Posted on 08/29/2011 6:07:11 PM PDT by rodguy911
Three hours ago over 200 eager supporters where at the Marriot Hotel in Key Largo to great America's great conservative hope Marco Rubio. Entering the doorway first of the panoramic third floor of the Marriot overlooking Fla. Bay with a huge thunderstorm in process was our House of Rep. lady Ileana ros Lehtinen. She stood in the doorway and posed for photos. I got to greet her as she entered and soon sheer pandemoneum erupted as Sen. Marco Rubio entered the doorway. Before he could get into the room he met and greeted dozens of well wishers, posed for photos and generally exuded so much charisma it literally filled the Room. As he entered the room he was approached by well wishers, fans,constituents former politicians and present, and posed for photos with everyone. My turn came up and I told him that he has an army of Freepers on FreeRepublic just waiting to support him and that he is a rock star with endless support on the worldwide web. He thanked me but said he wasn't quite that great. I said he was.
I sincerely feel that if Palin were to run and win the nomination, Rubio would be in the top 3 of possible names. You get FL, Hispanics, full conservative, and an absolutely EXCELLENT (if not THE BEST) and MOST ELOQUENT speaker (without a teleprompter).
He was in the Fla Senate for years.He ran it for a while and was a true rock star.even there there was never any question that he was headed for the top. While there he learned a lot about legislating.
The bottom line with Marco is reality,charisma,believability,sincerity,--he's just the genuine article.His ideas for the future of the country are clear concise,not all tangled up in legal ease or political bs but all straight forward just what people are looking for,straight talk.
He was born here in the USA, he is a ‘natural’ citizen. Period!
Oh; my bad.
That pesky U.S. Constitution and it's clear intent are bunk; I should have known better.
(Break your med's in half next time)
Get a grip, Newbie.
We now have a potus that does not qualify and yet was certified anyway.
IMHO,at the very least this sets a precedent for future candidates that cannot be changed,overruled or even challenged.
I blame zeros candidacy and presidency on the gutless Supreme Court who ruled by not ruling. They turned down case after case that would have looked into zeros legitimacy as a candidate.
So now that its our turn to run a candidate that does not have parents who were born here what will they do? Its already been done IMHO,Nothing!
If they are willing to overlook zero as not being an NBC how can they legally come down on Marco?
Oh; like every "anchor baby" then would fit the stated Criteria, in your estimation?
Sure.....
We have a state rep. down here and he said the same thing that if Marco runs for Governor after his term as Senator the Presidency will be a much easier trip.
You may have a point. I don’t know if the NBC section that requires both parents to have been born here as well has ever been tested by the Supremes. It probably should be.
Do your really think the State-Run-Media, and the ACLU would not CHALLENGE the Candidacy of a Conservative who was not born of two U.S. Citizen parents, and take it through a Liberal location Court chain to have him ruled ineligible?
Make no mistake, if a Conservative was headed for POTUS or even VPOTUS, you can bet the farm the Courts would hear the cases and not use "Standing" as an excuse in that case.
Follow the money.....
One of the problems our state rep brought up is that he would be leaving his term as Senator early leaving the same bad taste in voters minds that Palin supposedly did(which I don’t buy)but many think its too early for him to run as VP. I guess we shall see.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
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.
The Twelfth Amendment states:
"No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Since OJ likely got away with murder, should we not prosecute others who committ murder? Your arguement is ridiculous. Just because the left and the press ignore the constitutional requirement doesn’t mean the requirement is waived in the future. I love Rubio, but until we get a court opinion delineating the meaning of natural born vs native born those of us who choose to uphold the constitution should not be too thrilled about a Rubio candidacy.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
Rubio can be Secretary of Labor or, if we don't eliminate it as we should, HUD Secretary. A dozen supreme court cases used, and Minor v. Hapersett established as legal precedence the definition of what our framers all understood. In the words of Chief Justice Morrison Waite:
“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.”
Minor v. Happersett dealt with alleged privileges conferred by the 14th Amendment. Waite therefore built his decision upon the only “undoubted” class of citizen mentioned in the Constitution before the 14th Amendment, which never mentioned the sex, or enhanced the privileges of citizens. For that he needed to affirm the common law definition of a natural born citizen of which Mrs. Minor was a member. That established precedence, as Obama’s close associates knew well enough to cause them, in October of 2008, to remove references to Minor v. Happersett in citations in other Supreme Court cases from Obama supporter and Harvard classmate's site, justia.com. (Thanks again Leo Donofrio).
To any who doubt, do take the time to read the case. It is a fine example of clarity, even with a few obvious errors that have no effect on the decision.
We could pave the path for the eligibility of Marco Rubio with a constitutional amendment. Article II Section 1 has resisted twenty six attempts at amendment, eight or nine since 2002, a couple of which were probably attempts to by John Conyers to make Obama eligible. Orrin Hatch made no secret of the objective of his proposed Art. II amendment - to make Schwarzenegger eligible. Obama and McCaskill’s SB 2678 in Feb. 2008 was clearly aimed at making McCain eligible, because McCain's candidacy proved cover for Obama's ineligibility. It was not initially posed as an amendment, though strong support might have warranted refiling the bill, had they wanted to face an eligible McCain. They knew there wasn't time, and that a law couldn't affect constitutional interpretation. McCain was born not on sovereign soil. Obama was not born to citizen parents, and every Senator, including Obama knows that violates our common law, and some probably knew that there was precedence.
If Marco Rubio fails to honor, preserve, and defend the Constitution he does not deserve to be called a conservative, or to be trusted as a legislator.
I thought a majority of the country accepted this already in 2008.
we would then demand(and the DBM could not hide that news very long) to see where he was born, who the real parents are etc. etc. etc.
I don't think the Democrap party could stand all the answers to all those questions.It would tear that party apart.
Marco Rubio:
.
‘On the honesty part, for example, he admitted, obliquely, that George W. Bush had raided the nation’s piggy bank and subsequently beaten the piggy to death. “I KNOW THAT IT’S POPULAR IN MY PARTY TO BLAME THE PRESIDENT, THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, Rubio said. “BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE ONLY THING THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS ACCELERATE POLICIES THAT WERE ALREADY IN PLACE.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/25/139935366/new-republic-rubio-the-reasonable-republican
NOT BLAME OBAMA??? NOW THERE’S A WINNING STATEGY!
.
That said, I would support Rubio in a heartbeat, but for his not meeting the NBC Qualification test.
One thing about Principle; you either have it, or you don't. You can't disregard it and call yourself "one who believes in the Framers' Intent", and look the other way just because it fits your desire.
What if The Supreme Court takes up a challenge to Rubios eligibility. Does that then rule out or rule in the same court taking up a challenge to zero's eligibility?
If so, is the Supreme Court about to rule on zeros eligibility after three years of his reign and will they have the guts to cancel out everything he did from obmacare on down,probably not.
No chance he will accept VP.
4 years of going to heads of state funerals and playing the Pres.’s attack dog? Not a chance.
I don’t know why you think he will not be able to establish leadership credentials in the Senate, therefore I will not dispute that, but it doesn’t matter. It would be a plus, of course, but the lack of being a committee leader, etc., is not a show stopper - obviously.
In 8 years he will be shoo-in. Or 4, if it comes to that.
Spaulding,
First - you quote a “Resolution” which is not legally binding.
Second - the Resolution provides only one alternative for the designation (the most obvious one - but no where in the Constitution does it refer to this alternative as being ‘exclusive’ to “natural born” “Citizen”).
If the founders wanted to “limit” the designation of “Natural Born Citizen”, they could have very easily done so, by incorporating those requisite limitations that you so describe. The fact that they did not, means that they did not want to put limitations on what category of “Natural Born” was to be legitimate or not.
If there are no other restrictions codified, then there are no limits beyond the obvious, which is... “natural born Citizen”.
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.