[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.

Reagan JOKE On The Homeless

The Deleted Wisdom (1776 Report)

Sicko Transfaggots video

The Englund Gambit Checkmate

20 Minutes Of Black DC Residents Supporting Trump's Federal Takeover!

"Virginia Public Schools Deserve This Reckoning"

"'Pack the Bags, We're Going on a Guilt Trip'—the Secret to the Democrats' Success"

"Washington, D.C., Is a Disgrace"

"Trump Orders New 'Highly Accurate' Census Excluding Illegals"

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: MARCO RUBIO IS AN ANCHOR BABY AND NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://themarshallreport.wordpress ... eligible-to-run-for-president/
Published: Nov 4, 2015
Author: dianne marshall
Post Date: 2015-11-04 07:33:51 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 6619
Comments: 42

Yes you heard that right. At the time Marco Rubio was born in the United States neither of his parents were United States Citizens.

Rubio was born in Miami, Florida on May 28, 1971, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia. His parents were Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975!. That makes little Marco an anchor baby. Don’t expect him to think like the average American. He has now both said and shown us he doesn’t respect the office of the senate, and is not to be trusted to the office of President!

The question that remains is: DOES MARCO RUBIO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?

The descriptive clause in the Constitution says this:

“Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.” (see link below)

When Marco Rubio announced he was running, for president, Orly Taitz, and Mario Apuzzo (who both filed multiple lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility) asserted that Mario Rubio was not eligible to run because he was born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of his respective birth. They both publically asserted that Marco Rubio is not eligible.

To me it appears that the answer is NO, Rubio is not qualified. Why is the news silent on this one?

Oh and by the way, Rubio’s sob story for the campaign that his parents were Cuban refugees and fled to the US to escape the abusive power of Castro? He forgot to tell you that his family arrived in the US in 1956 and Castro did not rise to power until 1959. Another lie.


Poster Comment:

Oh and by the way, Rubio’s sob story for the campaign that his parents were Cuban refugees and fled to the US to escape the abusive power of Castro? He forgot to tell you that his family arrived in the US in 1956 and Castro did not rise to power until 1959. Another lie.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#2. To: A K A Stone, NATURAL Born Citizen (#0)

The descriptive clause in the Constitution says this:

“Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.” (see link below)

Unknown what the author is quoting, but it's NOT the US Constitution! "native-born" is not in there.


U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

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.

Hondo68  posted on  2015-11-04   8:32:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: hondo68 (#2) (Edited)

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.

A lot of people miss this. It spells out that the Founders anticipated that a natural-born American citizens might live up to age 21 overseas and still be eligible to run as president.

Rubio is considered natural-born since that is how we have defined the 14th Amendment. We have legislatively altered the definition slightly several times because the Constitution simply says natural-born but does not exhaustively define the term.

..., or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,...

I always like how the Founders, themselves British subjects, grandfathered themselves into eligibility with this modest phrase.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-04   8:36:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#3)

Rubio is considered natural-born since that is how we have defined the 14th Amendment.

Who is we? Nancy Pelosi certified that Barry Obama is qualified and a natural born citizen. The courts have never ruled on "natural born Citizen". The 14th doesn't specifically address natural born.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada, a Dual Citizen at birth. How can this be "natural born", most people are born with only one citizenship. Not so natural to the vast majority of people. Most people don't have two foreign citizen parents like Marco Rubio, either.

Rubio and Cruz's parents eventually became citizens, and Teddy dropped his Canadian citizenship a couple of years ago, but that doesn't make either of them natural born.

Hondo68  posted on  2015-11-04   11:00:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: hondo68, nolu chan (#6)

The courts have never ruled on "natural born Citizen".

Of course they have. There are a number of key cases. If you've followed the Birther threads, you should recall them.

They have never comprehensively defined natural-born. However, they have excluded and included certain classes of person or individuals based on the current statutes governing natural-born status.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-04   11:27:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: TooConservative, hondo68 (#7)

[hondo68 #6] The courts have never ruled on "natural born Citizen".

[TooConservative #7] Of course they have. There are a number of key cases. If you've followed the Birther threads, you should recall them.

The correct birther claim is that the U.S. Supreme Court has not issued a holding on the point of the definition of natural born citizen. This should not be too surprising as the only cases that can require a judicial determination of such definition would involve a President or Vice-President and history is not kind to whackadoodle definitions. Standing to bring a relevant case is a formidable obstacle to successfully invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts. As a result, no such case has ever prevailed in any lower court or been granted cert by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the hundreds of birther cases brought in recent years, none has overcome pre-trial opposition.

However, both State and Federal courts have spoken to the definition of the term natural born citizen.

STATE COURT

New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845, pp. 236-260 at 246.

From Lynch v. Clark

Before the Hon. LEWIS H. SANDFORD, Assistant Vice Chancellor of the First Circuit.

Bernard Lynch v. John Clarke And Julia Lynch.

Heard, July 6, 7, 8,10, and 12,1843 ; and upon briefs as to the question of alienage, May 6, July 19, and September 17, 1844.

Decided, November 5, 1844.

ALIENAGE CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES, THOUGH OF ALIEN PARENTS TEMPORARILY RESIDING HERE.

5. It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws, it might have been difficult to ascertain which of the conflicting state rules was to become, or did become, the national principle. And if such diversity had existed, it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

FEDERAL COURT

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc36356/

Link goes to Federal Cases, Volume 27 (original series)

UNITED STATES v RHODES, 27 F. Cas 785 (1866)

Case No. 16,151

Circuit Court, D. Kentucky

27 F. Cas. 785; 1866 U.S. App. LEXIS 330; 1 Abb. 28; 1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22

Year: 1866

OPINION BY: [**1] SWAYNE

The act of congress confers citizenship. Who are citizens, and what are their rights? The constitution uses the words “citizen” and “natural born citizens;” but neither that instrument nor any act of congress has attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject. In Johnson’s Dictionary, “citizen” is thus defined: “(1) A freeman of a city; not a foreigner; not a slave; (2) a townsman, a man of trade; not a gentleman; (3) an inhabitant; a dweller in any place.”

The definitions given by other English lexicographers are substantially the same. In Jacob’s Law Dictionary (Ed. 1783), the only definition given is as follows: “Citizens (cives) of London are either freemen or such as reside and keep a family in the city, etc.; and some are citizens and freemen, and some are not, who have not so great privileges as others. The citizens of London may prescribe against a statute, because their liberties are reinforced by statute.” 1 Rolle, 105.

Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. “The word ‘civis,’ taken [**16] in the strictest sense, extends only to him that is entitled to the privileges of a city of which he is a member, and in that sense there is a distinction between a citizen and an inhabitant within the same city, for every inhabitant there is not a citizen.” Scot v. Schwartz, Comyn, 677. “A citizen is a freeman who has kept a family in a city.” Roy v. Hanger, 1 Rolle, 138, 149. “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject, in the common law; and the change of phrases has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been changed from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a subject of [*789] the king is now a citizen of the state.” State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & B. 26.

In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 247, the supreme court of the United States said: “During the war each party claimed the allegiance of the natives of the colonies as due exclusively to itself. The Americans insisted upon the allegiance of all born within the states, respectively; and Great Britain asserted an equally exclusive claim. The treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. [**17] It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well [**18] as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-04   23:50:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 27.

        There are no replies to Comment # 27.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com