- Click here for the article.
Here's the a bit from the article:
Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio's Cuban immigrant parents did not become U.S. citizens until 1975.
That’s convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."
. . . Birthers rely on various passages to back up their argument. One is the treatise The
Law of Nations by Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, which they say influenced the founding fathers. "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens," Vattel wrote.
They also cite the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the 1875 case Minor vs. Happersett, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to persons who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.
"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, "the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen."
The article points out that Rubio took the claim seriously enough - they go back at least to 2011 - to prepare a legal argument stating that he is a "natural born citizen according to the Constitution. It is contained in his motion to dismiss the lawsuit against his eligibility.
- Click here for it.
I'll note briefly that in page 3, Rubio argues that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the lawsuit forward. They argue - among other things - that standing requires that the plaintiff demonstrate a special injury, which he has not suffered.
More on this as the semester progresses.
