Patterico's Pontifications

6/19/2012

Marco Rubio Not Being Vetted for VP: UPDATE: Romney Says “Yeah I Am!”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:51 am

Seems odd to me. He seems like the obvious best VP candidate.

Why the leak now? A Jeb Bush adviser lays out the possibilities:

“Either we’re being punked and he is being vetted and they are trying to create the element of surprise, or someone has an ax to grind with him, or he’s not being vetted and someone wants him to be,” she said.

I’m thinking the last one.

UPDATE: Romney says he is too vetting Rubio.

Who knows what’s true?

189 Responses to “Marco Rubio Not Being Vetted for VP: UPDATE: Romney Says “Yeah I Am!””

  1. I doubt Romney will choose a strong voice as his VP.

    He, as a card-carrying member of the GOP establishment, wants the anti-Dick Cheney in office as he triangulates.

    Ed from SFV (68921e)

  2. Maybe he can get Lindsay Graham.

    Leviticus (e923df)

  3. How about the fact that he isn’t eligible to hold the office of POTUS and therefore is not being vetted or even seriously considered. It isn’t that I dislike Rubio at all, but merely that he isn’t eligible for the EXACT same reason that Obamanation isn’t eligible, e.g. One or more of his parents were not naturalized at the time of his birth, therefore he isn’t, and can never be, a natural-born citizen.

    r2 (d00470)

  4. I read that Romney (read: Romney’s people) went through all the Vice Presidential selections of the last century and concluded that none of them had an effect upon the election except for the selection of LBJ by John F. Kennedy in 1960. (and you could add that’s only because votes were stolen in Texas)

    So that Romney might as well pick someone he is compfrtable with. He’s said to have talked a lot with Senator Rob Portman, so Rob Portman it is.

    Rubio doesn’t really wnat it. Rubio is not the only person who has revealed he’s not being vetted.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  5. Who are the sources, in that piece,

    narciso (494474)

  6. He was born in Miami, man. What Constitution are you reading?

    Leviticus (e923df)

  7. Fred Thompson thinks it will be Portman, too. Nothing against Romney or Portman — they’re able and intelligent — but that’s not a very inspiring ticket. It also makes it easier for Obama to play the Bush card.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  8. It might be a reason for the leak is so that Romney would not seem to be actually endorsing Rubio’s immigration proposal (which is very unsatusfactory to those who want the Dream Act but still more tahn some Republicans want)

    One reason Obama’s people gacve for going ahead right now is that Rubio was going to intriduce legislation.

    Rule 1 of Obama camopaiugn poliutics: Never let the Republicans take credit for anything anyone will think is good.

    Obama is for some spending and entitlement cuts cuts as long as he can say the Republicans were not interested in the 99% and what they wanted was spending cuts and what we wanted was tax increase on the 1% and closing of loopholes. And we reached a compromise and got both of them. All the bad stuff belongs to the Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  9. One or more of his parents were not naturalized at the time of his birth, therefore he isn’t, and can never be, a natural-born citizen.Comment by r2 — 6/19/2012 @ 12:02 pm

    By that reasoning Michael Dukakis was ineligible to become president. I don’t recall it being an issue in 1988.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  10. Comment by r2 — 6/19/2012 @ 12:02 pm

    One or more of his parents were not naturalized at the time of his birth, therefore he isn’t, and can never be, a natural-born citizen.

    That is not the law. A natural born citizen is a person who is a citizen at birth and was never naturalized. And those are the only two choices.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  11. Rob Portman is smarter and a heck of a lot more experienced than the Marco Rubio plus he’s from a more swingy swing state PLUS he’s not in the pocket of Big Sugar like the Marco is

    Several proposals have been brought forth that would phase out federal sugar supports in a few years. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman is a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 25, introduced by two Democrats and one Republican; a spokesman for Sen. Sherrod Brown said Brown “likely” will support the bill. Several Ohio congressmen are backing similar efforts in the House.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  12. There is no story, who is the source, how would he know.

    narciso (494474)

  13. I wouldn’t read too much into this. Sarah Palin wasn’t vetted either and she ended up as the vp candidate.

    tye (4522a8)

  14. ==Maybe he can get Lindsay Graham.==

    OK, Leviticus, with that comment I may have to retract some of the nice things I said about you yesterday.

    elissa (c09f7d)

  15. “That is not the law. A natural born citizen is a person who is a citizen at birth and was never naturalized. And those are the only two choices.”

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/19/2012 @ 12:12 pm

    According the text if the Constitution, there are three classes of “citizenship”. “Citizen” in which one parent, generally the father, conveys citizenship to his children at the time of birth. “Naturalized Citizen”, in which citizenship is granted to a foreign national by law and finally “Natural Born Citizen” in which by natural law, citizenship is conveyed by birth. This is the exact standard in common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and upheld by SCOTUS in Minor V. Happersett. The Constitution imposes this one unique qualification ONLY for the office of POTUS. For on eto be eligible to hold the office of VPOTUS, one must first satisfy ALL of the same requirements as if the office of POTUS.

    As for the argument, “It hasn’t been raised as an issue before”, I say, SO WHAT? Just because one might not object in the past, doesn’t bar anyone from objecting in now or in the future.

    r2 (d00470)

  16. I find the whole ‘natural born’ mcguffin, just that;

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577395783718349916.html

    narciso (494474)

  17. “OK, Leviticus, with that comment I may have to retract some of the nice things I said about you yesterday.”

    - elissa

    Hahaha… just yankin’ the collective chain a bit.

    Leviticus (e923df)

  18. my bet is that this was simply a Obama campaign attempt to create a wedge between Romney and Rubio just as the President was giving Rubio and national stage to discuss immigration …

    in other words get Rubio talking about NOT being vetted instead of talking about how wrong Obama is on immigration …

    JeffC (488234)

  19. Am I the only one that wants to leave the strong voices where they are? I think Rubio, Rand, Amash, West… The lot of them are going to be better at holding Romney accountable if they don’t have to be his wingman.

    Give him someone boring that no one cares about.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  20. He’s not my top pick, but they are idiots if he’s not on the short list.

    But it may have something to do with the recent immigration issue.

    Dustin (330eed)

  21. Uh, r2,

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:

    be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least thirty-five years old, and, been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

    timb (449046)

  22. r2, when even timmah correctly schools you on what the rules are, then your only choice is to raise the white flag.

    Icy (85cd5d)

  23. Romany is risk averse. Low risk low payoff is the rule outside government where winners are picked for us.

    Hotair is reporting its between Portman and T-Paw. Meh.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  24. “Maybe he can get Lindsay Graham.”
    “Hahaha… just yankin’ the collective chain a bit”

    Too bad. I thought it was inspired. First, a VP candidate rarely helps the Ticket. More importantly, a VP’s political career is over, unless he later becomes President. I’m against “wasting” politicos that have a long and bright future ahead of them like Rubio. But Graham is perfect. It’ll save $$$ when he runs again – he’ll be primaried, and rightfully so.

    MDr (cada1d)

  25. ” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:

    be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least thirty-five years old, and, been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.”

    Comment by timb — 6/19/2012 @ 1:29 pm

    Yes, and your point? What did I say that contradicts these requirements? Is this supposed to be an argument of some kind against what I said? I never said that there weren’t more requirements, but wished to educate some people who have been led to believe that “Citizen”, “Naturalized Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” are all equal, with regard to the office of POTUS. It isn’t I who said this, but SCOTUS… several times.

    r2 (d00470)

  26. r2, Rubio IS eligible, period.

    Icy (85cd5d)

  27. some of you might want to take a look at what john bingham had to say about the definition of “natural born” (“parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”). do you also beleve anchor babies are eligible for the office of the POTUS?

    razor419 (239cef)

  28. do you also beleve anchor babies are eligible for the office of the POTUS?

    Of course literate people who respect the constitution know that those born in this country are eligible for the presidency, since they are born citizens.

    Dustin (330eed)

  29. razor419, that’s what I love about Birthers, they just make up stuff without the least bit of shame.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. r2, you are making up stuff like all Birthers.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. A quick search reveals that Minor v. Happersett was a case where the US Supreme Court upheld state laws denying women the right to vote.

    Credibility!

    Leviticus (e923df)

  32. Just for comedy’s sake, here’s the Wikipedia article on his over-turned SCOTUS case from 1875, which was about restricting the right to vote from women and not about who is eligible to run for office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett

    Just so r2 knows, the text of the Constitution over-rules dicta of an over-turned Supreme Court case, especially since the text of the Constitution does not address citizenship (common law, statute, and the 14th Amendment do), but does, specifically, address the requirements of eligibility for the presidency.

    Absent an Amendment, my friend (see 22nd Amendment), the Court cannot change that definition

    timb (449046)

  33. for comedy’s sake…

    “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 U.S. 162, 168.

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  34. razor419,

    I think SPQR was addressing someone else. (r2)

    Patterico (906cfb)

  35. Dammit, Patrick, quit promoting this guy. You want to re-open the “eligibility” can of worms again?

    The population of the United States right now stands at 311,591,917. Do you mean to tell me there is not one American citizen, born of citizen parents, who is qualified to be Vice-President?

    The founding fathers had a healthy fear of people with divided loyalties and for good reason. Look what electing Teh One got us.

    Give it up. Please. We don’t need this.

    creeper (f1f686)

  36. razor419, Birthers are like tax protestors, they take bits and pieces of dicta out of cases (sometimes intentionally misquoting) that have no relevance to the issue. They quote crap they don’t understand.

    An example of the dishonesty of Birthers is manifest by the quote you made. For the full quote has more:

    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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    See how dishonest you look when you partially quote? The case does not contain a decision regarding the issue of the more restrictive definition of “natural born” citizen and as it said previous to the above quote, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides the older definition.

    Birthers are liars.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  37. Further, razor419, the case does not say that there are three classes of citizenship. It says that there are two: by birth and by naturalization.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  38. creeper, don’t give us this Birther crap. Anyone born in the US is eligible to be President. Period.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. The full case can be found here. Where you can see that the dicta is meaningless and does not say what r2 and razor419 claim.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  40. Rubio is better off campaigning for mittens. Why get caught up with someone who needs a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. This is a job only a riino should take.

    mg (44de53)

  41. The founding fathers had a healthy fear of people with divided loyalties and for good reason.

    My dad was a naturalized citizen, but I was born in Texas, served in the Army, and honestly love this country. What good reason do you have to fear my supposed divided loyalties?

    Why am I disloyal but Jane Fonda isn’t?

    Dustin (330eed)

  42. i look dishonest? it’s safe to say the SCOTUS has never been ask to define natural born citizen. it is also safe to say there are doubts about both obama and rubio, as described in minor v happersett. the fact that many of you are willing to ignore these doubts and just allow anyone born in this country to be eligible for POTUS seems short-sighted.

    i have an employee who flew to egypt to marry a man and now he is living in this country. she’s pregnant with their first child. suppose after the birth of the child the father decides it is best for his child to be raised in egypt. the child stays there until he receives his/her college degree and then moves back to the US to earn a graduate degree. this person, by many of your definitions, is eligible for the presidency once he/she has lived here for 14 years. he/she is elected president and then egypt goes off the deep end and attacks israel. do you want someone whose father is dedicated to the egyptian cause to be making decisions on intervention? i believe the founders would have been very concerned if in this example the father was british… and for good reason. do you not think the founders were considering this when defining eligibility for POTUS? why did they use the phrase natural born if it didn’t have any meaning?

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  43. razor419, yes you do look dishonest. You misquoted the case you cited by omitting the part that contradicted the point you wanted it to say.

    Now I can just assume you copy that in ignorance from some other dishonest Birther or I can conclude that you did it intentionally.

    Which is your story?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. And now Romney is saying that he is being thoroughly vetted. Whew. :) Conspiracy birth theories aside, he would do a fantastic job.

    Book (956833)

  45. i got the quote here.

    spend a couple of hours going through the evidence uncovered by that website and then tell me the issue of natural born is a closed case. this is one of my favorite pieces of evidence the author has uncovered.

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  46. I’ve already shown how the quote is dishonestly made, razor419. But that does not dissuade you at all evidently … since you continue to try to cite what you claim is the source.

    So I can only conclude that you are dishonest too.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. I’ve yet to find a single Birther who did not knowingly rely upon dishonest quotations from cases, dishonest fabrications of “facts” about Obama or most often both.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  48. those last links are bad.

    got the quote here.

    favorite piece here.

    sorry about that…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  49. was the quote accurate? yes! did my quote say definitively what the requirements were for POTUS? no!

    you obviously are not a curious person and don’t have any regard for the opinions of others (not just my opinion but that of john bingham who helped author the 14th amendment). i’m not at all worried about the comments i’ve made or how they portray me. i notice how the only thing you are holding against me is that i accurately quoted (not fully, but accurate) a supreme court case that others dismissed as irrelevant. i fully admit that the constitution, the legislative branch and the judicial branch have failed to define “natural born”. will you admit that all three of those have left doubt as to the eligibility of both obama and rubio?

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  50. no

    elissa (c09f7d)

  51. razor419, your quote was not accurate. You claimed that the case said that both parent must be citizens. The case actually said that some authorities say both parents must be citizens, some authorities say just born in the US and that the opinion would not resolve that difference. The case also says earlier that that 14th Amendment overrides the earlier definitions, but you don’t quote that paragraph either.

    So we already know that you are misleadingly quoting cases, or using sources that misleadingly quote cases. As a result, I do not trust your claims, nor do I have any intention of bothering to look at a source I’ve already proven dishonest.

    It is another lie to claim I’m not a “curious” person. I’ve already spent time on this issue four years ago debunking the likes of Birthers like you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  52. And now Romney is saying that he is being thoroughly vetted.

    Good to hear. They could do a whole lot worse than Rubio.

    Dustin (330eed)

  53. care to quote where minor v happersett says the “14th amendment overrides the earlier definitions”? i honestly don’t know. you see… i’m a curious person.

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  54. Mitch Daniels has taken himself out of consideration although he was on Romney’s shortlist.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  55. razor419, I linked the entire opinion above. Now go away and take all the lying Birther crap with you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  56. Dammit, Patrick, quit promoting this guy. You want to re-open the “eligibility” can of worms again?

    I am not promoting anyone. I am not a Birther and do not agree with anyone. I have not followed the discussion closely. I *thought* SPQR was not arguing with a particular person (razor419) but maybe I was wrong.

    Please do NOT accuse me of promoting anyone or anything I have not explicitly promoted. I get very tired of being mischaracterized and if I have not promoted any particular person or idea EXPLICITLY then you are wasting my time by forcing me to explain that I have not done so.

    Patterico (906cfb)

  57. Patterico, “r2″ … “razor419″ are different commenters? Ah, I never would have guessed … :rolleyes:

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. we need a VP
    who’s both bright and well-spoken
    and Marco is both

    Colonel Haiku (da1b7e)

  59. i’ve read through this quote so far…

    “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    are you trying to tell me the rest of the opinion will resolve these doubts despite the nonnecessity? lol

    i’ll keep reading…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  60. razor419, I’ll diagram this.

    You claimed that the case said “X is the rule”.

    The case actually says “X is the rule, or Y is the rule and we won’t resolve the contradiction.”

    So its dishonest to claim that the case says something it explicitly says it does not say.

    But that’s how Birthers work.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  61. I thought T-Paw did a very good job last Sunday morning on the ABC show “This Week” with George Steph. He was engaged, knowledgeable and even combative in a non-nasty way. He didn’t seem to be the same mousy person he was in the team R. debates. The other panelists were George Will, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Matthew Dowd and Austan Goolsbee. Pawlenty more than held his own, IMO.

    elissa (c09f7d)

  62. TPaw might push me right over the edge.

    JD (a2d320)

  63. go ahead and verify patterico. i logged in at work for my first comment and have been home ever since. don’t speak out of turn spqr… patterico knows who i am and i have no reason to comment under any other name.
    now, i’ve read the complete opinion that you linked and haven’t found where the justices determined the “14th Amendment overrides the earlier definitions” of natural born citizen. i’d be happy for you to tell me what i missed because i like rubio and think he would be an excellent choice for VP. however, if i am going to be consistent then i must raise the same questions of him as i do obama. it seems to me you are the dishonest person in this exchange… i accurately quoted a supreme court decision and then you claimed the same decision gave precedent to the 14th amendment on the definition of natural born. that is false. as indicated in my quote above, doubts remain.

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  64. razor419, you did not accurately quote the opinion as I’ve already established.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. The wider point is there is no story, the lesser one is that the ‘natural born’ fooferaw is a crock, if you were born in this country, you’re a citizen,

    narciso (494474)

  66. razor419,
    I think SPQR was addressing someone else. (r2)
    Comment by Patterico — 6/19/2012 @ 2:55 pm

    Patterico, “r2″ … “razor419″ are different commenters? Ah, I never would have guessed … :rolleyes:
    Comment by SPQR — 6/19/2012 @ 4:04 pm

    – I was just about to say . . .

    Icy (1db54b)

  67. we need a VP
    who’s both bright and well-spoken
    and Marco is both
    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 6/19/2012 @ 4:05 pm

    – And clean. Don’t forget “clean”! [Sloe Joe]

    And not too dark in complexion. [Dingy Harry]

    Icy (1db54b)

  68. go ahead and verify patterico. i logged in at work for my first comment and have been home ever since. don’t speak out of turn spqr… patterico knows who i am and i have no reason to comment under any other name.

    – Same day, different idiot.

    Icy (1db54b)

  69. lol… it was completely accurate. as you yourself noted in the last sentence you quoted in comment 37 doubts remain… i win this debate. good effort.

    btw, are you as confident that i am the same person as r2 as you are that my quote was inaccurate? that goes to you too, icy!

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  70. #70…

    yeah whoop there it is
    tell-tale victory mincing
    of fever-swamp Left

    Colonel Haiku (da1b7e)

  71. btw, say i had extended the quote to include the next 3 sentences (as you did), would that make my argument any less valid? didn’t think so…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  72. #71…

    r2 may not be
    the person that you believe
    he’s not me, you see?

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  73. Your truncated quote was about as accurate as the MSNBC Romney Wawa story.

    JD (a2d320)

  74. refer to comment 72 JD. i’m not impressed by your dismissal. feel free to refute any of the other links or quotes i’ve previously provided…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  75. refer to comment 72 JD. i’m not impressed by your dismissal. feel free to refute any of the other links or quotes i’ve previously provided…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  76. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    JD (a2d320)

  77. razor419, your dishonest quote does matter.

    For two reasons. The first is that it means you and your sources are not trustworthy. And that alone ends my interest in discussing the subject with you.

    The second is because that means the case does not represent authority for the definition you claim.

    What is revealed is that natural born citizen means a person who was a citizen at birth. Since the Fourteenth Amend that is anyone born in the US at a minimum as well as those otherwise qualifying at birth. Birthers have no honest argument to the contrary and you in particular have no credibility.

    SPQR (ea7ad8)

  78. he doubles teh fun
    double teh victory mince
    not too sharp is he

    Colonel Haiku (bb79e6)

  79. so you are admitting there are doubts, right JD?

    as for you spqr, what case represents authority for the definition you claim? none!

    i’ve already quoted the opinion that says there is doubt (actually, you did! (as did jd!)) please quote the case that resolves those doubts…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  80. “i notice how the only thing you are holding against me is that i accurately quoted (not fully, but accurate) a supreme court case that others dismissed as irrelevant.”

    - razor419

    As SPQR has already pointed out, there’s this thing called “lying by omission.” It’s a type of deception. Omitting relevant information for rhetorical effect is frowned upon.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  81. sharper than you think
    confident in claims, i am
    yoda, did you meet?

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  82. razor419, you remain full of crap. The case says that there are two kinds of citizenship, naturalized and by birth. The Furteenth Amend says all born in the US are citizens (also found in the more relevant Wick Ho case). Ergo Rubio is eligible to be President and there is no doubt.

    SPQR (ea7ad8)

  83. And another thing: even if you were accurately quoting Minor v. Happersett (which you are not), it was a case where the Court affirmed state policies which denied women the right to vote. It’s a garbage case. It’s a Dred Scott level case. If your whole argument hinges on a case that’s almost as bad as Dred Scott, your argument is weak.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  84. “as for you spqr, what case represents authority for the definition you claim? none!”

    - razor419

    The language of the Constitution itself self-evidently represents authority for SPQR’s argument.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  85. As does Black’s Law Dictionary. As do a slew of other authorities far better than one discredited Supreme Court opinion.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  86. Racists

    JD (318f81)

  87. As do a slew of other authorities far better than one discredited Supreme Court opinion [that doesn't contradict SPQR's correct view, anyway]./blockquote>

    Dustin (330eed)

  88. i already linked to the site where i got the quote, leviticus. within it, you can also see the next 3 sentences are discussed in length. i really don’t care how many people refuse to acknowledge the questions remaining about the definition natural born citizen, but i’m not going to reject the notion that the founders wanted to insure the commander-in-chief held no allegiance to a foreign nation.
    i think the rubio case is especially interesting, as my understanding is that his parents were political refugees of cuba and therefore held no allegiance to their native country. that being said, i’d like the SCOTUS to define “natural born” to eliminate any doubts.
    btw, before anyone accuses me of being racist, my choice for VP is… allen west.

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  89. btw, before anyone accuses me of being racist, my choice for VP is… allen west.

    you beat me to it…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  90. Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  91. black law’s dictionary did not define natural born citizen until 1991. feel free to quote the slew of other sources…

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  92. UPDATE: Romney says he is too vetting Rubio.

    Who knows what’s true?

    Patterico (906cfb)

  93. Someone is being dishonest alright, but I don’t believe it is razor419. What SPQR apparently fails to grasp are two things.

    The first is the omitted sentences actually support razor419′s position, insofar as the very next sentence specifically addresses the issue of doubt with regard to one born of one or zero citizen parents. The very next sentence says that there has never been any doubt as to the first, meaning the definition of natural-born or native citizens. The last sentence omitted only says that the court needn’t resolve the doubts as to the second class of citizens, or the definition of which there have been doubts.

    There is a distinction drawn between the two, irregardless of the 14th amendment.

    The second thing is that the very same decision contains an often overlooked citizenship holding:

    “The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

    For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874).

    SPQR claims that sources are in doubt. These are not my assertions, but holding of the Supreme Court.

    For the record, I am not a “birther” and though some may dismiss my opinion, such action doesn’t render my opinion or reading of relevant case law any more or less relevant than someone with whom I disagree.

    r2 (d00470)

  94. Minor v, Hapersett and Wong Kim, were bad law, not surprisingly the authors, Waite and Fuller, went on to worse decisions, like Cruikshank, and Plessy,

    narciso (494474)

  95. “And another thing: even if you were accurately quoting Minor v. Happersett (which you are not), it was a case where the Court affirmed state policies which denied women the right to vote. It’s a garbage case. It’s a Dred Scott level case. If your whole argument hinges on a case that’s almost as bad as Dred Scott, your argument is weak.”

    Comment by Leviticus — 6/19/2012 @ 5:46 pm

    So the court affirming a State’s right to say who can and who cannot vote is somehow discredited?

    In the first place, there is no such thing as a “right” to vote, by which I mean there is no fundamental or ‘unalienable’ right. Suffrage is not a fundamental right, but is a privilege granted and regulated by the several states. It is by this mechanism that each state, through their individual legislatures, can determine for themselves, what age one may vote, where one may vote, and yes, even who can or cannot vote. You call this a garbage decision, yet it has never been overturned. You dismiss everything about it, yet it IS binding precedent. This case was about more than one woman’s demand for a right that doesn’t exist. It was fundamentally about a States right to decide such issues as suffrage for themselves. The courts decision did not determine that the state in question was right or wrong, with regards to their state law, merely that the state was within its rights to decide such matters through their legislative process. States have the right to do a number of things that might seem ill advised or even silly. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to do them.

    r2 (d00470)

  96. Mr. Governor Mitt is lying I think.

    It’s a thing he does sometimes. I’m ok with it.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  97. State’s right to say who can and who cannot vote is somehow discredited?

    This is an equal protection clause violation. It is not lawful today.

    Dustin (330eed)

  98. I don;t know, pikachu, one claim is taken on faith,
    the other is on the record, I’ll stick to the second.

    narciso (494474)

  99. we’ll see but I think he just wants this Marco Rubio’s enthusiastic support in Florida later

    he’s a very calculating person our Mr. Governor Mitt

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  100. If he picks Christie it’s going to be amusing to watch the reaction.

    Dustin (330eed)

  101. Dustin, I think a state could allow 6-year-olds to vote in state elections, so it’s not entirely discredited, but they cannot declare who is or is not a citizen.

    But this whole truther argument is falacious. The Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedly rules that anyone born within the boundaries of the United States is a citizen, NO MATTER WHAT. While I don’t always trust Wikipedia, their discussion is pretty complete.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  102. I hope he doesn’t pick Christie for VP.

    But, I think Christie would make one tremendous WH press secretary. We could probably make a dent in the national debt by putting the daily WH press briefing on pay-per-view.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  103. r2, you are dishonestly misrepresenting what I wrote and what the case says. I’m not “failing to grasp” anything. Your argument is simply false. The case first mentions that the Fourteenth Amendment has redefined citizenship since its adoption, then it reviews two different views of citizenship by birth prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth.

    There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’

    Then later it states:

    To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. …

    So we can see that the case discusses the definition of citizenship in terms of before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment not in any sense as if those two different definitions of citizenship by birth had any meaning any longer. And they don’t.

    The case is utterly meaningless in any sense of having a holding on the definition of natural born citizen, as its being dishonestly cited by Birthers, but as we see above, what it does discuss actually contradicts your … r2/razor419′s misrepresentation of it. It says that there are two classes of citizenship. Birth and naturalization. And it says that the Fourteenth Amendment controls the definition of the first at the minimum.

    And because you ( both or you or just you … whatever … ), have discredited yourself by these misrepresentations, no one should pay any attention to you.

    So shove this lying Birther crap back up your alimentary canal where it came from.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  104. it’s not entirely discredited

    That case is indeed directly discredited by the US Constitution. Even though you can come up with implausible hypos regarding eligibility that are far different from that case. Not that I mind a little academic devil’s advocacy, but even without the 19th amendment, the 14th guarantees that right.

    Even though this requires ignoring expressio unus, it’s still true.

    anyone born within the boundaries of the United States is a citizen, NO MATTER WHAT.

    Yep. And it’s sad seeing some suggest people who lived here their whole life may be disloyal because of their parents.

    Frankly, the whole concept is undemocratic anyway.

    The bottom line here is that our nation’s problem is not Barack Obama. It is that 52% of Americans voted for someone like Barack Obama. You can’t trick that away with ballot access lawsuits.

    Dustin (330eed)

  105. why is everyone so willing to lump citizens by birth with natural born citizens? as i asked earlier (which was mocked by dustin), are anchor babies natural born citizens? are they eligible to be POTUS? anyone who answers in the affirmative without considering the founders use of the phrase is not being thoughtful.

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  106. To repeat, there are only two forms of citizenship. Naturalization and by birth.

    The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration 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,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

    U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK 169 U.S. 649, 702(1898).

    And that’s the end of it despite all the Birther horse crap.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  107. There is no distinction. “citizenship by birth” == “Citizen as a result of birth” == “natural born citizen”. Especially after the Fourteenth Amendment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  108. So SPQR, you would then suggest that if an Al Queda couple slipped into the country illegally, had children and raised them to destroy our country from within by deception, manipulation and using funds from around the world fostered them to become POTUS, you wouldn’t have an issue? REALLY? How do suppose our founding fathers would have dealt with this type of scenario, Hmm?

    With regard to your 14th Amendment argument, are you saying that prior to the 14th Amendment, women were not people or persons? At the moment, I am not disputing your argument that one born in this country is a citizen, that discussion is best left for another day. However, I am disputing your interpretation of “Natural-Born Citizen”. My position is independent of politics per se and therefore has nothing to do with Obama, Rubio, Romney or even Chester A. Arthur.

    It is a legitimate line of inquiry that, I would argue, has not been addressed in a sufficient manner and in plain enough language to avoid future controversy. You may disagree, as is your right and privilege.

    r2 (d00470)

  109. Who knows what’s true?

    Comment by Patterico

    I’ll believe Romney
    before I’d ever trust Karl
    that’s ABC’s Karl

    Colonel Haiku (fdad40)

  110. Comment by razor419 — 6/19/2012 @ 6:00 pm

    i think the rubio case is especially interesting, as my understanding is that his parents were political refugees of cuba

    That is a mistake (or a misstatement) that Marco Rubio should not have made. They came in the 1950s, before Castro. What Castro meant was they couldn’t go back, visit any family members (for along time) Of course they got subsumed into the larger refugee community.

    and therefore held no allegiance to their native country. that being said, i’d like the SCOTUS to define “natural born” to eliminate any doubts.
    btw, before anyone accuses me of being racist, my choice for VP is… allen west.

    Sammy Finkelman (cd2969)

  111. There is it again – a quote from somebody else not cut out.

    Sammy Finkelman (cd2969)

  112. Comment by SPQR — 6/19/2012 @ 2:58 pm

    Birthers are liars.

    I they weren’t, they wouldn’t be birthers – to maintain that position you have to be wrong on the law or the facts. Although what you should say is birtherism is nothing but lies. People are getting this from somebody else. It is possible for someone to believe they are getting good law or true facts, and they are just stubborn or uncomprehending or trust their sources more than they do you. the comparison to tax protesters is a good one. It’s the same kind of junk law.

    Sammy Finkelman (cd2969)

  113. You’ve got people who go on the radio arguing this thing and not getting properly rebutted. And they’ve got several different arguments so now we have: “Well, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is still not eligible to be president of the United States.”

    Sammy Finkelman (cd2969)

  114. Comment by Kevin M — 6/19/2012 @ 6:10 pm

    Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

    Proverbs 26:4: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you will also become like him.

    On the other hand:

    Proverbs 26:5: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

    Pick your poison??

    Sammy Finkelman (cd2969)

  115. For the record, I am not a “birther” and though some may dismiss my opinion, such action doesn’t render my opinion or reading of relevant case law any more or less relevant than someone with whom I disagree.
    Comment by r2 — 6/19/2012 @ 6:31 pm

    – That is correct.

    What really renders your opinion irrelevant is the fact that your conclusions are just flat-out wrong.

    Icy (1db54b)

  116. “though some may dismiss my opinion”

    r2 – You had me right there.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  117. Leviticus:

    And another thing: even if you were accurately quoting Minor v. Happersett (which you are not), it was a case where the Court affirmed state policies which denied women the right to vote. It’s a garbage case. It’s a Dred Scott level case.

    Bulldust. Are you seriously suggesting that the court was wrong, and that before the 19th amendment states were not free to decide whether women could vote?! That’s an even nuttier position than razor419′s. Minor has never been overturned, and it is just as valid and binding as any other Supreme Court precedent. Of course its holding is moot now that the 19th amendment was added to the constitution.

    State’s right to say who can and who cannot vote is somehow discredited?

    This is an equal protection clause violation.

    No it isn’t.

    It is not lawful today.

    Only because of the 19th amendment, which did not exist at the time.

    Milhouse (312124)

  118. Oops, the second half of my previous comment was addressed to Dustin.

    Milhouse (312124)

  119. Next you people will be saying that states had no right to deny black men suffrage before the 15th amendment.

    Milhouse (312124)

  120. But this whole truther argument is falacious. The Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedly rules that anyone born within the boundaries of the United States is a citizen, NO MATTER WHAT.

    True but irrelevant. Nobody denies that such people are citizens. So is anyone who was not born in the USA, but was lawfully naturalized. But such people are not natural born citizens. The question is who is. The 14th amendment doesn’t address it at all; its framers and ratifiers weren’t even thinking of that question. They were only concerned with defining ordinary citizenship.

    r2 and razor are claiming, incorrectly in my view, that natural born citizenship requires that the person be born of citizens. That view is supported by Grotius, but contradicted by Blackstone. The question is which definition would have been understood by the delegates to the ratifying conventions in 1788. Dragging in the definition of ordinary citizenship is not helpful, it just demonstrates that the person doing so is not fully literate.

    Milhouse (312124)

  121. That case is indeed directly discredited by the US Constitution. Even though you can come up with implausible hypos regarding eligibility that are far different from that case. Not that I mind a little academic devil’s advocacy, but even without the 19th amendment, the 14th guarantees that right.

    Garbage. The 14th amendment doesn’t even guarantee the right of blacks to vote. In fact it explicitly acknowledges that states do have the power to deny the vote to “any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States” for reasons other than “participation in rebellion, or other crime”, and penalizes them if they choose to do so. And, as you will notice, it explicitly includes “male” in the criteria which are considered legitimate, and for which states are not penalized. The 15th amendment is what guaranteed blacks the vote, and the 19th is what guaranteed it to women. Minor remains a fully credited statement of what the constitution said in 1875.

    Milhouse (312124)

  122. why is everyone so willing to lump citizens by birth with natural born citizens?

    That’s a good question. I think it’s laziness. But your next questions are not so good:

    are anchor babies natural born citizens? are they eligible to be POTUS?

    Yes. At least so says Blackstone, and I think that’s how it was understood by the people whose opinion matters.

    Milhouse (312124)

  123. To repeat, there are only two forms of citizenship. Naturalization and by birth.

    But what about natural born citizenship? Wong Kim Ark doesn’t address that at all.

    Milhouse (312124)

  124. There is no distinction. “citizenship by birth” == “Citizen as a result of birth” == “natural born citizen”.

    Says who? What is your source for that extraordinary statement?

    Especially after the Fourteenth Amendment.

    What has that got to do with it? It doesn’t even mention it.

    Milhouse (312124)

  125. So SPQR, you would then suggest that if an Al Queda couple slipped into the country illegally, had children and raised them to destroy our country from within by deception, manipulation and using funds from around the world fostered them to become POTUS, you wouldn’t have an issue? REALLY?

    Surely it would depend on that child’s views, wouldn’t it? And it’s a very strange scenario. Surely it would be far easier for them to simply recruit someone who was already a natural born citizen without any doubt. Would you have an issue with that? How does the parents’ citizenship change the equation?

    Milhouse (312124)

  126. r2dumb2

    We have survived King George, barbary pirates, assorted hordes of rednecks, Philip of Spain, A Kaiser, another Kaiser, American Communists, American socialists, FDR, waves of Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese chicoms…

    – I think if an Al Qaeda couple wants to slip into the country to run a sharmaa stand and drop a few babies

    I’ma guessing we are going to be okay

    The bulk pack of foil sheets at Sams are on sale..

    EricPWJohnson (e83e82)

  127. Plainly Rubio is a bigger story than Romany.

    He’s being Palinized so there’s no chance Willard being courageous in this incarnation.

    But as someone noted above his career would likely be over becoming VP.

    And Amerikkka is spinning into the tarmac regardless.

    Our division into factions of all manner is only going to escalate and events are only going to worsen thru the end of 2013, perhaps beyond.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  128. “What really renders your opinion irrelevant is the fact that your conclusions are just flat-out wrong.”

    Comment by Icy — 6/19/2012 @ 11:41 pm

    Upon what factual basis do you assert my opinions to be “flat-out wrong”? Demonstrate your legal prowess and analytical skill.

    I have been subjected to numerous potshots directed at me personally, because they disagree with my analysis. Analysis, I might add, in which I am not alone. Yet these same contributors have refused to provide any evidence to support their own conclusions.

    r2 (d00470)

  129. R2- let me guess… jd and dailyrocks? They like to insult.

    tye (c73e0c)

  130. “Surely it would depend on that child’s views, wouldn’t it? And it’s a very strange scenario. Surely it would be far easier for them to simply recruit someone who was already a natural born citizen without any doubt. Would you have an issue with that? How does the parents’ citizenship change the equation?”

    Comment by Milhouse — 6/20/2012 @ 1:21 am

    Of course it does Milhouse. While the rhetorical question was over the top, deliberately, it was to illustrate the purpose of the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 § 1, which was to establish POTUS as a separate class of citizen, having no foreign or mixed allegiances, specifically due to being the commander in chief.

    If the framers felt that such a class distinction were not necessary, why would they have specifically carved out exceptions, which resulted in the first ten presidents falling under the exception. If citizen and natural-born citizen were equal, why the additional class distinction? Even presupposing that the first president may have needed such an exception upon his taking office, surely the second president would have met all of the other requirements and by that point have been a citizen of the new nation, right?

    With regard to the 14th Amendment, the Minor Court chose not to construe the 14th amendments citizenship clause, instead choosing to construe Article II § I, Clause 5 as an independent ground after first defining “citizen”(pgs.165-166), followed by “natural-born citizen”(pgs.166-167). Therefore, such construction is precedent and not merely dicta. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.

    In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray could have written his opinion to include something to the effect of “Ark is a natural-born citizen”, but didn’t. If the Court had chosen to identify Ark as a “natural-born citizen”, there would have been no need for the Court to construe the 14th amendment to determine Ark’s citizenship status. Likewise, the framers of the 14th amendment could have chosen to use the phrase “natural-born citizen”, but made a deliberate choice NOT to do so.

    Attempts to read the words “natural-born citizen” into the 14th Amendment would both render Article II § I, Clause 5, to be superfluous, and would directly contradict the entire body of national jurisprudence, with regard to statutory construction.

    r2 (d00470)

  131. Garbage. The 14th amendment doesn’t even guarantee the right of blacks to vote.

    Actually, today, it does, because today, as the EPC would be interpreted that way.

    If you disagree with that interpretation, you disagree with current basic con law.

    And as I noted, this requires you to ignore one basic canon of legal interpretation, expressio unius. But oh well, I guess.

    Says who? What is your source for that extraordinary statement?

    It’s actually an extraordinary statement to say there is a third category of citizenship, natural born citizen, that rejects some Americans who were born citizens and require no naturalization. Born citizens are natural born citizens. They simply phrased it the latter way a single time, which apparently confuses some people.

    and if you think the law would be interpreted otherwise in the Court, you’re wrong.

    Dustin (330eed)

  132. Of course it does Milhouse. While the rhetorical question was over the top, deliberately, it was to illustrate the purpose of the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 § 1, which was to establish POTUS as a separate class of citizen, having no foreign or mixed allegiances, specifically due to being the commander in chief.

    If the framers felt that such a class distinction were not necessary, why would they have specifically carved out exceptions, which resulted in the first ten presidents falling under the exception. If citizen and natural-born citizen were equal, why the additional class distinction?

    You seem to confuse what’s actually written in the Constitution.

    The Constitution says that a Representative must be 25 years old and a citizen for at least 7 years. The implication there is that a Representative may be a naturalized citizen, and not one from birth. Likewise, a Senator must be at least 30 years old and a citizen for 9 years. Senators may be naturalized citizens, as well.

    But the President must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen (or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted). The implication is that a President must be a citizen from birth, as opposed to Representatives and Senators, who could be naturalized.

    The exception for the first 10 presidents has to do with the fact that before the Constitution was adopted, there was no United States, and therefore no one alive at the time could have been born a US citizen. It would have been impractical for the country to have to wait 35+ years without a President until someone became eligible for the office.

    The Constitution, as understood at the time it was drafted, meant “natural born citizen” to be someone who was a citizen from birth.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  133. Thank you, Chuck. That’s much clearer than how I said it, and it’s exactly right.

    Dustin (330eed)

  134. r2, your statements about the Minor case are false and make it obvious that you are intentionally misreading it.

    Milhouse states: “But what about natural born citizenship? Wong Kim Ark doesn’t address that at all.

    Comment by Milhouse — 6/20/2012 @ 1:17 am

    Incorrect, it states, as does Minor, that there are only two classes of citizenship – by birth and by naturalization. “Natural born” as a term is not a third class but merely an exclusion of naturalization.

    All else is fabrication.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  135. FOAD, SPQR. I made no reference to “birther” issues at all. These are CONSTITUTIONAL issues.

    You’re a nasty piece of work.

    creeper (f1f686)

  136. Chuck and Dustin–Yes.

    And that’s exactly the way it used to be taught and explained in the civics classes of American schools. I do think the controversy over anchor baby citizenship and planned “vacation births” have muddied the waters on this for a lot of Americans–but the law is still the law even if it’s sometimes being manipulated in a way many do not approve of.

    elissa (29f6c8)

  137. creeper, Birther horse crap. If you try to carry it around, it sticks to your fingers.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  138. “r2, your statements about the Minor case are false and make it obvious that you are intentionally misreading it.”

    “Incorrect, it states, as does Minor, that there are only two classes of citizenship – by birth and by naturalization. “Natural born” as a term is not a third class but merely an exclusion of naturalization.”

    All else is fabrication.

    Comment by SPQR — 6/20/2012 @ 7:55 am

    SPQR, your assertions have no basis in fact. Have you actually read the entirety of both opinions and NOT just the Syllabus or someone else’s analysis? Please provide relevant citations to support your view adn what the current precedent is, with regard to the definition of “natural-born citizen”. Additionally, please indicate why it is your belief that opinions based on independent ground are not to be viewed as precedent and instead as Dicta. Please provide relevant citations to support that opinion as well. Put up or shut up, buttercup.

    “It’s actually an extraordinary statement to say there is a third category of citizenship, natural born citizen, that rejects some Americans who were born citizens and require no naturalization. Born citizens are natural born citizens. They simply phrased it the latter way a single time, which apparently confuses some people.

    and if you think the law would be interpreted otherwise in the Court, you’re wrong.”

    Comment by Dustin — 6/20/2012 @ 7:25 am

    Dustin: I am sure then, since you claim that a Court would never interpret current precedent as we have argued, you can provide a relevant SCOTUS citation to correct our analysis, overturning current Court precedent, correct?

    r2 (d00470)

  139. Dred Scott was never explicitly overturned, either (setting aside reference to abrogation-via-Amendment-XIV in the Slaughter House Cases).

    Leviticus (e923df)

  140. r2, your claims are false. The Minor case language is dicta regarding “natural born” citizen because it wasn’t at issue, the only reason that they went beyond the Fourteenth Amendment ought to be obvious to anyone who has a 19th century calendar. But for all that, the Minor case does not say what Birthers claim it does, as I’ve already established above repeatedly.

    I put up, buttercup, and showed yet again that Birthers are dishonest liars.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  141. “Dred Scott was never explicitly overturned, either (setting aside reference to abrogation-via-Amendment-XIV in the Slaughter House Cases).”

    Comment by Leviticus — 6/20/2012 @ 8:37 am

    You’re absolutely right Leviticus, Amendment XIV rendered the Scott v. Sandford decision moot, as is the proper course of action under Article V amendment process. However, even though we view the decision in the light of history as bad, it was still binding precedent until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868. Like other decisions, had not the 14th amendment been ratified, Scott would remain binding precedent, until such time as the issue had been revisited, a likely outcome given what we know of history.

    r2 (d00470)

  142. “The Minor case language is dicta regarding “natural born” citizen because it wasn’t at issue,”

    SPQR – Agree that the Minor case did not define the term “natural born citizen.” The case merely discussed one condition sufficient to meet that definition and noted there was controversy over others. Virginia Minor met the condition noted and there was no need for the court to go further.

    To pretend otherwise is typical Birther BS.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  143. “2, your claims are false. The Minor case language is dicta regarding “natural born” citizen because it wasn’t at issue, the only reason that they went beyond the Fourteenth Amendment ought to be obvious to anyone who has a 19th century calendar. But for all that, the Minor case does not say what Birthers claim it does, as I’ve already established above repeatedly.”

    SPQR, you continue to make the assertion that my claims are false, yet you refuse to provide citations on which you base your assertion. An assertion is not the same thing as proof. Again, put up or shut up.

    On what basis was Minor brought? On what basis was Minor decided? If you answer these two questions successfully, you might learn WHY Minor is precedent and NOT dicta and provide the relevant citation supporting the my assertion.

    r2 (d00470)

  144. r2 – Minor is dicta moron:

    “Obiter Dictum

    The Supreme Court addresses legal questions presented to it that it decides to address. The holding is the answer to the legal question presented and the ratio decidendi is the rationale necessary to answer such question. These are what are precedent. Obiter dictum are judicial comments unnecessary to the decision of the case. Hence, in order to determine whether a statement is obiter dictum, one must look at the question presented and the holding of the case and see if such statement was necessary in the court’s answering of the question. Obiter dictum is not precedent but still can be persuasive authority if well supported and reasoned. However, obiter dictum is often unsupported assertions that are not very persuasive. They also may be the opinion of only one justice as justices don’t usually write separate opinions if they disagree only with obiter dictum. Obiter dictum may also be on subjects not thoroughly research, argued or briefed.

    Virginia Minor sued the registrar of voters who refused to register her since Missouri law didn’t allow women to vote. She lost and appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. Minor argued that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause granted citizens the right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause and made several other Constitutional arguments that had nothing to do with citizenship. The defendant conceded Minor’s citizenship in the original pleadings and never disputed or argued the issue in the subsequent appeals. It thus appears the issue was never briefed or argued. The Missouri Supreme Court never addressed the conceded fact of her citizenship and it found citizenship irrelevant to the right to vote, so it didn’t matter if she was a citizen or not.

    In the Supreme Court, the question thus presented to the Court was “whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States” has the right to vote. The question did not ask if Minor was a citizen. Whether one is a citizen and whether a citizen has certain rights are two different questions. If the question presented was whether a woman of Minor’s status was a citizen and whether such citizenship gave her the right to vote, then the determination of her citizenship would be a holding since it would be an answer of a question before the Court. Since the question presented did not ask if Minor was a citizen, any statement that she was a citizen cannot be the holding. The birthers nevertheless argue that the determination of citizenship was necessary to reach the holding and thus is part of the ratio decidendi. Such is clearly not the case. The Court’s actual holding was that the Constitution did not grant the right to vote to anyone and hence citizenship was irrelevant to the right to vote. Obviously, since the holding says being a citizen was irrelevant, it was unnecessary to determine if Virginia Minor was a citizen to make such holding. Hence, it is not part of the ratio decidendi but orbiter dictum. Such conclusion is made stronger in that the citizenship discussion cites no authority, never addresses contrary argument and never actually tells us the status of her parents. The Court does not do that other than which respect to dictum. As discussed below, it also shows all the signs of an issue that wasn’t thoroughly researched, briefed or argued.

    The birthers seem to think that the Court had to address the citizenship question before it reached the suffrage question for if she wasn’t a citizen there would be no need to address the suffrage question. This is a misunderstanding of how the law works. It is not the Court’s job to raise issues not raised by the litigants. The defendant might have argued lack of personal jurisdiction or that Minor wasn’t a citizen and the Court may have accepted to review such issues in which case the question presented would include whether there was personal jurisdiction and whether she was a citizen. But the defendant didn’t make such arguments which means such issues were waived and the Missouri Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court did not need to address them. The Missouri Supreme Court declined to address the issue while the US Supreme Court decided to address the issue on its own. However, it was under no obligation to do so and hence its discussion is dictum. Take Hamdi v. Rumsfeld for example which had a similar question in whether a citizen who was an enemy combatant could be detained by the Executive. Under birther logic, the Court would have had to first determine Hamdi’s citizenship. In the actual legal world, the government didn’t argue he wasn’t a citizen and hence the issue was not before the Court and was not discussed in the opinion. An amicus brief actually asked the Court to address the citizenship issue on its own, but the Court declined. It is simply wrong as a matter of law to suggest that the Court has to address the issue of citizenship in these circumstances.

    There is an even bigger problem with the precedent argument. Let’s pretend that the Court did actually hold that Virginia Minor was a “natural born citizen” and the Court said children of aliens were not natural born citizens. Since it would have been unnecessary to address the status of children of aliens to determine Minor’s status, any statements about children of aliens would be dictum. Of course, the Minor court makes no such statement about children of aliens.”

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2011/10/taking-down-minor-v-happersett.html

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  145. Romney says Rubio is being vetted.

    Anonymous sources say he isn’t.

    Who knows what’s true?

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  146. Did r2 leave?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  147. Of course Rubio is being vetted. Every popular politician is always vetted for VP, and for as long as possible. Why not? It’s politically advantageous for all concerned. You will never hear that any reasonably competent politician is NOT being considered.

    That said, Rubio will be tapped for Secretary of State.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  148. Did r2 leave?
    Comment by daleyrocks — 6/20/2012 @ 10:34 am

    – “Come on, r2; we’re going.”

    Icy (9f6107)

  149. Icy – He was not the droid I was looking for.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  150. r2 continues to pretend that his points have not already been shown to be false, and intentionally dishonest.

    Let there be no doubt. If such a question regarding the qualifications of a President were ever presented to the Supreme Court, the final decision would hold that “natural born citizen” means a citizen at birth and that anyone born in the US or qualifying for US citizenship by statute at birth was “natural born citizen – period. The vote would be 9-0 if it reached the Supreme Court. And every Circuit Court of Appeals panel would vote unanimously as well. No constitutional scholar argues differently.

    SPQR (3944f2)

  151. If Republicans don’t pick Rubio to be on the ticket in 2012, they should definitely do so in 2016. Most Republicans have trouble selling their ideas in English but Rubio is persuasive in two languages.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  152. spqr… i know you think very highly of yourself, but you need to stop claiming people are being intentionally dishonest. i don’t doubt your prediction about how the SCOTUS would rule considering obama is the second president who fails to meet the more stringent definition. just because in 2012 we have justices who would vote a certain way doesn’t mean the founders didn’t expect the president to be born to citizen parents. and if the ruling was on the eligibility of an anchor baby i highly doubt the decision would be unanimous. r2 and i have both shown plenty of evidence that doubt remains in regards to the definition of natural born, whether you choose to cover your eyes and ears or not…

    razor419 (239cef)

  153. “r2 and i have both shown plenty of evidence that doubt remains in regards to the definition of natural born, whether you choose to cover your eyes and ears or not…”

    razor419 – Read #146 and visit the link for more.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  154. Didn’t Peter Sellers play both r2 and razor419 in the same movie?

    Icy (9f6107)

  155. already did daley. all that proves is the court didn’t define natural born (and they never have).

    razor419 (239cef)

  156. yer thinkin’ of Merkin Muffley, Icy.

    Colonel Haiku (f193ee)

  157. can’t you tell that i’m a novice and r2 actually has a legal background? you’re pathetic icy. come back when you have something useful to add to the discussion.

    razor419 (239cef)

  158. razor419, I have no intention of ceasing to “claim” something that I’ve in fact already proven in this thread. And the “evidence” shown by r2/razor419 remains fundamentally dishonest as I’ve shown quite clearly.

    Birthers were and are liars.

    SPQR (3944f2)

  159. Shorthand razor: The Court (you know them as “the arbiters of what is real and what is not”) have never defined what “natural-born citizen” means; therefore, Marco Rubio is not one . . . a natural-born citizen, that is.

    Perhaps, since there is no definition-from-on-high, NONE of us are natural-born citizens.

    Dammit! That means La Raza was right, after all.

    Icy (9f6107)

  160. Trust me, razor419, I definitely CAN tell that you are a novice.

    Icy (9f6107)

  161. “The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

    Boston Globe
    November 9, 1896
    by Percy A. Bridgham, aka “The People’s Lawyer“

    razor419 (239cef)

  162. razor419, you seem determined to fill the thread with ridiculous, irrelevant and nonsensical citations.

    All of which have the same credibility as your first, which we’ve already learned was false.

    SPQR (3944f2)

  163. “Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United State – he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does – for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen – but the U. States act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

    The Alexandria Herald
    October 10, 1811
    by PUBLIUS

    razor419 (239cef)

  164. razor419 should stop wasting his time arguing with us little people and direct his energies into entrepreneurship — specifically, the production and sale of t-shirts, buttons & bumberstickers marketed to the immigrant community:

    “First Generation American, Second-Class Citizen”

    Icy (9f6107)

  165. my first was actually john bingham…

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
    - 1862

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
    - 1866

    razor419 (239cef)

  166. razor419, you continue to be utterly ignorant of the invention of the calendar. Mayans knew how to count years, Druids knew how to count years, why do you not know how to count years?

    SPQR (3944f2)

  167. “Didn’t Peter Sellers play both r2 and razor419 in the same movie?”

    Icy – We have seen them both in the same place here.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  168. “razor419, you seem determined to fill the thread with ridiculous, irrelevant and nonsensical citations.”

    SPQR – Aren’t newspaper articles considered legal precedent?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  169. “already did daley. all that proves is the court didn’t define natural born (and they never have).”

    razor419 – You would be wrong again Distortomatic, the decision shows the Court did not create a second class of citizens for individuals born in the U.S. of foreign born parents. The Court did not address the issue.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  170. daleyrocks, why yes, binding precedent of course. Only behind fortune cookie sayings.

    SPQR (3944f2)

  171. “daleyrocks, why yes, binding precedent of course. Only behind fortune cookie sayings.”

    SPQR – Thanks. Exactly what I thought.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  172. Icy – We have seen them both in the same place here.

    what the hell is that supposed to mean?

    SPQR – Aren’t newspaper articles considered legal precedent?

    yeah, because publius is just another random author, right? i think the opinions john bingham and publius are much more relevant than the drivel spewed by icy, spqr and daleyrocks… but i’m sure you’ll tell me why you’re opinions trump that of the “father of the 14th amendment.”

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  173. razor419, your habit of quoting out of context, and more hilariously, quoting materials you don’t actually understand, are well established.

    SPQR (3944f2)

  174. lol… i give you facts and i all you can do is run your mouth. i won this debate last night, and i’m beating you like a drum today. let me know when you’ve had enough. i’ve quoted nothing out of context and even an idiot like me can make sense of those quotes. good job! good effort!

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  175. even only an idiot like me can make sense of those quotes

    – Fixed

    Icy (9f6107)

  176. thanks, icy!

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  177. Oh, please, don’t me make laugh. My ribs still hurt from laughing at Surls’ silliness. Your attempt to claim coup on me reminds me of an ant threatening to seduce an elephant with the promise to be gentle.

    SPQR (3944f2)

  178. Garbage. The 14th amendment doesn’t even guarantee the right of blacks to vote.

    Actually, today, it does, because today, as the EPC would be interpreted that way.

    If you disagree with that interpretation, you disagree with current basic con law.

    And as I noted, this requires you to ignore one basic canon of legal interpretation, expressio unius. But oh well, I guess.

    It requires more than that. It requires ignoring the explicit text of the 14th amendment. Any judge who would interpret the amendment so as to contradict its own text is by definition dishonest and incompetent, and a disgrace to the bench.

    Dustin, do you agree that the 3rd amendment authorises the quartering of troops in wartime, if Congress makes a law to that effect? Or that the 4th authorises reasonable searches and seizures? Or that the 5th authorises capital punishment? Or that the 13th authorises slavery “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”? Then how can you deny that the 14th authorises states to deny the vote to women without penalty, and to blacks if they agree to pay the penalty?

    Milhouse (312124)

  179. It’s actually an extraordinary statement to say there is a third category of citizenship, natural born citizen, that rejects some Americans who were born citizens and require no naturalization. Born citizens are natural born citizens. They simply phrased it the latter way a single time, which apparently confuses some people.

    You seem to be completely unaware that “natural born subject” or “…citizen” was not some random phrasing that the framers just happened to use, but was a common legal term. Blackstone and Grotius both give definitions, which unfortunately disagree, thus leading to the current disagreement. The position r2 and razor are championing follows Grotius; I believe Blackstone’s definition is more likely to have been the one generally understood in America at the time.

    and if you think the law would be interpreted otherwise in the Court, you’re wrong.

    I’d be very interested to hear what basis you have for this assertion. You haven’t presented any, and I’m not aware of any possible basis you could have.

    Milhouse (312124)

  180. Shorthand razor: The Court (you know them as “the arbiters of what is real and what is not”) have never defined what “natural-born citizen” means; therefore, Marco Rubio is not one . . . a natural-born citizen, that is.

    Perhaps, since there is no definition-from-on-high, NONE of us are natural-born citizens.

    Dammit! That means La Raza was right, after all.

    Well, Minor does take care of that one. It says that whatever doubts may exist about other cases, someone born here of citizen parents is definitely a NBC. r2 and razor seem to be claiming that since the Minor court said that doubt exists about other cases, and no court has since resolved that doubt, we must assume that they are not NBCs. That seems to me a strange conclusion. True, we have no Supreme Court guidance, but we do have other sources, the same sources a court would use it it were to interpret the clause.

    And it seems to me that Blackstone’s definition would be definitive: every person is a “natural born subject” of the sovereign whose laws protected him at birth. In other words, if someone were to try to strangle him at birth, whose police would stop it? And if the attempt were successful, before whose courts would the murderer be tried? For most people that means the country where they were born, no matter how recently their mother had arrived there, or what citizenship their parents held. The only exception Blackstone gives is children of “the King’s embassadors”.

    I would add children born to troops stationed overseas, since they usually live under US law. So in my opinion John McCain is a NBC, even if the Canal Zone wasn’t sovereign US territory at the time; but George Romney was not a NBC despite the fact that by the laws of the time he inherited US citizenship from his parents. Similarly, if Congress were to make a law granting citizenship at birth to all children born anywhere in the world on 4-Jul-2076, that law would be valid and they would be citizens, but they would not be NBCs.

    Milhouse (312124)

  181. McCain was born in a hospital, in the Coco Solo NAS,
    to two US citizens,

    narciso (8bfa44)

  182. McCain was born in a hospital, in the Coco Solo NAS, to two US citizens,

    Yes, but there is apparently some doubt about the status of the Canal Zone at the time. I’ve seen it claimed that children born there to aliens did not gain US citizenship just by being born there. If so, then my contention is that had McCain’s parents been civilians, and therefore subject to Panamanian law during their stay in the country, he would be a US citizen but not a naturally born one, and would be ineligible for the presidency. But since his father was stationed there as an official representative of the USA, subject to and protected by its laws, he was in the same position as an ambassador, and his son is therefore a NBC.

    Milhouse (312124)

  183. Milhouse,

    Was Grotius championing a jus sanguinis definition of NBC or some other definition?

    Leviticus (102f62)

  184. “i won this debate last night, and i’m beating you like a drum today.”

    razor419 – Thanks, I needed a laugh.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  185. I think we all know what razor419 is “beating” today.

    Icy (9f6107)

  186. Was Grotius championing a jus sanguinis definition of NBC or some other definition?

    I believe he was. It’s a while since I saw the quote.

    Milhouse (312124)

  187. razor419, obviously I’m shivering in fear of being exposed to your superior Legal Analysis School of Kung Fu.

    SPQR (26be8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5807 secs.