Skip to comments.Gingrich: Marco Rubio Will Be on the Short List For Anybody Who Becomes our Nominee
Posted on 09/24/2011 12:42:07 PM PDT by Talkradio03
At the Republican Presidential Straw Poll Event being held today in Orlando, Florida. Gingrich talked (this afternoon)about Republican Vice Presidential candidates, he says he's known Rubio long before he became Florida Speaker of the House and he would be on the short-list for all of our candidates, including his. Video
(Excerpt) Read more at hapblog.com ...
But I don't even think we need Rubio to win in Florida anymore
I do think Pubs ought to look again at Newt before just caving into the DC establ. Newt’s new Contract might generate enough thought by Indies et al that they too would consider him. He is not only brilliant but a real American patriot.
Cain/Rubio IMHO are UNBEATABLE. Both come from humble beginnings. Both have little to no baggage. Both are amazingly articulate honest focused and speak from their heart. We have got to stop the MSM train of Romney Perry. All Cain needs is face time and money. Heaven equals an Obama Cain debate. Can you imagine a debate between Biden and Rubio ?
Great choice. One worked for The Federal Reserve and the other is pro-open borders. Many in FL know Rubio’s record in the FL House in blocking an AZ type law.
I would never voted for anyone who worked for the Fed or Goldman Sachs.
Well, that does it for me. IF Newt is this unaware the guy can’t legally be VP...then again my original thoughts of Newt remain the same. He’s fun to watch in the debates...but he isn’t fit to be president.
Newt''s the Merlin of the Republican Party.
He certainly would warrant a prestigious cabinet position at the very least.
I disagree. A freshman senator next in line for president??? Yeah, freshman senators make such great executives!
If Newt said it, it just makes me suspicious of Rubio. lol
If Rubio was born here and his parent was legally here, that is probably the working decision the supremes would use for “natural born.”. I am scared the supremes at this point would even rule an anchor baby to be a NBC. But I will settle for a person born here to at least one legal resident. I think that’s the best we will get.
( I still think Obama was born in Canada to a non citizen and a teen too young to confer USA citizenship)
And neither does Marco Rubio...2 citizen parents is the key...founders intent and court cases confirmed that. IF Rubio is truly a man who takes his oath to the constitution seriously...he needs to blow this out of the water.
I would love to see some push to have southern representation in the WH. The dixie states have been a very reliable voting block, but the last Republican to even be on the ticket from Dixie was Andrew Johnson, under Lincoln. And the Republican party has never had a nominee for President from Dixie. It would be nice to see if someone from a southern state could shake things up.
As a Texan, I dont consider Texas to be part of “The South.” There is a lot of Texas, especially in the piney woods, that is southern, but Texas can also be considered western, plains, or even midwest. I would like to see a Texas push in the House though.
How about Newt for Press Secretary. Just to see him answer questions everyday.
I thought he wasn’t a Natural Born Citizen....don’t tell me that we are going to be like the Democrats and ignore that. Soon we will be electing a guy who was not even born in the U.S. (besides Obama). I am talking a guy who says he was born in Mexico and is running and wins. The founders wanted two generations of Americans before allowing to run. This is true right?
We could hold the WH for the next 16 years with Rubio as VP.
I’m with you on this. We don’t need another presidential or vice-presidential candidate whose natural born citizenship is in question. Born of two U.S. citizen parents and born in the U.S.A. That’s it. Bright line.
I’m suprised that Newt does not realize Marco Rubio, good guy that he is is not a natural born citizen. He is not eligible to be VP or President. If they try to put him on the ticket its going to cause a bru ha ha and more lawsuits. Not good for Republicans.
In my view, Marco Rubio is no more qualified to be President or Vice President than Hussein was when he was immaculated. I like Marco Rubio right where he is, and I look forward to enough older Senators retiring that the day comes when Marco is one of the Senior Republican leaders in the Senate.
We need to send him reinforcements, not take him away from the job he was elected to do.
Marco Antonio Rubio
May 28, 1971 (1971-05-28) (age 40)
I disagree. There is more rock star shine on Rubio than there is substance. He has made some disturbing statements and moves in his 9 month tenure as Senator. In a Meet the Press appearance, he opposed the Ryan plan when it was first unveiled. He was one of the first on board -— along with Lieberman, Graham and McCain -— to agree with Ubama in “recognizing” the NTC in Libya as the legitimate government. These, and other moves, lead me to conclude that he is not as bright as first surmised, has no clear and steady convictions, and is alarmingly immature re foreign policy.
The thing is, there is no precedent, regardless of what the birthers will tell you. They cite an old State Supreme court decision that parsed definitions, but the fact is state courts are leagally "inferior" to Federal courts as are lower courts to SCOTUS, so ther is not precedent to follow (or overturn). Unless somebody can cite a SCOTUS decision, then it's all meaningless. Experience shows that they aren't even going to touch the issue, and I suspect if they did they would rule that anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.
Both parents born in Cuba one in ‘27 other in ‘31. Father was naturalized citizen long after Marco’s birth. Marco Rubio is a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN...to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN...both parents at the time of his birth must be US Citizens. HE DOES NOT QUALIFY.
I had also thought he was brilliant. Then, following some great articles on energy and particularly geothermal energy, he sat on a couch with Pelosi and pontificated about the anthropogenic vector of global warming. Then, he supported Dede Scozzafava in NY’s 23rd district. Later yet, he said that he had been wrong and had known nothing of Scozzafava at the time of his endorsement of her. That he could say that leads me to believe that he could say anything. This is not at odds with this ability to foresee things or his deep knowledge about lots of arguments, but to me, it’s a deal-breaker.
I know Newt’s got baggage but I still like him....
Marco Rubio was born in the United States but neither of his parents were citizens at his birth....both were still technically Cuban citizens but residing in the US.
Please cite the court case that requires someone to have two citizen parents in order to be eligible to be President or Vice-President. Thank you.
That’s all simply your opinion. There is no precedent, since SCOTUS hasn’t ruled, and the Consitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen”. IMHO SCOTUS would go with the simplest definition, that anyone born a citizen is a “natural born citizen”, if they ever even agreed to hear it. Unless there was some evidence that the person was not a citizen at birth, they likely would just decide to not hear it and allow him to assume office.
You might add that they have to be SCOTUS cases. State and lower federal courts are not precedent for SCOTUS.
Then expect that a baby born here in the U.S. while his foreign parents were here visiting on vacation will return, spend the required 14 years in the U.S., and then become president of the United States of America.
Natural born citizenship as defined by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court binding precedent in Minor vs. Happersett (1874), that is, born a US citizen of US citizen parents at the time of birth.
And I have many other articles which explain NBC.
You are correct, but you may as well be telling FReepers that Jesus didn’t die for their sins. Good luck with that...
Where does native born appear in the Constitution?
Does the natural born clause applied to the VP? I thought it only applied to POTUS.
Rubio was born a US citizen, but unfortunately, he is not a “natural born citizen” who is Constitutionally eligible to ever run for POTUS.
I’m defining “natural born citizenship” as being born in the USA to two American citizens. Here is a good article explaining that precedent, which is still in effect.
Rubio’s parents were not both US citizens at his birth. (Nor were Obama’s.)
So, I think Rubio could be VP, but not POTUS.
Being born in the U.S. makes one a U.S. citizen, but not necessarily a natural born citizen, which requires US citizen parents at the time of birth. The Founding Fathers specifically put that requirement in the Constitution to prevent someone having dual allegiance from becoming President.
Marco Rubio was born in the US, which makes him a US citizen. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth. Therefore, Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen and not eligible for the office of President or Vice President.
Although not defined in the Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5 specifically requires, not just citizenship, but natural born citizenship.
The Supreme Court binding precedent in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) provides the Constitutional definition of natural born citizenship.
Why would you are anyone else want to go against the Founders intent. I like Marco Rubio but I am not willing to go with him against the constitution. This is what the libtards want and need us to do have someone like Marco Rubio that isn't constitutionally qualified to be VP or President.
The Supreme Court binding precedent in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) provides the Constitutional definition of natural born citizenship.
Put your thinking cap on: VP can easily become president therefore of course the VP has to qualify exactly the same as the qualifications for president. Marco Rubio is legally qualified to be a senator but not VP.
Illegal alien protectors, shamnesty, immigration "normalization" proponents are an anathema to conservatism, period!!
It took less than 15minutes for the nutcase birthers to come out of the woodwork.
Minor vs. Happersett
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Why does citing binding US Supreme court precedent make anyone a “nutcase birther?”
As I understand, the derogatory term “birther” applies to those who doubt that Obama was born in the US. I gave no opinion on that whatsoever.
I gave a cite and a Supreme Court precedent that says a “natural born citizen” is born in the USA of 2 citizen parents.
Instead of name calling, could you please provide the US Supreme Court case in which that precedent was overruled?
I agree the MSM will take him apart. The GOP needs a well known person who will not be defined by the MSM and has gravitas. If you just look at the history of gOp VP picks from Nixon in’52, Agnew ‘68, Dole ‘76, Quayle ‘88, Palin ‘08 it becomes obvious. Than you contrast them with Lodge, Bush, Kemp and Cheney then you know what to expect.
Except it doesn't. See my post above.
NATURAL BORN CLARITY
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to parents (plural) who were citizens. (For more detailed analysis of this issue, see my two previous reports, here and here.)
The Court also noted that the citizenship of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didnt need to be resolved. The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue.
Such avoidance and restraint were called for. In order for the Court to act, there must be a genuine controversy with regard to the laws in question. Since there was no controversy before the Court involving a 14th Amendment citizenship issue, the Court decided the issue on other grounds, specifically Article 2 Section 1.
Now we turn to US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were citizens. In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically construing only the 14th Amendment. And here lies the rub of clarity:
If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didnt reach it in Minor.)
No they didn't. Try reading the freakin' ruling. It took me all of five minutes.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts
Wow, is this twisted.
The issue was, “Was the woman in this case a citizen.”
The woman in this case was ascertained to be a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, since she was born here of 2 citizen parents.
Since she filled the higher requirement of “natural born citizen,” the court did not need to determine whether she was a mere citizen under the 14th Amendment.
That was the issue to be left to determine in a future case- what constituted mere citizenship.
They simply refused to rule on the issue of what constituted a “natural born citizen” since she was in the former catagory. They left unadressed the status of people born here with non-citizen parents. Generally, SCOTUS only rules on what is needed to determine the case. So there is no precedent as to whether someone born here, with non-citizen parents is a “natural born citizen”.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
“They defined this class as those born in the US to parents (plural) who were citizens.
No they didn’t. Try reading the freakin’ ruling. It took me all of five minutes.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”
I did read it, and it takes more that 5 minutes.
Again, reread what you just posted. The court did not need to decide , “for the purposes of this case, if the woman, Minor, was a (mere) citizen. Since she had already qualified as a “natural born citizen” under Article 11, Section 1, there was no need for them to define what constitues a mere citizen. Obviously, as a “natural born citizen” she was a citizen.
The court is saying that it need not define mere citizenship to solve this particular case. This lady already met the higher standard.
Squeeky, that case is from the Court of Appeals in Indiana.
You may certainly take the stance that the US Supreme Court case re: Minor does not define “natural born citizen.” And I would argue the exact opposite.
But using an Indiana case to prove your point is weak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.