In response to:

Rubio's Time Will Come

Jim88 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 9:12 AM
Mike you use the term conservatives when you cite the demand for Rubio, I also like Rubio for all the reasons stated and more, however you do not define your conservatives who are championing Rubio. There are conservative of a progressive ideology and i suspect these are the ones championing Rubio. however us constitutional conservatives are not part of that championing because we understand that Rubio is constitutionally ineligible for the office of VP (the 12th Amendment) or being able to serving as president, we have been down this road twice now with Chester Aurthur, and Obama, two wrongs do not make it right, so three wrongs also would not make it right. So I ask, are you a conservative or progressive ideology or a constitutionalist?
David3655 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 9:48 AM
Rubio is a natural born citizen and is over 35. Get a grip. Just because his parents were not yet citizens does not matter and is not stated ANYWHERE in the constitution.
You birther nuts need to settle down.
arpiem Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 9:53 AM
We're not so nutty. Read the Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett, from 1875 which states that a natural-born citizen is someone born of two citizen parents, so you're the one who should get a grip. Neither Rubio nor obama is eligible, and now the Democrats have admitted it in court.
Matthew492 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 12:16 PM
Your reliance on Minor is ill-placed. Minor was a case regarding whether females had a constitutional right to vote. The discussion of citizenship was dicta, not the case at issue, which means it is a look at the views of the court and how it pertains to the issue at hand, female right to vote, but not binding law or precedent.

Furthermore, the Minor court states that at COMMON LAW, a person was always considered a natural born citizen if they were born into the US and had two citizen parents. It also stated that even before the 14th amendment, at common law some people believed that simply being born in a country made you a natural born citizen, though this view was less widely held.

Matthew492 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 12:18 PM
Clearly, the 14th amendment trumps common law, and the plainest reading of it is that a person born in the united states is a natural born citizen regardless of their parents, as long as they are subject to the jurisdiction therein.

Under this standard, and understanding that Minor was not deciding this issue, but merely commenting on it, I think it is safe to argue that being born in the US to parents who are under the jurisdiction of the US is enough to make you a natural born citizen.
davidfarrar Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 1:06 PM
But an Art. II, § I, Cls 5 'natural' born Citizen isn't subject to the jurisdiction therein for their US citizenship status at birth; that's that's whole point of being "natural" born Citizen.

Only naturalized US citizens need to be 'subject t to the jurisdiction therein' to receive their US citizen, either at birth or at the age of majority. But neither are natural born US Citizens.

ex animo
davidfarrar
LAPhil Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 1:52 PM
I read that decision too, and these people who think it says one's parents had to be U.S. citizens in order for them to be U.S. citizens are all wet.

"Rubio, Rubio, Rubio."

You hear the chants all across the country. On talk shows, on cable TV, on blogs and in op-ed columns, everyone with a conservative bone in his body is urging presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney to choose the smart and dashing Marco Rubio as his vice president.

The conservative crowd's clamor for Rubio is beginning to worry me. It could backfire. For one thing, it's setting up Romney for a disaster.

If he doesn't choose Rubio -- and I would agree with that decision -- it's going to disappoint a lot of Republican voters who think Rubio is...