What's Wrong with Rubio?

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Arlen wrote: Being born in the U.S. is only part of the elements of being a natural born citizen. Both parents must be citizens of the U.S.

Here we go again....

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

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.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

He is, by definition of the Supreme Court, a U.S. citizen because he was born in Miami... Whether or not one or both of his parents had obtained full citizenship at the time is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you'd like to go back and declare John McCain a non-citizen....

Ooopsie, hoisted on your own "birther" petard....

(Unless, of course, you're going by the "Revisionist History of the Sovereign Citizens of the Plutocracy of the Founding Fathers" playbook...)

Here we go again! U.S. citizen is not equal to Native Born citizen is not equal to Natural born citizen.

Here we go again:

In the United States there are two established legal principles upon which individuals are said to acquire citizenship at birth: jus sanguinus ("right of blood"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens, and jus soli ("right of soil"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born on U.S. soil. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," all individuals born on U.S. soil are considered "birthright citizens" under the law regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

Natural born' vs. 'native born'

In lawsuits challenging Obama's Constitutional eligibility it has been argued that while birth on U.S. soil confers "birthright" or "native-born" citizenship, it does not confer natural-born citizenship unless both parents are also U.S. citizens. Citing precedents they claim establish the Framers' intent to disqualify individuals who could possess dual nationality or dual allegiance by virtue of having a foreign national for a parent, these litigants assert that such an individual ought not to be regarded as a natural-born citizen eligible to hold the office of the presidency (for example, see Leo D'Onofrio, "Why Obama Is Ineligible - Regardless of His Birthplace").

But among Constitutional scholars the distinction between "natural born" and "native born" is not universally accepted as a crucial one. Short of a Supreme Court decision or legislative statute settling the matter, it remains but one way of interpreting a longstanding legal ambiguity concerning the eligibility clause. There are other interpretations, most notably that found in an analysis of Republican presidential candidate John McCain's standing as a natural-born citizen conducted in 2008 by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. In their view — "based," Tribe and Olson wrote, "on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal precedent" — either the fact of birth on U.S. soil or the fact of birth to parents who are U.S. citizens is independently sufficient to confer natural born status.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barack ... itizen.htm

The birther nuts have tried to argue this point in court SEVERAL times now, and SCOTUS, and appellate courts have rejected it... It's a DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, legally...

The court cases to which you refer are weak cases. But they serve your purpose.
In reference to the "birther nuts" this point of view has been promoted by Obama himself for many years. Even HE claimed that he was born in Kenya.
Wake LJ your dream-boat is a pathologic liar.

Arlen wrote: Even HE claimed that he was born in Kenya.

No, he didn't.... And, once again, you're the liar.

You really should wipe that foam from around your mouth...The neighbors are starting to notice.

Rubio just might be a strong contender. Rumney has to make woo the Latino vote as it is the swing vote. If not Rubio then another Latino. It looks like they are giving Rubio more exposure, grooming him?

Just because he is Latino doesn't mean that Latinos will automatically vote for him...

He only has appeal with the Cuban/Floridian population... On a national basis, nobody is buying what he's selling, and he's just an extension of "Why don't they self-deport"/"build the fence higher, thicker, longer, and more-electrified"-Romney. The fact that he has an "R" on his chest, and a Hispanic surname is the same kind of stupid thinking that gave the GOP Sarah Palin...

One can only hope they're stupid enough to do it again.

Democracy4Sale wrote: He only has appeal with the Cuban/Floridian population... On a national basis, nobody is buying what he's selling, and he's just an extension of "Why don't they self-deport"/"build the fence higher, thicker, longer, and more-electrified"-Romney. The fact that he has an "R" on his chest, and a Hispanic surname is the same kind of stupid thinking that gave the GOP Sarah Palin...

One can only hope they're stupid enough to do it again.

And by your past logic... if you don't like Rubio... a Hispanic minority... you're a racist.

Well it just seems like Rubio is very similar to Obama in many ways other than skin tone and ideology (and he's only running for VP). We can cherry pick little flaws in his past and compare them to Obama's flaws, but I really think he's just opposite in ideology which is why I like him. I doubt he'll get picked though... like someone else said, he'll probably go with a governor.

Democracy4Sale wrote: He only has appeal with the Cuban/Floridian population... On a national basis, nobody is buying what he's selling, and he's just an extension of "Why don't they self-deport"/"build the fence higher, thicker, longer, and more-electrified"-Romney. The fact that he has an "R" on his chest, and a Hispanic surname is the same kind of stupid thinking that gave the GOP Sarah Palin...

One can only hope they're stupid enough to do it again.

The fact that crook from Chicago had an "D" on his chest and had some color is the same kind of stupid thinking that gave us The King.

Doesn't look like the Obuma had a national presence until Oprah launched him and not even a platform with some experience behind it - just a speel about hope and change. Now he has a record and it doesn't look very good.

Give a Latino with a pretty face who can string a sentence together w/o putting his foot in his mouth and a record to run on, the national stage to hammer on the most dismal showing of any Pres of the US and watch him rocket.

I am not a Ruby fan, but this election will be decided by the Latinos. Rumney doesn't have to draw all of the Latinos to his side, just a small percentage to tip the scales in his favor.