Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Marco Rubio Announces Presidential Campaign Even Though He Is Constitutionally Ineligible

Written by:

Published on: April 13, 2015

According to Breitbart, Marco Rubio is set to launch his presidential campaign on Monday, April 13, 2015. The author of the notorious “Gang of Eight” Immigration bill has been the subject of two Breitbart interviews. However, the question of Rubio’s eligibility to hold the highest office in the nation was not presented to Rubio to allow him the opportunity to quell his questionable eligibility, if possible.

In a previous Breitbart article by Javier Manjarres, the eligibility of Rubio was questioned with Manjarres citing a 2011 Congressional Research Service report that stated, “the weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural-born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to US citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth’, either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to US citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for US citizenship ‘at birth’.” The quoted report section also indicated that a person who was born an “alien” and progressed through the naturalization process would not be considered “natural born” since they were not a citizen by birth or at birth.

Interesting the CRS would publish this in 2011, after Obama was elected and before the run up to the 2012 presidential campaign, in direct conflict with the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1790 by the First Congress establishing/clarifying natural-born citizens. As so eloquently pointed out by Publius Huldah, this act establishes that “minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized” – meaning they are not natural-born citizens.

Wikipedia, while not considered a truly reliable source, states Marco Rubio was born on May 23, 1971, to “Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia” who were Cubans that “immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as US citizens in 1975.”

The framers of the Constitution did not define what constituted a natural-born citizen because they all knew exactly what the term meant. As Publius points out, we don’t have to define pizza because everyone knows what a pizza is. However, it seems many want to subscribe to a less than definite natural born citizen definition to suit their own agenda.

Everyone should know the Constitutional requirements of the President of the United States; but, let’s review what the Constitution states in Article II, Section 1.

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

While the term “natural-born” citizen is not defined. It is clear the framers knew what it meant and distinguished it from being a “citizen” through any other means. Despite the framers all being born on the soil that became the united States, the newly formed country needed to have a leader with total allegiance to the nation going into the future under the establishment of a constitutional republic. Being born “subjects” of the British crown, no one in the new country could claim “natural-born” citizen status; they became “citizens” instead of subjects upon gaining independence. Therefore, a qualifying clause was included in order that a “citizen” of the new nation could serve as president since the devotion to the new nation was forged when risking their very lives in revolution against the British crown – or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution. Additionally, “a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

So, the question remains: if the framers knew the definition; it existed in Vattel’s “Law of Nations“, Vattel’s book was in the hands of framers as pointed out by Publius Huldah, the framer’s added a “qualifying clause” indicating they knew what it meant, and the First Congress established/clarified the term in the Naturalization Act of 1790, why would individuals cite immigration law established afterward on “citizens” and a 2011 CRS report that contradicts the original intent?

“Birthers,” the term used to describe some of us who question a candidate’s eligibility based on the “natural born” citizen requirement, are looking back in history toward our founders, the framers of the Constitution and their references that distinguish between “citizen,” “natural born” citizen, and “naturalized” citizen and establish eligibility criteria for the highest office in the nation to determine whether or not potential candidates meet the criteria. There has been substantial evidence to indicate the current occupant of the people’s house does not satisfy all the constitutional criteria for the office by being born of one US citizen parent in the State of Hawaii, which, by the way, is questionable. The eligibility of Ted Cruz to satisfy the “natural born” citizen requirement has also been challenged.

So, Sen. Marco Rubio needs to clearly establish his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States in order to receive the party nomination. Neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens of the United States until 1975, four years after Rubio’s birth. Under this scenario, one could acquaint it to the “anchor baby born today being elected president upon reaching the age of thirty-five and living within the US for fourteen years.” Is Marco Rubio comfortable in claiming “natural born” citizen status in order to run for president? Clearly, he is. But, Rubio is ineligible to run and hold the office of the President of the United States. If Obama is hailed as the “first” black president, one could say Rubio is the “first” anchor baby contender. If Rubio is a supporter, protector and defender of the Constitution, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

Rubio’s supporters, along with those of Ted Cruz, will vehemently defend their candidate’s natural born citizen status regardless of the evidence to the contrary based on history indicating the framers did not subscribe to the natural-born citizen status as being anything but a child born of two citizen parents. Those who admit neither of these two candidates truly meets that all important requirement will declare that “it’s our turn,” “the Dems did it with Obama, so can we,” or “they would be better than Obama.” The problem in all of this remains consistency with the law.

The Constitution of the united States of America is the Supreme Law of the land. It was written with the understanding of the term “natural born citizen” based on a nation with a republican form of government, not the feudal government system of Europe where individuals were subjects. No amendment to the Constitution has been passed altering the requirements of the eligibility of an individual to hold the office of the President. So, the understanding of the term by the framers remains intact. The definition of natural born citizen is being usurped by both political parties to satisfy an agenda.

One could ask themselves this question. If the requirement of natural born citizen did not mean an individual born to two citizen parents, why has Congress attempted to change that requirement eight times beginning in 2003? Could it be that those who are challenging eligibility are right and Congress knows it excludes individuals like Obama, Rubio, Jindal and Cruz? And, why have not the Democrats yelled to high heaven against Cruz, who has already entered the 2016 presidential bid, and Rubio, who is announcing his candidacy?

The Democrats cannot protest as it would confirm that Obama would be ineligible thereby exposing the criminal, lawless, treasonous activities of the Democratic National Committee, key Democrats in Congress, such as Pelosi, the Republican National Committee, key Republicans in Congress, RINOs and complicity of the state governments in allowing Obama on the ticket, not to mention the numerous judges at every level who have upheld Obama’s eligibility. And, why would judges refuse to hear valid legal arguments opposing Obama’s eligibility if the definition of “natural born citizen” did not mean an individual born to two citizen parents?

Judges have denied hearing the case based on “standing” and “establishment of harm.” Isn’t every US citizen harmed by an individual holding the office of the President when eligibility is in question? Shouldn’t every US citizen have “standing” in a case such as this? It would mean the President has divided loyalty and would possibly not conduct business within the confines of the Constitution nor have the best interest of the country at heart. Are we not actually witness to that with Obama? Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?

Let’s not forget that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who first challenged the eligibility of Obama, but for some reason ceased their focus on his eligibility even openly endorsing Obama after Hillary dropped out of the presidential race in 2008. It has been reported that Judge Andrew Hanen, the judge who issued an injunction against Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty by unilateral action, has received information regarding the ineligibility of Obama to hold the office of the president. So, Obama’s inability to hold the office based on the natural born citizen eligibility criteria is continuing to be challenged, as it should. So, why are current candidates who have announced their bid for president not being challenged on eligibility, regardless of party affiliation, by citizens and the media alike?

While the issue of “natural born citizen” remains contentious, it should be noted that when choosing a candidate for the highest office in our nation’s government it is best to err on the side of caution in defining the term. The natural born citizen requirement does not guarantee that the individual elected as president wouldn’t engage in deleterious activities, crimes, lawlessness or treason. It does, however, follow the law in the most strictest sense thereby removing all doubt as to eligibility and avoiding a constitutional crisis as has been apparent with Obama, who also uses a stolen Social Security number. While Rubio and Cruz may not receive the nomination, the eligibility to contend based on all requirements established in the Constitution should be firmly established on all candidates.

Since the “natural born citizen” requirement seems to be changed, by mere action, with the running and election of Obama, a CRS report issued in 2011 and now the running of questionably eligible candidates whose status goes unchallenged, instead of a Constitutional amendment, there will come a time when a “naturalized” citizen will take the stage to assert themselves as a potential presidential candidate. While many would scoff at that scenario, there are many who see it as a possibility when an individual is born of parents who were not naturalized at the time of his birth is allowed to bid for the office of the president and an individual who had dual citizenship, until renouncing it within the last two years, and who only had one citizen-parent at the time of his birth is also allowed to contend for president. Discount the scenario, if you will; but, with the attempts of Congress to change the requirement of presidential eligibility and the CRS allowed to issue a report to establish “natural born” citizen criteria, who is to say that will not happen in the future. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and the true understanding of the framers’ intent is now just a suggestion, is being ignored, and actively being targeted for change.

It is time for all candidates for the office of the President to establish their eligibility to run under all three criteria and for it to be presented to the people. With all the shady criminal, lawless, treasonous and deleterious activities being pursued by Congress, federal agencies, Obama, and some state governments, the nation can no longer trust the national committees or state governments to truly vet candidates.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media