Comment

Comment by John Sauer on September 4, 2011 at 7:18pm

Amanda, I don't understand your comment. The Mariel boat lift occurred in 1980. Marco was born May 28, 1971. His parents were legal immigrants when Marco was born in the United States. Where do you want to go with your comment?

 

Comment by amanda choate on September 4, 2011 at 4:15pm

So Marco Rubio was an anchor baby? How did his parents get here? Were they Marielitas?

Comment by JL Gawlik on August 31, 2011 at 8:13pm

John, i did not challenge your post, just pointed out the truth and facts, many Americans who vote, should read the US Constitution and they should be very familiar with it all. I have seen these arguments pop up and they are just more progressive mud-slinging. Funny thing, i recently had a thought... Harvard was trying to deport Obama's father when they learned about his 'American' marriage and a baby. They knew he was married in Kenya. That would be a felony in many states, i think where Harvard is located. So i looked up law and to my disappointment, Hawaii is one of the very few states that bigamy is NOT a felon! I understand the 'Natural Born' to be the legal wording in that time to mean, they must be born on USA soil, be it a state or territory. I consult Robert G Natelson in the meaning of our US Constitution. *My avatar* He also writes at the Tenth Amendment Center and and also the Independence Institute. IF Barack Obama was vetted as a legal Presidential candidate and also John McCain, they both passed, there should be know question for these two honorable patriot Americans. 

 

We have massive corruption, waste and fraud all through our government from local, state, federal levels, and that is what we as American citizens need to get back in check, back to a government OF, BY, and FOR the people.

 

WE THE PEOPLE.

Comment by John Sauer on August 31, 2011 at 7:00pm

Mr. Gawlik you are correct. Thank you for challenging my post. Both Rubio and Jindal were both born in the US. I was not. It may take an act of congress to settle the question of Presidential eligibility. I refer to a WND article that states ["There is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That's right – some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a 'natural-born citizen.'"
Lewis explains the logic by citing a May 22 WND report examining the issue, which noted, "While the Constitution does not define 'natural-born citizen,' there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean som...."
That report examined both Rubio and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, both of whose parents were legal U.S. residents but not legal U.S. citizens when the future politicians were born.] The above link referencing "two American citizens" discusses the "natural born issue" in the context of BO's eligibility and describes a short-lived congressional definition of "natural born citizen". Since both parents of Rubio and Jindal were legal residents of and living in the US when the future politicians were born they both pass the "birther test", in my estimation.

Comment by JL Gawlik on August 31, 2011 at 8:36am

The Constitution imposed certain qualifications on the President and Vice President. Must be 35 years of age and a 'natural born citizen'. Essentially a 'natural born citizen' is one who meet either one of the two requirements: First a person qualified if born within the United States or within American Territory, even if the parents were aliens. Alternatively, a individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual's father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities

Both Jindal and Rubio are qualified. Go read the US Constitution. That article is erroneous.