The ones who decide who gets elected or not, aren’t the voters in a so called election. That’s not how democracies work after a period of time.

First of all, I was never a socialist.

Second of all, my position on this would be (and has been) the same whichever person or party is involved.

Thirdly, the Constitution is very unclear on this point, so it is disingenuous to say that this has anything to do with stretching the Constitution in a way the framers clearly did not intend.

The knowledge is there; they simply will not accept it. They do not understand the ground upon Conservatism stands.

Nor am I defining “natural born citizen” as the same as “citizen.” I did not offer any definitions that purport to do so. I was responding to something you offered regarding naturalized citizens, and I was pointing out that Rubio is not a naturalized citizen although his parents were.

My point is that you are wrong about the law. That doesn’t mean you can’t try to define “natural born citizen” any way you think makes sense. The point is that the courts are highly highly unlikely to agree with you.

“Natural born citizen” is a phrase used mainly to distinguish from “naturalized citizen.” The latter is not a citizen of this country at the time of birth, and is never eligible to be president or vice-president.

Someone could be born to citizens living legally in another country (such as John McCain) and even live there for quite some time, and still be a natural born citizen. One can be born here to non-citizens “under the jurisdiction of the US” (legal permanent residents seeking citizenship) and still be a natural born citizen—that is, a citizen at birth. Rubio did not have to be naturalized.

There is no doubt that a lawyer could make an argument that Rubio is not a natural born citizen. A lawyer could make an argument (and will, if someone pays him/her) that the moon is made of green cheese (although I’m not suggesting the argument about Rubio is as fanciful as that). But that does not make it correct, nor does it mean it has much of a chance of carrying the day in a courtroom.

My point is that, legally, it’s a poor argument, and probably won’t wash. Another point is that whoever the GOP nominee is they will find his/her vulnerability and hammer home at it, or they will manufacture one and hammer home at that. Impossible (and I mean that literally) to find a candidate without some vulnerability.

They are already starting on Ted Cruz, that mean, uppity, son of a bitch! It is inevitable.

And they did the same thing to John McCain about his Panama Canal birth, so much that Congress had to pass a special resolution declaring him eligible.

Would this be cynical/duplicitous in light of Obama’s questionable status as a “natural born” citizen. Why, yes, but it will be ignored by the megaphone of the MSM.

I like Rubio. He argues well for conservative values and seems to have a great deal of integrity. However, as someone pointed out on another blog or maybe on Foxnews, he will not be a great draw in the Latino community because his Latino bonafides come from his parents being Cuban. Most Latinos in this country today hail from Mexico and other Central American countries. They feel little or no affinity toward the Cubans who are mostly conservative escapees from Communism.

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, can be identified as from the great mass of Latino immigrants from Mexico /Central America. Cruz, however, has been very aggressive as a junior Senator, and has already been marked for destruction by the Left. Thus, by 2016 it’s possible that neither Rubio or Cruz will be viable candidates.

My head hurts when I contemplate the agonies of the 2016 campaign. I would like to take at least a year off, but of course, that’s not going to happen.

My using the term misdirection was not a charge of deliberately changing the subject but mistakenly arguing the wrong premise as does Byron York.

Byron York:
The Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but it does not define the term. The Supreme Court has never clarified the issue, but there is a law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, that spells out in detail who is a citizen.

The concern here is what is it the Framers meant by ‘natural born Citizen’. It is neither explanation nor clarification to show what is meant by citizen.

Bob Quasius:
No amount of hard evidence can sway conspiracy theorists.

Jason Pye
Hannity brought up that “Birthers,” this strange group of folks that have questioned President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve, are now raising Rubio’s eligibility

Now I take offense. Arguing from the Constitution, providing evidence as to meanings and phrases in the Constitution, and concluding by that evidence that Mr. Rubio is not, or is not likely to be eligible is neither conspiracy nor strange, nor idiocy. I’ll grant there are those who believe resort to the Constitution is strange, Mr. Hannity foremost among them when it doesn’t suit him, but you don’t, I’m sure

Bob Quasius Sr.
At the time our constitution was adopted, citizenship was determined by English Common Law.

Probably so, but so too was Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations and more prominently so. The Law of Nations is mentioned in the Constitution, English Common Law makes no appearance. The Law of Nations argues for ‘natural born Citizen’ as distinguishable from citizen.

Mr Quasius Sr. mentions and relies on A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office The report is authored Jack Maskell. It’s about fifty pages long. I have read it.

Let me preface this by noting first the low esteem in which Congress is held. I wonder why the Congressional Research Service should warrant any more. I had thought once the Research Service to be full of scholarly type gentlemen in tweed jackets with elbow patches and a whiff of Balkan Sobranie #3 about them. No such thing. As politics would have it the Congressional Research Service is little more than yet more overly lawyerly lawyers who deal not in research but advocacy. Mr. Maskell is exemplar.

Among his many misdirections (arguing for what constitutes ‘citizen’), and obfuscations, there are lies. Preeminent among them on page 51 of the document:

Page 51, Maskel writes of, then quotes, misquotes and malquotes, a SCOTUS decision:
In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “it is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen.”

It is my opinion that ‘natural born Citizen’ means more than ‘citizen’. I have offered historical evidence and opinions. The opposite side, the side that argues for ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘citizen’ being synonymous has also opinion but unfortunately chooses to ignore a wealth of evidence that, for over one hundred years, the prevailing understanding in this country of ‘natural born Citizen’ held that Mr. Rubio is not eligible for the office. If Mr. Rubio is eligible by modern lights it is only because lies, legerdemain, and yearnings, have abrogated the U. S. Constitution. I’ll end it at that, you have the last word if you so desire.

Once the opinion writers and other scribblers have successfully imposed the view of the Slave Power upon the soon-to-be Slave Class, there is no longer any recourse to any other portion of the constitution: one portion gone, they’re all gone. All the PTB need to do is feed the scribblers the desired meaning or change; and within one year, even the so-called conservatives are backing the new meaning or new “constitutional” power/authority.