Even Senator Marco Rubio has been educated on the matter by several Constitutional scholars. This I know for certain as many have told me, and I suspect that fact might be a HUGE consideration as to why Rubio continues to demur from suggestions that he be chosen by presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney. (This despite polls that show a majority of folks who identify themselves as tea partiers — people who claim to want our government to return to its constitutional principles and should know better — want Rubio to be Romney’s VP. Go figure.)
Are they deliberately ignoring Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 or is it lack of education on the fundamentals of the Constitution that lead so many — including “tea party” citizens — to think men like Rubio and Jindal are eligible to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
So attorney Mario Apuzzo, an expert in such matters, spent quite a bit of time educating the Law & Order actor. (Is anyone catching the inference? Law and Order?)
Attorney Apuzzo’s explanation is detailed, comprehensive, scholarly and somewhat lengthy, and you can read the entire text of it here.
But for our purposes, I’ll cut to the chase with the final paragraphs that summarize Apuzzo’s argument for the actor Fred Thompson:
So, Minor confirmed the original definition of a “natural born Citizen” used by the Founders and Framers. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who are “citizens” of that country at the time of the child’s birth. To date, that definition has not been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only defines a “citizen of the United States) or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (construing the Fourteenth Amendment, only defined a “citizen of the United States”). Any other U.S. “citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty. So, today, a “natural born Citizen” is still a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. That definition continues to be the supreme law of the land until changed by constitutional amendment.
Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all not born to U.S. “citizen” parents (“natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at the time of their birth. Being born to just one U.S. “citizen” parent (Obama’s birth circumstance) is not sufficient because the child inherits through jus sanguinis from the one non-U.S. citizen parent a foreign allegiance and citizenship just as strong as if born to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents. Hence, Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are all not “natural born Citizens.” Rubio and Jindal, being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he too is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But what this means is that since Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are neither Article II “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” they are not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military or Vice-President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 31, 2012
You can be assured that if Rubio is chosen by Romney to be his running mate, there’ll be such a hew and cry (translation: “stink”) about it, they will regret ever having made the move. I can guarantee it. And it will cost them precious votes from the constitutional conservatives who should be the most motivated voters of all.