70 votes

Stop Rubio Now!

The time is now to start an information campaign that hammers the point home- MARCO RUBIO IS INELIGIBLE for the office of President or Vice President! Minor v. Happersett is the controlling case, and if you are unaware, educate yourself. Start including this information in your tweets, emails, etc. Just like Cato would conclude his speeches with: "And Carthage must be destroyed!" I suggest adding a signature to posts and emails...."AND MARCO RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!! SEE MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 US 162(1875).

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

because it is irrelevant

that's why

use the first case, the Venus, not Minor v Happersett

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 till March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till Jan. 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sep. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

What the Venus Case says on citizenship:

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on page 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"

The founders used Vattel's Law of Nations even when writing the Constitution and it is mentioned in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Three copies of the 1775 version of the book Law of Nations, written in French by Emer de Vattel in 1758, had been sent to Ben Franklin by its publisher. Mr. Franklin had sent one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia (LCP). In that same year, Mr. Franklin had sent a letter to the publisher informing him that he had been often loaning his copy to other congressman and they were in admiration of Vattel. The LCP was located on the 2nd floor of the Constitutional Convention building in 1787, and arrangements had been completed to provide library membership rights in the LCP on the second floor to all the Constitutional Convention delegates. The 1775 French version of Law of Nations was in the LCP catalog (titled in French: Les Droit des gens), as well as the Law of Nations, 1760 English version. The catalog was also an inventory of the books on the shelf in 1789 which encompass the dates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

relevent links



Y'know, if the GOP want to get back into the good graces of the People, they should start impeachment proceedings on Obama based on him not being a NBC. This would also do away with everything he did. Unfortunately, I don't think the GOP has any intelligence in it.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Denise B's picture

I am with you on this one...

let's stop this one in it's track before it get's any further. There is a ton of case law which states that a natural born citizen ( as used in the Constitutional phrase) is a child born in the United States to parents that are BOTH U.S. citizens themselves. Marco Rubio does not fit this requirement. Obama has already been allowed to stomp on this Constitutional requirement and if we let another sitting president disregard this requirement then it is just another deadly blow to an important clause of our already battered Constitution.

Declaration says it all.

Articles of Confederation replaced.
Constitution amended.
Many acts of Congress and Interpretations of Supreme Courts redefining terms.

However the Declaration of Independence stands alone, subject to no government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the 'consent of the governed".

It is therefore our duty to educate the governed so that all Men can give righteous consent. Nationalism leads not to liberty.

Last I remember

We Are under the constitution, we are not under the articles of confederation.


My point was that previous definitions of citizenship existed prior to the Constitution. I do not propose returning to the Articles of Confederation and if you have ever read the Constitution you know that we are not under the Constitution any more, since it was sunk a long time ago by the weight of 112 congresses.

Both the Oxford English

Both the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's International Dictionary (3rd edition) define it as a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later). They list this definition as going back to the 16th century. Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

The Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a "natural-born citizen". According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual: "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[28]

The majority opinion by Justice Horace Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark observed that:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen" and "natural born citizen"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[4]

I don't think that Black's

I don't think that Black's Defines 'natural born citizen' - it defines natural born subject - there was no such thing as a natural born citizen at common law.

Natural born citizen was defined in Emerich Vattel's "Law of Nations".

Neither a Natural born subject nor a naturalized subject ....

Neither a Natural born subject nor a naturalized subject could ever grow up to be KING. This is why Black's is not comparable. Everyone born in England was a subject to the King. What did he care, it was only more people to collect taxes and fight in his wars.

Our founding fathers were worried about infiltration and especially British subjects wheedling their way into power and then undermining everything they fought for in the Revolutionary War. They most clearly were concerned with people having been born with dual loyalties getting into the presidency and then taking us to war or using America with other countries interest in mind. And at worst they were worried about sabotage.

It's pretty simple. With England they didn't worry who they labeled a "natural born subject" because that person would never be in position to ever do any real harm.

The foundrs didn't use Black's Law

They used Vattels's Law of Nations.
See my comment above your's in the post.
And the Constitution is NOT a dictionary. I can't stand when people say the Constitution doesn't define anything. That is a really ridiculous argument and shows a level of ignorance a Liberty advocate should have left behind long ago.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Amendment XIV, Section 1,

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

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.

In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[4] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

Naturalized citizens are NOT natural born citizens

Hello? McFly? Are you paying attention? This amendment does not apply to or effect the Natural born clause


are you caucasian?



Oh yeah were both of your parents US citizens at the time of your birth?
I asked and you didn't answer.

McCain was not eligible IMO.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

How many likeminded people do you wish to exclude?

Do you know how many people you exclude with your interpretation of citizenship? What is the big deal? Are not the actions of the individual more important than their place of birth? What if a couple travels while the wife is pregnant have problems and unwantingly gives birth in Canada before crossing the bridge? How archaic! You mean to tell me that if his parents petitioned for citizenship before his birth that he would be somehow "magically" more of a citizen "born in America" then if they waited until after he was born?
Why do you place so much importance on the word 'Natural born citizen"? What about other parts of the Constitution which, without doubt, no longer reflect the ideals of the Constitution? The Pentagon is un-Constitutional is it not by original definition? Are not Income Taxes un-Constitutional? And yet you focus on something as insignificant as Natural born citizen that can be perverted in many different ways? What if a women has a Caesarean birth? Is that Natural?

the big deal

is that it's yet another little piece chipped away.
out of three hundred million people i suspect we could find someone that meets the natural born requirement.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Hope not>

If he is than he has dual citizenship. lol
I have learned not to make any such claim on documents. Instead there should be the option of free inhabitant.

Too bad.

It doesn't really matter what you believe. The courts Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents". I guess you didn't read that part. You only want to read what you want. Rubio, if he runs, will still get elected.

SCrew that interpretation

I am a libertarian leaning republican aka ron paul republican. I was born in TX. My parents are from El Salvador. I consider myself a natural born citizen because I was born in the US. if i want to run for president. I have the right to run according to the constitution. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

let me ask you this, were they naturalized at the time of your

birth? If they were, then you would be a natural born citizen. If they are citizens at the time of your birth no matter where they were born or where they came from, then you being born to citizens are by nature "natural born". Then you can be president all you want.

so....support and stand by the constituion when it suits you

unfortunately that's typical and why we are in this mess. If you don't like it then amend it

I will vote for you.

You are truly an naturally born American.

Were your parents

Both US citizens at the time of your birth? If they were you are a natural born citizen. If they were not you can believe what you want but you are not.


November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Before Constitution the articles of Confederation define citizen

You keep going back to the Constitution forgetting the Articles of Confederation. They define citizenship in simpler terms.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, "the free inhabitants" of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

I prefer this definition, which perhaps means 47% of American, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives are not entitled to all privileges and immunities.

As a spin artist you aren't doing too well

Why don't you go back even further? Maybe plant your ass on the Magna Carta or the big bang theory?

We are dealing with Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.And it has been defined in Minor v Happerset even if you want to plug you ears ,turn on teletubbies and chant nnnn nnn nnn nnn nnn no! It is what it is.


November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Rubio Heads To Iowa

Oh please, don't post this garbage here.

I do not support Marco Antonio Rubio, but this is ridiculous. He was born in Miami (Jus soli). Therefore he is an American. Some say Obama wasn't born on American soil, doesn't matter, his mother was American (jus sanguinis).
It wasn't until after the Civil war that (Jus soli) became the law of the land.
Please don't mislead people into the trap of appearing like fools.

Sorry you are on the losing side of this one iehuvihs


On page 24, Rubio writes:

"I was born on May 28, 1971. My sister, Veronica, was born the following year. My mother and father were starting over again as parents in the country they now called home (the U.S.)."

"My parents had lived in America for nearly two decades."

"And in 1975, they, too, became citizens of the United States."

Minor v. Happersett Revisited



November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

What's your point.

Andrew Jackson's parents were immigrants from Ireland.

Andrew Jackson faught in the Revolutionary war and was

grandfathered in. By definition he was one of the first American Citizens