Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s Article Defending Marco Rubio’s Constitutional Eligibility || By Mario Apuzzo | Courtesy: Devvy KIdd @ Devvy.com


fred_thompson_flag

Fred Thompson has written an article in which he argues that Marco Rubio is eligible to be Vice-President. See it at this link. I have left this comment at his blog:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Did you see that, today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President today.

The clear distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” is natural and therefore universal, for a civil society must start with original members (called “citizens” in a republic) who are the creators of that society. Their children, grandchildren, etc. (“Posterity”) then are the “natural-born citizens.” This is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in effect says. The creators of the new republic were “Citizens of the United States” and their “Posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution) were “natural born Citizens.” The Founders and Framers also allowed for new citizens through naturalization. Hence, any naturalized citizen under any Act of Congress becomes a “citizen of the United States,” just like the original “Citizens of the United States.” A reading of the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that it also only adds to the “citizens of the United States,” simply by persons being born (without requiring “citizen” parents) or naturalized in its jurisdiction. And the children (“Posterity”) born in the United States to those new first generation “citizens of the United States” then become “natural born Citizens,” just like the children of the descendents of the original “Citizens of the United States.”

Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” under the “common-law” with which the Framers were familiar. The definition it gave is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country at the time the child was born. Some argue that this definition is not dispositive, because the Court did not say that a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a “natural-born citizen.” This argument is frivolous, for we need to understand what the Court intended by what it said, and not by what it did not say. If I want to define a dog, I include as many of a dog’s attributes, including that a dog by nature is an animal with warm blood. I do not also have to say at the same time that by nature a dog is not an animal with cold blood. There is no indication that this definition is not totally inclusive and exclusive. On the contrary, this has always been the definition of the clause. This definition has never changed.

Read More Here: Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s Article Defending Marco Rubio’s Constitutional Eligibility

Related Stories From Devvy Kidd @ Devvy.com

Ted Cruz is no Larry McDonald

Part II

Part III

Neither Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are eligible to run for president – just like the impostor in the White House. Ted Cruz is 43. He renounced his Canadian citizenship. Doesn’t matter. The Constitution says natural born at birth, not natural born at birth at age 43. Rubio’s parents did not become citizens until after Rubio was born.

Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President

Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s Article Defending Marco Rubio’s Constitutional Eligibility

The same applies to Bobby Jindal. His parents came to the US six months before Jindal was born. They could not have become citizens in six months.

“Piyush Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, immigrants from Punjab, India, who came to the U.S. six months before he was born.”

There was a reason the founders grand fathered in that clause – Barry Soetoro aka Obama is a perfect example.

‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is

Cruz and Rubio are nothing but Band Aid pushers:

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s Article Defending Marco Rubio’s Constitutional Eligibility || By Mario Apuzzo | Courtesy: Devvy KIdd @ Devvy.com

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s