defines natural born Citizen.

"The natural born child of a citizen", is saying that natural born Citizens are born of CITIZENS-- duh

All of the natural born subject stuff does not apply, because we are citizens, not subjects (well I am anyway). It is all dicta. The holding is on page 693.; 4/13/15, 3:55 PM
Mick said...: Balegor said,

And of course you are mincing words. Wong Kim Ark does not say, NEVER SAYS anyone born in the US (except those exceptions) is a natural born Citizen, only that the children of legal resident aliens is a CITIZEN (as much as the natural born child of a citizen) because of the temporary allegiance of the legal residents to the host country, which makes them and their child subject to the jurisdiction.

Before that those children (born of resident aliens) were NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS. So Marco Rubio, also born of resident aliens would not have been considered a US Citizen either. So how could he be a Constitutional nbC elgible to be POTUS? He can't.; 4/13/15, 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick,

Do you admit then that there is no practical difference between a born citizen and a natural born citizen?; 4/13/15, 4:42 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Mick:

And of course you are mincing words. Wong Kim Ark does not say, NEVER SAYS anyone born in the US (except those exceptions) is a natural born Citizen,

Yes it does.

I realize you are deeply reluctant to accept that the law is, in fact, the law, but it may help you if you first acknowledge that "subject" is the operative term in the common law. The Supreme Court quotes approvingly:

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.

The Supreme Court did not cite the long series of English and British common-law precedents on natural-born subjects out of idle curiosity, but because they define the common law with regard to who is and is not a "natural-born subject" -- which is, in the US, termed as "Citizen."; 4/13/15, 4:52 PM
Drago said...: Just wait until Mick convinces garage that Walker isn't eligible to be President due to the "secret routers" exception.; 4/13/15, 5:08 PM
garage mahal said...: That router joke is always so fresh and more importantly, hilarious!; 4/13/15, 5:18 PM
Drago said...: garage mahal: "That router joke is always so fresh and more importantly, hilarious!"

You have only yourself to blame for your astonishing ignorance and gullibility.

But, like your "Marxist God Hussein Obama" (Mick written and garage approved as "truth"), you have difficulty with owning up to your many shortcomings.

Alas it must have always been thus.; 4/13/15, 6:17 PM
Lydia said...: Rubio's announcement speech. The guy's an incredibly powerful speaker.; 4/13/15, 6:17 PM
Phil 314 said...: Don't feed the trolls!; 4/13/15, 8:05 PM
retired said...: Walker/Rubio '16

Wish I could think of a grey haired conservative politician that would help Walker as VP but they all seem washed up. Lindsay Grahamesty foreign policy expert, Mccain's BFF? Not a chance!!; 4/13/15, 9:32 PM
el polacko said...: rubio has many qualities that make him an appealing national candidate. he's handsome, articulate (in two languages), a potential, historic, first latino prez and he's young. pitching his youth and 'newness' over the other, older, dynastic candidates sounds like a winning strategy. however, in a recent interview with hannity, he expressed his opposition to both marriage equality and marijuana decriminalization which are not the forward-looking positions that are likely to appeal to the younger voters he hopes to woo. it will be an interesting next few months to see how this contradiction shakes out for him.; 4/13/15, 10:01 PM
rcommal said...: Even if Rubio didn't carry with him controversy over eligibility, he'd be "short-shot" for the nomination. He's too much like Mitch Daniels, for example: the sort of person whom the base will never accept, much less go for. It's a waste of time to speculate about, much less support his having a serious place at the table. Any one who's involved in grassroots primary work want to challenge what I just wrote?

Actually, either way, the only people whose opinions matter are those who will actually vote in the primaries, and that *is* fact: the only one that matters.; 4/14/15, 1:46 AM
Simon said...: Inevitably, amateur hour shows up and claims that Rubio isn't eligible; he will not be directly-engaged. Nevertheless, I will point out for those who aren't loony that Rubio is eligible, and is so for a straightforward reason: Under the law of England at the time of the founding, a child born within the king's realm to alien parents who were not ambassadors would have been considered a "natural-born" subject, and it is from that law that we draw the content of the adjectival phrase "natural-born" in article II. Rubio might or might not be the right man for the job, but he is undoubtedly eligible to the office.; 4/14/15, 8:22 AM
Mick said...: Balfegor said,

"The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.

The Supreme Court did not cite the long series of English and British common-law precedents on natural-born subjects out of idle curiosity, but because they define the common law with regard to who is and is not a "natural-born subject" -- which is, in the US, termed as "Citizen."

What nonsense. Maybe you are a "subject" but I am not. The Supreme Court has held that the Original Common Law of the US is law of nations.

(see Sosa v. Alvarez- Machain (2004) quoting the Nereid, that upon the establishment of the new Republic, the United States "received the law of nations", and see also that law of nations is referred to repeatedly as "Original Common Law")

Law of nations is wholly within the Constitution, and the usage of the law of nations term of art "natural born Citizen" means that the entire statutory structure is adopted (a well held law of statutory construction).

No mental gymnastics are necessary to make natural born SUBJECT into natural born Citizen, as the exact term is explicitly defined in the ORIGINAL COMMON LAW---law of nations.

The precedential quote defining nbC from Minor v Happersett, 88 US 152, @167 is REPEATED IN Wong Kim Ark, and the "Common Law" it refers to is law of nations.

WKA was ONLY about who is a CITIZEN (member of the nation) not who is a natural born Citizen.

After all the blather about BCL it upheld a natural law concept of "HABITATION" (see 169 US 649, 693,
that legal residence of an alien creates a temporary allegiance to the host country, and that legal habitation makes the parents subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and thus their children a born subject to the jurisdiction and are citizens). That is what it really says, and all the blather about birth in the US makes one a citizen is not what is upheld in the corners of the case.

WKA was only a citizen because his parents were legal resident aliens--- THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. It wasn't simply because he was born in the US.

You should really read the case.

That also means that Marco Rubio, before 1898 would not have been considered a citizen, much less a nbC, eligible for the Presidency.

Remnants of BCL exist in municipal law only to the extent that it does not interfere with the Constitution, and that fact is even written into state constitutions.

Law of Nations is actually written into the US Const (See A1S8C10) while the words "British Common Law" appear NOWHERE.

The word "subject" was CROSSED OUT symbolically in the original draft of the USC and replaced with "Citizen".

"Born a Citizen" was suggested as the requirement for AA2S1C5 by Hamilton but was REJECTED for the law of nations term of art "natural born Citizen", which was a better protection against foreign influence (the purpose of a requirement is the best clue to its meaning), since "born a citizen" could be one naturalized at birth.

I know all these facts torque your little brain, and give cognitive dissonance to your lies and disinformation. Notice how you never address M v. H, or the fact that the definition of nbC found therein is repeated in WKA.

You made a meek attempt to wash away the citation of Binny, Alleginae ("the same as the natural born child of a citizen"), but the words are there, and as usual the .gov trolls and disinfo agents merely try to change their meaning.; 4/14/15, 8:47 AM
Mick said...: Simon says,

" Under the law of England at the time of the founding, a child born within the king's realm to alien parents who were not ambassadors would have been considered a "natural-born" subject, and it is from that law that we draw the content of the adjectival phrase "natural-born" in article II. Rubio might or might not be the right man for the job, but he is undoubtedly eligible to the office."

See the response to Balegor directly below tour lies .gov troll and disinformation agent. How does it feel to be a bootlicker of the Marxists?; 4/14/15, 8:49 AM