This week Marco Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida
against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries
of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for
office.� (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an
issue.")

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio's Cuban immigrant parents did
not become U.S. citizens until 1975.

That’s convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible
under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a
natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The questions arose in 2011 when Rubio was being talked about as Mitt
Romney’s running mate.

"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules
because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," New Jersey
lawyer Mario Apuzzo told the Tampa Bay Times in 2011.

From the report:

Birthers rely on various passages to back up their argument. One is the
treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, which
they say influenced the founding fathers. "The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,"
Vattel wrote.

They also cite the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the 1875 case Minor vs.
Happersett, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to persons
who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.

"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law professor Lawrence
Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, "the much
stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that
you would be considered a natural born citizen."

For mo

http://tinyurl.com/jb4bsaz

- - - - - -

Pretty funny stuff...

On 1/14/2016 5:37 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

This week Marco Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida
against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries
of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for
office.� (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an
issue.")

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio's Cuban immigrant parents did
not become U.S. citizens until 1975.

That’s convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible
under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a
natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The questions arose in 2011 when Rubio was being talked about as Mitt
Romney’s running mate.

"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules
because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," New Jersey
lawyer Mario Apuzzo told the Tampa Bay Times in 2011.

From the report:

Birthers rely on various passages to back up their argument. One is the
treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, which
they say influenced the founding fathers. "The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,"
Vattel wrote.

They also cite the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the 1875 case Minor vs.
Happersett, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to persons
who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.

"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law professor Lawrence
Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, "the much
stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that
you would be considered a natural born citizen."

For mo

http://tinyurl.com/jb4bsaz

- - - - - -

Pretty funny stuff...


Much of this stuff can be traced back to British Common Laws. Our
founding fathers borrowed heavily from them when drafting the Bill of
Rights and the Constitution.

At one time British Common Law specifically stated that a "natural
born" British citizen was one who was actually born on British soil.

"Natural born" in the USA has been interpreted many ways. It's still a
valid argument.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:37:51 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

More Krausesheize.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 1/14/16 5:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2016 5:37 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

This week Marco Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida
against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries
of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for
office.� (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an
issue.")

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio's Cuban immigrant parents did
not become U.S. citizens until 1975.

That’s convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible
under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a
natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The questions arose in 2011 when Rubio was being talked about as Mitt
Romney’s running mate.

"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules
because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," New Jersey
lawyer Mario Apuzzo told the Tampa Bay Times in 2011.

From the report:

Birthers rely on various passages to back up their argument. One is the
treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, which
they say influenced the founding fathers. "The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,"
Vattel wrote.

They also cite the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the 1875 case Minor vs.
Happersett, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to persons
who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.

"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law professor Lawrence
Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, "the much
stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that
you would be considered a natural born citizen."

For mo

http://tinyurl.com/jb4bsaz

- - - - - -

Pretty funny stuff...


Much of this stuff can be traced back to British Common Laws. Our
founding fathers borrowed heavily from them when drafting the Bill of
Rights and the Constitution.

At one time British Common Law specifically stated that a "natural
born" British citizen was one who was actually born on British soil.

"Natural born" in the USA has been interpreted many ways. It's still a
valid argument.


Oh, I'm sure. I simply find it humorous that the GOP "birthers" are
playing the hand so hard. Maybe Bush is behind it...kick out Cruz and
Rubio, claim New Jersey isn't really part of the United States and,
voila! Except, of course, Mrs. Bush is a Latina. That must somehow
disqualify him, too, right?

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:37:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


This week Marco Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida
against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries
of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for
office.� (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an
issue.")

I like landmark court cases. Maybe they will expedite this one and
Cruz to the SCOTUS and settle this "natural born" thing once and for
all. They might take up the 14th amendment issue at the same time.

As we saw in Bush v Gore, the court can move pretty fast if they need
to.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:37:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


David Brock (Hillary's guy) and Jonathan Tasini (Bernie's guy) squared
off on Erin Burnett tonight ripping Sanders and Clinton apart.
The GOP only needed to watch that to get their talking points.
This was really only about guns and health care but "liar" kept coming
up from both of them with examples. Can North Africa and the Email be
far behind?
It is starting to get dirty over on the blue side.
What is that you say? Delicious?

On 1/14/2016 7:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:37:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


This week Marco Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida
against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries
of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for
office.� (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an
issue.")

I like landmark court cases. Maybe they will expedite this one and
Cruz to the SCOTUS and settle this "natural born" thing once and for
all. They might take up the 14th amendment issue at the same time.

As we saw in Bush v Gore, the court can move pretty fast if they need
to.


That would be nice... but it'll never happen. The SCOTUS is too
politicized to ever do anything that would endanger the "rights" of all
the anchor babies from Mexico.