Media And Left Prepare To Raise Marco Rubio Natural Born Citizen Questions.

The 14th Amendment is (as described by Supreme Court Decision) merely declarative of the Citizenship law that had been in effect since the original writing of the Constitution. It did not add to or alter that original law.

 

Minor v. Happersett cannot possible have decided the definition of natural birn citizen for at least two reasons.

First and foremost, it explicitly refused to do so. It offered and acknowledged two non-exclusive definitions and then refused to choose between them, noting that "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

But more fundamentally, the case made no ruling regarding citizenship at all. It was not a citizenship case as Virginia Minor's citizenship was never questioned by either side in this case, and it was never an issue before the court. It was a suffrage case, trying to determine whether or not voting was one of the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

 

The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens. You're correct, the Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved. The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue. In order for the Court to act, there must be a genuine controversy with regard to the laws in question. Since there was no controversy before the Court involving a 14th Amendment citizenship issue, the Court decided the issue on other grounds, specifically Article 2 Section 1..

 

Romney is an anchor baby?

 

There was never a dispute related to citizenship of Mrs. Virginia Minor and the Court made no decision related to it although the Court did cite the 14th Amendment in the opening statements of it's decision. As noted the case had absolutely nothing to do with the citizenship of Mrs. Minor as that was not a question of dispute. It was a case addressing women's suffrage in national elections.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

There are no Constitutional provisions related to citizenship of the parents anywhere in the US Constitution and, based upon the 14th Amendment natural born citizenship is exclusively related to Jus Soli. Let is remember that a Right, such as the Right of Citizenship established by Jus Soli, cannot be dependent upon anyone other than the individual. This fact was addressed in the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark who's parents were Chinese and the Court determined that Kim Wong Ark was a natural born citizen exclusively because he was born in the United States and subject to the laws (jurisdication) thereof at the time of birth.

 

Anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen. Regardless of the 10 levels of citizenship that the birthers follow, the Constitution only mentions 2 types of citizens, natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. Congress is given the explicit power to set the regulations for naturalization but only blood or birth can determine a person to be a natural born citizen.

 

Were you homeschooled? Just curious because I was taught that anyone born in the US is born a citizen and thus is a natural born citizen.

 

Marco Rubio could one day be the President of the USA.

That will be simply Awesome.

 

No, his BC says that he was born in the Colon Hospital which has never been a part of the Panama Canal Zone.

 

Apuzzo, we've went over this multiple times. That case doesn't create a definition for "natural born citizen", it even states that it doesn't.

 

"Blood" has nothing to do with being a natural born citizen of the United States. The 14th Amendment established two simple criteria both of which must be met to be a natural born citizen.

The person must be born in one of the States that comprise the United States. Being born in a territory that is controlled by the United States is not being born in the United States. Only those born within an actual State meet the first requirement.

Next the person must be subject to the laws (jurisdiction) of the United States at birth. This would exclude the children of diplomates which are immuned to prosecution under US laws as well as children of a hostile military force of occupation as such individuals are not subject to US laws.

The 14th Amendment doesn't mention anything about the parents of the person in its criteria for determining natural born citizenship. Whether the parents are or are not US Citizens or even whether they are lawfully or illegally in the United States is irrelevant based upon the criteria established by the 14th Amendment.

An interesting note on the Constitution is that it doesn't delegate any authority to the US government to control immigration. It does delegate the role of establishing naturalization laws to Congress but naturalization and immigration are not the same thing. A person could immigrate to the United States and never choose to become a citizen through naturalization.

 

Funny story.
A friend of mine, non citizen from abroad, married to an American, gave birth to her first child while visiting the U.S.
The child is a U.S. citizen, and could run for office once she reaches age, and would come to live here.
Thing is, she have never been to the U.S. since birth, yet.
Don't you just love our laws?

 

Patently untrue.. Obama is the son of a U.S citizen.. his mother is a citizen. Immigration law states very plainly that he is a U.S citizen in every sense.. no matter where he was born

Marco Rubio is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed lucky he is a republican.. republicans would not pull any punches and would have crucified him as an anchor-baby regardless of his citizenship.

 

How could you find that many illiterates in one place?

Rubio can't possibly be that stupid...

If he was born in the US.. it doesn't matter what his parents status was.

 

Well, unless his parents were foreign diplomats exempted from US jursidiction. Is that what's being claimed?

 

Maybe you missed the part where I said "if you go by the 14th Amendment as the writers intended and not the way it's been unconstitutionally misinterpreted by the courts".

 

A person born to US citizens abroad is still considered a citizen by birth as per the US Code.

 

Also interesting is the fact that this child could be prosecuted for treason under US laws because the child is a natural born citizen of the United States. If, as an adult, the individual violated US Statutory laws related to treason. For example if the country where the child grows up goes to war against the United States and the person joins the military to fight against the United States or aids the enemy they could be prosecuted for treason under US statutory law. The case of Iva Toguri D'Aquino, a US citizen that was one of many Tokyo Rose's during WW II, reflects this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri_D'Aquino

I would say that someone that can be prosecuted for treason against the United States should also be eligible to vote and run for political office in the United States.

 

This is false. President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States exclusively because he was born in the United States and was subject to the laws (jurisdiction) of the United States at birth.

The above refers to statutory laws that grant citizenship to those born abroad to US citizens. That is a "naturalization" process where citizenship is established based upon petition by the parents for the child "at" birth and not natural born citizenship which is established "by" birth. Congress only has the authority to establish laws of naturalization and a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen.

 

Marco Rubio is toast already because of his epic flip-flops on Social Security.

 

This is false as exemplified by the case of Leeland Davidson who's parents were both Americans but he was born in British Columbia and was not a US citizen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/leeland-davidson-wwii-vet_n_840768.html

Once again the US Congress does have the Constitutional authority to establish naturalization laws but does not have any authority related to natural born citizenship which is exempt from the statutory control of Congress. Congress can and has established laws of naturalization where a person born of US parents abroad can be granted citizenship "at birth" but the parents must file a naturalization petition for citizenship for this to happen. John McCain's parents, for example, did file the petition and he was granted US citizenship. Leeland Davidson's parents did not file a petition for citizenship and so he wasn't a US citizen.

On a happy note Leeland Davidson has since been granted US citizenship so now he's a natural born Canadian but is also a naturalized US citizen.

 

That is very interesting, and something neither of us has ever thought about.
One would assume though, and I am just guessing here, that, should she sign up for service, one would advise her on that fact?

 

And, if you were to ask Lyman Trumbull, the man that inserted the jurisdiction stipulation into the Amendment, obama would not have been born with US citizenship due to being born with British citizenship.

 

Women don't need to sign up with the Selective Service System.

http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm

It also seems to only address US citizens living in the United States.

 

Women don't have to, but many do, even non citizens (with green card/legal residency) from another country. At least that was the case years ago.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlcitizen.htm