DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CARE ABOUT ELIGIBILITY?
by George Miller, Ventura County Tea Party
(Nov. 7, 2011) — Editor’s Note: In a discussion about the eligibility of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to serve as President or Vice President, the following email was sent to the president of the California Republican Assembly after she stated in an email that the U.S. Constitution states that one must be “born in the U.S.A.” to qualify as a “natural born Citizen:”
To Celeste Greig, President:
1. I assure you that I have read the Constitution VERY carefully, as well as related case law, founders’ papers and statutes, on the question under discussion. I have also read volumes on this and consulted with with real experts, such as Herb Titus, Mario Apuzzo and others, who specialize in eligibility. They are far more knowledgeable on the subject than Neocon media commentators for media companies dependent upon government goodwill and even Dr. John Eastman (who once told me that he doesn’t believe in the Tenth Amendment, which indicates that he is selective about the Constitution). Our experts have a very different version to tell.
2. Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the applicable passage, specifies 35+ years old, not 36 as you said. It says natural born citizen, NOT born in the U.S., NOT citizen. Do you know the difference? It does NOT say “the person should be over 36 years old and born in the U.S.,” or anything like it, as you stated.
By the way, John McCain was not born in the USA, was not even born in the Canal Zone- he was born in Colon, Panama. So, using your definition, he was/is not eligible. So why did you endorse him, then? Because of S 511, co-sponsored by “Barack Hussein Obama” and carrying no legal weight, according to its own verbiage? It’s probably good that we gave him a pass, since his father was serving his country abroad on John’s birth date. However, it does muddy the waters a bit.
It seems that Marco’s dad didn’t bother to become a citizen before Marco was born, even though he had ample opportunity and a red carpet rolled out by the US, to do so.
While the Constitution never got around to defining just what a natural born citizen is, it is crystal clear to objective legal experts that there is a definite difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.” As a matter of fact, “natural born citizen” is only mentioned once in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. “Citizen” is mentioned multiple times elsewhere.
3. Here is some clarification from a real expert, who has researched it extensively and actually knows what he is talking about:
Lots more backup in reserve. I assure you that I do not mouth off without checking these things first.
4. The Minor vs. Happersett ruling is the applicable case law precedent for natural born citizenship. It has been upheld continuously, notwithstanding Justia.com’s disgraceful scrubbing of references to it (detected, publicized and subsequently restored), or the fraudulent CRS memo on the subject, which misled unschooled Congress-critters, such as McClintock. Several of us have corresponded with Tom on the subject. He made himself look pretty foolish by parroting falsehoods fed to him, while ignoring educational materials we sent him. “Constitutional expert?” Maybe on some aspects of it, but not eligibility. You wouldn’t know he was an expert, from what I read of his words.
One would think that with hundreds of millions of actual natural born citizens, that we would not need to go so far afield to source good candidates. One would be wrong, evidently.
If CRA should be so foolish as to attempt to endorse such an ineligible candidate, I and others will oppose it. If it should go ahead and do it, I will leave CRA. If the Republican party should nominate an ineligible candidate. ditto. I will be far from the only one. Both organizations seem to have a penchant for endorsing/nominating ineligible candidates, as we saw in CA last year.