Skip to comments.Marco Rubio: I'm not going to be the vice president
Posted on 04/14/2012 8:32:14 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
In an interview with CNN today, Marco Rubio said in no uncertain terms that hes not going to be the vice president.
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, widely speculated to be a top pick for the Republican presidential running mate, once again firmly denied he would join the GOP ticket.
Im not going to be the vice president, Rubio said Friday in an interview with CNN en Españols Ismael Cala. Im not.
We have two options. We can assume that Rubio meant to imply he wouldnt join the 2012 GOP ticket under any circumstances OR we can parse his words. He didnt say he wouldnt join the 2012 GOP ticket, after all. He said hes not going to be the vice president. Maybe that means hes still open to run with Mitt Romney but he doesnt think they would win.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
So, the Constitution’s disqualification of the children born with their foreign parents’ allegiance to another sovereign nation is irrelevant to you.
Rep. Allan West would be a terrific choice. His patriotism and love of country is unquestioned and would put a dent in Bam’s support base.
He wouldn't be even if he were elected to the position.
Rubio is not elegible. Read my tagline.
This Republic is going down in flames. I sure am not going to throw more gasoline on the fire by voting for ANOTHER ineligible candidate (yes, we have one in the Oval Office right now).
Birther-haters, flame away. And KMA.
... and eligible to be President.
His parents were not citizens when he was born. Therefore, he is not a natural-born citizen. If you do not think the Constitution means anything, then LEAVE the US. My ancestors fought and DIED for the Constitution, and while I draw a breath, I will fight to move this country back to that sacred document.
Furthermore, some of the States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution did not grant state citizenship and thereby U.S. citizenship to a child born to foreign citizen parents on the state soil and therefore U.S. soil. The granting of U.S. citizenship by operation of statute to every child born on any U.S. soil instead of natural law did not occur until many long years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the natural born citizen clause. At the time the Constitution was adopted with the natural born citizen clause, some children born on U.S. soil were not granted U.S. citizenship, because they were not eligible to citizenship in the state in which they were born.
There is also the precedent in which a state governor was removed from office, due to ineligibility in state citizenship, and his acts made null and void. Like so many Democrats of today, he thought he could declare himself a citizen in another state and vote in its elections at the same time he was being elected governor in another neighbor state.
As we have seen in the Obamacare cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Kagan has apparently disregarded the laws regarding conflict of interest which required her to recuse herself from the case in which she played a direct role in writing the legislation that is the subject of the lawsuits over which she now sits in judgment. Consequently, the currently illegally constituted U.S. Supreme Court is by definition fundamentally incapable of producing a decision regarding eligibility to the Office of the President which is not already null and void.
If you are illegal-— ADIOS!! Just like President Eisenhower did in operation “wet back” Look it up!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
These people can leave the same way they came if we will jail employers!!!
The entire purpose of the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution was to deny the ability of any person to serve as Commandder-in-Chief of the “American Army” or today's U.S. armed forces and the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government who owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign and a foreign government at any time from birth onwards. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent these offices from falling into the hands of a person who did not owe from birth their entire and exclusive allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the Citizens of the United States. Claiming that Rubio, Jindal, or any other candidate in any other political party can be eligible to the Office of the President or the Office of the President after having allegiance to a foreign sovereign, whether or not it was a voluntary act, is in blatant and gross defiance of the Founding Fathers’ stated purpose of the natural born citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Efforts to deny and ignore the original intent and literal meaning of the natural born citizen clause and the U.S. Constitution is tantamount to tearing up the U.S. Constitution and its requirement to amend the Constitution lawfully to institute changes in it.
Marco Rubio was a natural born citizen of Cuba, and he is now a lawful statutory U.S. Citizen; but he is certainly not a natural born U.S. Citizen.
Unfortunately, Rep. Allan West compromised himself with many conservatives by describing the presidential eligibility as “a distraction” from the upcoming election in conformance with the Republican Party talking points. This is all the more damaging for all Republicans employing those talking points when you note how the 2012 election is being rigged for unprecedented vote fraud. In particular, the Spanish company handling the voting results without any reasonable opportunity to audit for vote fraud makes the upcoming election a sham election no matter who wins it.
“Rubio was born in the United States and is therefor a citizen by birth and eligible to be President.”
WhiskeyX is correct.
My ancestors also fought in the Revolutionary War: it isn’t a rare distinction.
Please quote exactly the part of the Constitution which you contend disqualifies Rubio in view of the fact that he was born in the United States.
I'll pinch hit Mr. DNA. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citiizen of the Unites States at the time of the Adoption of This Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the 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.”
And to your response that we don't know what our framers meant by ‘natural born citizen’, and it wasn't defined in the Constitution, I'll explain that the framers wrote the Constitution without any definitions for a very good reason; they knew that the meanings of words naturally change. Wanting the the meanings in our Constitution to be understood eternally, they (Madison, St.George Tucker, Hamilton,...) used terms as understood by our framers.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite explained in the case, Minor v. Happersett, in which he affirmed the common law, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,...”. Chief Justice Waite's confirmation was affirmed by every justice, and a hundred others who understood and never challenged Waite's decision. His decision depended upon the definition of the only class of citizen defined before the 14th Amendment, a natural born citizen. “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,...”
Chief Justice Waite also confirmed that there exactly two classes of citizen, natural and naturalized. He defined natural born citizens, and Article II told us that natural born citizenship is a requirement for the presidency. Barack Obama told us he is a naturalized citizen, naturalized because his mother was a citizen, even though his father was not. Marco Rubio's parents and Bobby Jindal's, and Chester Arthur's, and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, and Henry Kissinger's and Arnold Schwarzenegger's, and ... were not, which is why not one is Constitutionally eligible to be president.
Orrin Hatch tried to amend the Constitution for Schwarzenegger, and John Conyers tried for Obama. Neither succeeded. So Republicans ignored the Constitution to give John McCain the shot at the presidency he felt entitled to, in spite of having not been born on sovereign US territory - a sad but accurate technicality. Congress incorporated the Canal Zone a year after McCain was born. There is the definition, defined exactly as are other terms used in the Constitution. Deny the common-law and common language and we have no Constitution, which is what most on the left would appear to prefer.
In short, you subscribe to the definition of the Mr. Waite that you reference.
However, most reasonable people would not, instead recognizing that “natural born citizen” means exactly what it says: a citizen born on the United States, regardless of their parents’ status.
You are not a reasonable person in this instance, because you refuse to recognize with reason how you are using the terminology exactly contrary to its meaning and historical usage. Citizenship by the doctrine of jus soli is a form of statutory citizenship granted to a person by the act of a statute. Consequently, citizenship by statutory act of jus soli (law of the soil) cannot be its very definition be its opposite, natural born citizenship arising out of natural law and not statutory law. Only jus sanguinis (law of the blood) arises from the law of nature, natural law, and natural born citizenship. This was acknowledged in a U.S. Supreme Court case by the explicit description of how a nation is embodied under natural law by the people born with blood relationships to the parents of that nation.
Furthermore, your interpretation of the clause is nonsensical, because it fails to note how the Constitution used the singular word of citizen in one place and the more narrowly defined natural born citizen clause in the other part of the Constitution. You cannot have it both ways by trying to wrongfully conflate citizen to mean the same thing as natural born citizen. They were different in 1797, and they remain different in 2012.
You're kinder than I, WhiskeyX.
"In short, you subscribe to the definition of the Mr. Waite that you reference."
It's Chief Justice Waite of the United States Supreme Court, and the decision was 9-0.
"However, most reasonable people would not, instead recognizing that natural born citizen means exactly what it says: a citizen born on the United States, regardless of their parents status." You (DNA.2012) are implying that neither Chief Justice Waite, nor those who agree with the decision are by default unreasonable.
You've been here for a very short time to be pontificating on a subject that, by all appearances, you have only the most cursory understanding of.
Welcome to FR.
Thanks for the thorough explanation, Spaulding. As always.
Fixed, for the grammar nazis.
Irrelevant. There is a real world beyond your cyber-EchoChamber.
Per voting rights, citizens are either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens; those who are born here are in the natural born citizens class, and that is applicable to eligibility for President as well.
“Rubio was born in the United States and is therefor a citizen by birth and eligible to be President.”
Not according to one of the founders, one Emmerich de Vattel, who although dead in 1767, well before the founding, is nevertheless held by some to be the sole and everlasting authority on what defines the qualifications for Potus in the US.
Note: Said definitions were noticably ommited from the Constitution, ammendments, leaving interpretation to those who came later.
The same people that cry out against using international law as a basis for proeeding in the US, seem to suggest this is one time for an exception.
I wonder if they want American troops tried in international courts, too?
If you are going to ignore and/or simply turn the definitions upside down and inside out to gainsay the evidence presented to you, why bother posting here? You certainly are not informing anyone. You are not engaging in any fruitful discussion. You’re just plugging up your ears, closing your eyes, and yelling loudly to shout everyone down. Youare not amusing anyone. Your stating a gross fallacy over and over again is more akin to Mad King George III rambling on to himslef than it is any form of exchange of facts and viewpoints.
Try learning the definition of natural law for starters. In particular, note it is the recognition of a natural fact, such as the birth to parents of a nation is the natural foundation of that society. Whereas the inclusion of a foreigner into a society otherwise composed of citizens born to citizen parents is a manmade artifact of a statute of law.
You ae just speaking total nonsense. John Jay suggested the addition of the natural born citizen clause specifically to deny eligibility to European immigrants who at any time from birth onwards owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign, such as the King of Britain. He didn’t do so just to hear his head rattle, which is what you are saying in effect.
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.