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).

Comment viewing options

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

I agree 100%

The only document that gives a clear definition of citizenship is the Declaration of Independence.

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.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4
He (the KIng) has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

If you think that you can govern people and believe that they won't want equal recognition as citizens, then you are a fool. The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution and was replaced, the Constitution is the second constitution of the United States and it has been overwritten.
In fact Patrick Henry was right when he refused to go to the constitution convention saying he smelt a rat. The Constitution gives the Federal government too much power and our current situation in the United States proves it.


citizen is not the same thing as Natural Born

Otherwise they wouldn't need two different terms within the constitution itself. Also, there are other sources

I heard Rubio was the chosen one over a year ago probably longer

from a website that tracks the movement of the stars and constellations.

Haha! It's true! He's the chosen one!

Then again, so was Romney! How'd that turn out for the occult/hidden ones?

even Teddy Roosevelt disdained pandas

there are a million others

there are a million others like rubio that they can field and put their propaganda machine behind.

as long as people fail to do their own research these things will continue to happen


he could be better stopped by

he could be better stopped by ignoring him, rather than using more hysterical 'birther' claims. more intellect is the key. this stuff just empowers these guys by making people look stupid.

They aren't "claims" asshole,

They aren't "claims" asshole, it is our Law.

But a quick stop at Birth Certificates R Us should take care of


The Hawaii model comes highly recommended.

You are correct about this

You are correct about this but Minor v. Happersett is not the "controlling case" - it never decided on the meaning. Nor do SC rulings have any legitimate effect on the meaning of the Constitution.

I would encourage everyone to read these two articles as they prove beyond any doubt that Obama, Rubio, Chester A. Arthur are NOT eligible for the Presidency.



Minor v. Happersett

No one is attempting to change the meaning of the constitution, so what's your point? The SC can and does rule on how the constitution applies to a set of facts or circumstances before the court. And they do from time to time attempt to ascertain the intent of the founders when they used the specific words that make up the constitution.
Thanks for the links, I'll check it out.

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

My point is that even if the

My point is that even if the SC ruled that Obama or Rubio were qualified, they would still not be qualified because the constitution says otherwise.



posted a couple days ago

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016



Am I missing something?

I dislike Rubio with a passion as he is my Senator, but wasn't he born in Miami, Florida on May 28, 1971.

Please elaborate.

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

No one contends that Rubio is an American citizen.

He is NOT a natural-born citizen eligible for the presidency.

In order to be a natural-born citizen, you not only have to be born in America but your parents must be citizens as well. Rubio is born to immigrants. The founding fathers were very well aware of this and wanted citizens to be 3 generations deep in order to be eligible for the presidency.

Therefore Marco Rubio's children would be considered natural-born citizens and thus eligible for the presidency, but not Marco. Hope that helps.


Benjamin Franklin, by your logic was not an American citizen. His father was born in Ecton, Northamptonshire, England.
Jefferson's mother was born in London.
Patrick Henry's father was an immigrant from Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
Even worse, Alexander Hamilton was born in Charlestown, the capital of the island of Nevis, in the Leeward Islands; Nevis was then one of the British West Indies. Hamilton was born out of wedlock to Rachel Faucette Buck, a married woman of partial French Huguenot descent, and James A. Hamilton, the fourth son of the Scottish laird Alexander Hamilton of Grange, Ayrshire.
In fact all the founding fathers were originally British citizens.


which is why the founders worded the Constitution thus:

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...

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

He's not even a citizen. If

He's not even a citizen. If his parents were citizens of another country when he was born, he is a citizen of that country - he is not an American citizen. the 14th amendment is practically a dead amendment at this point. You are either naturalized or a 'natural born citizen' - that is all there is.

Wong Kim decision is wrong and has confused the hell out of everything just like most SC decisions. There are no such things as "anchor-babies" under our Constitution.

Read the links I provided above - one is written by a retired lawyer and the other a political science professor.

Well said!

That was as clear an explanation as can be given!

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Latins 4

That approach may or may not work, but I think we should also go the high ground and compile those actions that make him ineligible as a Ron Paul like Liberty Candidate.

You dislike him with a passion and he is your Senator. Please take the time to elaborate. We need to show just why he would not represent our best interest and is prone to compromise and sell out and/or the ideaology is not there. You may be able to help compile a great list and then keep us posted. We need to watch him like a hawk.

He has the looks, personality...veneer to be groomed very well to look like something he is not. He may be the Republicans best next card for VP or even President.

And on another thread talking about voting blocks here there are some disparaging things being said about Hispanics mainly because of the illegal drain thru welfare and border babies and hospitals. I hope you will help change perceptions. I worked with Small Business owner Hispanic associations in California. They, of course, have the same goals and aspirations for our country as anybody. Plus they are influential in communities, leaders who go out and talk to schools, work on cultural exchanges, etc. Latins4RonPaul, here as well, IS or can be a liberty voting block.
PS. Nobody knows where O'Bama was born and he is President. Rules aren't followed anymore which is part of the problem.


It has nothing to do with

It has nothing to do with where you are born. In order to be president you must be a natural born citizen - born of parents who are citizens at the time of your birth.

In a republic, citizenship is acquired through your parents, not place of birth. 14th amendment has nothing to do with it. the 14th said "those born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US are citizens". slaves were born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. those born of foreign parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US but are subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's country.

Anchor babies is a moot issue - they are not citizens because they are born in our borders. If a tourist comes over to the US and gives birth, their child is not a citizen. If US citizens go abroad and have a child, the child is a US citizen not a citizen of the country they were born in.

Wong Kim has confused the whole issue. The leading Justice in that case was appointed by Chester A. Arthur. Arthur was also not a natural born citizen and tried to hid that fact. When it came time for the decision, that justice had to make a completely bogus ruling or his appointment would be illegitimate.

Whoever wants to vote my

Whoever wants to vote my posts down, have the balls to put your argument up here and lets see who is right. I'll bet its me.

You are missing something

The info you need to start educating yourself is right there in my post. I don't expect everyone to understand a legal citation, but google minor v. happersett, rubio eligible, etc. Good luck.

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Yes he was born in the united

Yes he was born in the united states. He doesn't quality because both his parents weren't citizens until after he was born. So no he is not a natural born citizen.

pretty sure it won't matter a bit

in 4 years.
precedence is everything.

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

You're exactly right - the precedence has been accepted.

In addition, it's unreasonable to think Americans would stand firm on the "natural born" issue while ignoring other violations of the Constitution, such as the loss of our fourth amendment by way of the NDAA.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Stop Rubio Now!

What matters is the LEGAL precedent, and that is found in the citation already posted. What will really be funny is the libs, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, etc. suddenly playing the birther role.
Read my book. It's almost as good as Larken's!


“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Precedents don't change the

Precedents don't change the constitution.

i personally agree

but if the Constitution mattered to our rulers, this wouldn't be in question.

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

down vote it all you want

mc cain was ineligible.
obama was and is ineligible.
natural born requirement, if ever actually heard by the courts, will be irrelevant as we have a history of ignoring it.

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

McCain was eligible. His

McCain was eligible. His parents were citizens at the time of his birth. Obama is not.

Fuck the courts, we tell the courts what the constitution means - they are our creation, not the other way around.

mccain was not born in the us

and a resolution does not change that. in fact, it confirms the opposite.

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