PostHeaderIcon Marco Rubio’s Turn

Under Constitutional law, Marco Rubio is not a natural-born citizen, and thus is ineligible for the office of POTUS. He was born on US soil, to two Cuban nationals, who did not bother to become US citizens until four years later. Thus, Rubio became an American citizen one of two ways. Either he is an anchor baby, under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or because he was a minor, he automatically became naturalized along with his parents.

Any interpretation of NBC that would include Rubio would have to rely on the former, and automatically would include every anchor baby ever birthed here. This would be the case, whether or not either parent was ever subject to the jurisdiction of the US, or the child was born a citizen of a parent’s home country and owed allegiance to it. This, of course, is the very opposite of the intention of our Founders, in establishing the NBC requirement for Commander in Chief.

So, while Cruz is relying on only 1/2 (mother only) of the “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) component of NBC to claim his eligibility, Rubio is relying on only the “jus soli” (right of soil) component to claim his. If one thinks about it, both can’t be right! I submit that neither are, because NBC requires both components (and both parents). Once again, the only way both could be considered NBC, is to interpret that term as simply meaning acquiring US citizenship at birth, by whatever naturalization process or legal interpretation Congress from time to time may approve.

It turns out that another lawsuit, now challenging Rubio’s eligibility, has been filed in Florida:

This week 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.

Rubio’s status has already been challenged in Florida.

A Fort Lauderdale man, Michael Voeltz, filed a complaint against Rubio and Cruz in December, arguing they are “naturalized citizens, or at the very least, simply fail to comply with the common law Supreme Court established definition of natural born citizen …”

Rubio filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 11. The 34-page filing, heretofore unknown, shows that Rubio’s legal team spent considerable time researching the issue. “Senator Rubio is a natural born citizen of the United States and he is eligible to be President of the United States,” it concludes.

In 2011, Rubio played down the talk about eligibility.

“I’m not going to answer that because I’m not thinking about it,” he told the Tampa Bay Times.  “All I care about is my qualifications to serve in the Senate. I just don’t think it’s relevant.”

People are not just making these issues up to harass politicians they don’t like. These questions have haunted Presidential campaigns and Presidents often, long before our time. It is high time the SCOTUS do its job and put the question of the Constitutional definition of NBC to bed, one way or another. Next time, it might be an anchor baby, delivered here by illegal aliens, who never bothered to become citizens themselves, after their ‘natural-born American’ child got them their green cards and welfare entitlements.

Sooner or later, a ‘birth tourism’ anchor baby, whose parents never even lived here, much less became citizens, and raised their ‘natural-born American’ child back in their home country (think China), will try it. What then? Can anyone imagine that our Founders intended that to be OK? If the SCOTUS would establish legal clarity, guys like Obama, Jindal, Cruz, and Rubio, et al, would not be tempted to squeak by to run for POTUS, and perhaps be content with developing their careers in other offices. â—„Daveâ–º


9 Responses to “Marco Rubio’s Turn”

  • Kitti says:

    I (mostly) agree with you, but what about those people whose parents, because of commitments to the USA, cause them to be born outside of US soil? Specifically members of the Armed Services and Diplomatic Corps?
    Granted if born on a military base you could argue that that is technically US soil, but who wants to give birth at the US Embassy ?

    • Hi Kitti. Having lived in a few Third World countries myself, I would choose an embassy dispensary in a heartbeat, over a local hospital. I had a co-worker friend die of gangrene in a filthy hospital in the Seychelles Islands back in the ’60s, because they hadn’t cleaned his wounds properly after a motorcycle accident. The flies and mosquitoes buzzing around in that atrocious place were unbelievable.

      Of course, I am explaining the NBC issue as it is, not as I think it should be. As I explained in my letter “To Bernie Goldberg,” 5 years ago, the reason I became interested in the ‘birther’ controversy to begin with, is because I learned back in the ’50s that my own younger sister is not a NBC, because she was born in Germany in ’47, when my father was stationed there during the occupation after WWII. This seemed terribly unfair to me at the time; but my parents explained that I should not worry about it, because she was unlikely to ever wish to be POTUS, and in all other respects her citizenship was the equal of mine.

      It seems to me that this logic would always be true of 99.99% of such births. I would be open to changing the rules to include your special cases; but they would have to be specifically changed first. The Constitution either means what it says, or it is meaningless. Alas, increasingly it is the latter. 🙁 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    See my response to Coulter on Cruz for most but if it’s not happening now because of the candidates why do we have an Indonesian Muslim as president for the last seven years? Can’t deny he was an Indonesian citizen or that he was raised Muslim. It’s in the book.

  • Troy Robinson says:

    I do not think that the NBC test is a very serious part of our Constitution. According to people involved, that was inserted because someone(s) had a burr under their saddle RE Alexander Hamilton and the clause was intended specifically to render him unqualified to be president. Hardly an honorable precedent worth destroying otherwise decent pols over. (That is, if any pol can be truly decent — but we have to work with what we are given.)


    • How could that be true? Wasn’t Hamilton already considered a US citizen under the Articles of Confederation? As seems to be the very nature of pols, they specifically excluded themselves from the NBC requirement. 😉

      Surely you are not suggesting that the test for Constitutionality, be a subjective opinion about how “serious” the provision might be. The “decent” pols are destroying themselves. Not a one of them could be ignorant of the plain meaning of the clause, which I learned in a junior high history class way back in the ’50s. They are just allowing their ambition to cause them to try to squeak by it. I have no sympathy for them. â—„Daveâ–º

      • Troy Robinson says:

        I am seriously suggesting that the NBC clause was put into the Constitution to disallow Hamilton (who was born in the West Indies). This makes it an act of spite unworthy to be in our Constitution. Read your history.


        • Troy Robinson says:

          As an example of the hypocrisy of the NBC clause, have you never wondered why it is not used to disallow the election / appointment of people who stand in direct line of ascendancy to the presidency?


        • I will be happy to read my history, Troy, if you will provide an online reference for the history you are reading. Everything I have heretofore read (and just heard again on the C-Span program Chris linked to, indicates that the Founders were concerned about foreign intrigue, like experienced in Europe with intermarriage between sovereigns of different countries. My history says this is why John Jay wrote the letter to Washington, suggesting the NBC requirement.

          Was this a ruse, and Jay really just wanted to stick it to Hamilton? Then, I ask again, regardless of where he was born, wasn’t Hamilton considered a citizen of the United States under the Articles of Confederation? As I understand it, several of the founders were born abroad, and I think all of them were subjects of King George in 1776. Surely, by 1787, all of them would have become US citizens, including Hamilton. No? â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links