Skip to comments.Rubio campaigns with Romney, raising VP speculation
Posted on 04/23/2012 3:31:23 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
click here to read article
If he gets the nod what will the “He’s not a natural born etc.” crowd do? Will they sit on their hands and not vote? I dont think so. They will just swallow that pill and vote. Anything to get Obama out.
These must be qualifiers for the position.
Last week Rubio made a Freudian slip that may have hinted at his interest in the job. "Three, four, five, six, seven years from now, if I do a good job as vice president -- I'm sorry, as senator -- I'll have the chance to do all sorts of things," Rubio said Thursday at a forum.
It's like he is repeating for all to hear what the GOP-e have whispered to him behind closed doors. It's creepy.
I heard that also.
The term “birther” was made up by the left in order to discredit those with that view (I personally don’t care).
Interesting to see that some on this board have adopted the language of the left...
What’s ironic is, with the racist ‘hoodies’ working full-time trying to demonize Zimmerman and create an anti-latino race war, the GOP-e might actually have blindly stumbled onto circumstances which could result in breaking the democrat party’s stranglehold on the entire hispanic vote.
There’s a determined group of that bloc, which is all about racial solidarity and “reconquista” of the American southwest - they’ll never vote GOP, even if the Bush family were to promise them the American southwest, in exchange for it. But Rubio would be a powerful influence on latinos if he were on the ticket.
Not saying I like the GOP-e, nor Mitt Romney.
However I like Rubio; so do a lot of people. He’s not a lightweight IMO.
The GOP prospects for November, aren’t actually that bad. Trending positive.
This is not turning into a re-run of McCain 2008.
I don't know where you have pulled your figures from, but the GOP-e is not "trending positive" as you say.
But also notice the trajectory of the Republicans' support. The GOP's favorability rating is down to just 35% -- 13 points lower than their rivals -- which isn't just low, it's also the third lowest it's been since CNN polls started keeping track 20 years ago.
It would appear the support that helped drive GOP gains in the 2010 midterms has completely faded away. This matters, not only in the Republican drive to take back the White House, but also when it comes to the 2012 congressional races.
Thirty-four percent hold a favorable opinion of Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential candidate in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. His unfavorable score is higher than Obama ever has received; it's been exceeded by just one other Republican candidate this year, Newt Gingrich, and by only one top candidate in 28 years, Hillary Clinton in 2008. Obama, for his part, remains above water - 53 percent favorable, 43 percent unfavorable in this poll
Well other than that the argument of two citizen parents and born on U.S. soil wasn’t the argument until sometime AFTER the election in 2008.
It seems that this should have been known to all and sundry - if it were true - and not a dusty old argument taken down off the shelf sometime AFTER the 2008 election.
Better than Hillary as Romney’s VP.
Darn the UNANIMOUS lunatics on the Minor and Ark courts.
By ‘AFTER’ do you mean AFTER 1789, when Dr. Ramsay, Congerssional historian, wrote his “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Priviliges of a Citizen” - or after 1814 when Chief Justice Marshall cited Vattel - or the dozen cases citing common law until 1875 and Chief Justice Waite, who turned the common law into precedent - or 1898 when Justice Gray, in spite of his dilemma, his having been appointed by the ineligible Chester Arthur, made Wong Kim a citizen, because his parents weren't citizens, in spite of his having been born on our soil - or 1916 when Attorney, later Ambassador, Breckenridge Long wrote a lengthy legal article in the US’s largest legal newspaper explaining the law and two parent sovereign birth requirement in Chicago Legal News Volume 49, ironically protecting Woodrow Wilson's candidacy - or 1939, or 1939 when Chief Justice Hughes’ decision confirmed that Marie Elg, like Steinkuler, could not lose her natural born citizenship, granted by nature, not Congress, even though her parents repudiated their US cititzenship and raised her in Sweden, because she was born in New York to citizen parents?
Either you belong to the crowd depending upon the media or crony capitalist Rinos for truth, or, like so many stalking FR, you are working for Barack. It doesn't matter. Those who don't appreciate the advantages of a nation built upon laws will have to learn the hard way about life under a dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Some people with the necessary skills will take their ability to produce to societies where bureaucrats haven't spent the capital of human productivity to support the drones who allow them to languish, whose creativity is spent on schemes for redistributing the productivity of the diminishing few who still do produce.
Shouldn’t Romney pick someone closer to his political philosophy, like Susan Collins, or Bernie Sanders?
There are currently only two types of U.S. citizen. Those who were natural born and those who were naturalized.
Rubio was never naturalized.
He was born a citizen according to U.S. law - which should always reflect our best understanding of natural law.
I dunno. Some think Susan Collins, or Bernie Sanders would be a better fit. ;)
Exactly allmendream. “He was born a citizen.” He was not born a natural citizen. Rubio, like Obama if we assume he was born in Hawaii, is ‘native-born’, like American Indians, who were native-born and not citizens but residents. Rubio was made a citizen by the 14th Amendment, which is based upon Article I Section 8, the command to Congress to create a “uniform rule for Naturalization.” A rule for “Naturalization” does not creat natural born citizens, but 'naturalized citizens!"
What is not natural about such citizens, a notion from ‘natural law’, is that they inherit the allegiances of their parents, which may be entirely opposed to the principles for which our founders fought. That is obviously the case with Barack. Don't forget, the only reason the Constitution mentions the phrase natural born citizen is to specify the requirement for just one of our citizens, the citizen who will honor, defend, and protect the Constitution. Otherwise, there is no phrase to specify the requrements for citizenship in the Constitution. Citizenship requirements were specific to each colonial state, and were to be made uniform by Congress.
Congressman John Binghum, the author and sponsor of the Naturalization amendment that made Obama and Rubio ciitzens, told the house while explaining his amendment prior to its passage from the Congress for ratification in three fourths of the states:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen
Rubio was naturalized, as eventually were his parents. His was ‘jus soli’ naturalization based upon the 14th Amendmendment, which uses the unfortunate term “Native-born citizen of the US,” the exact term used by Barack Obama on his web site fightthesmears.com. You are correct about two classes of citizen, natural born and naturalized. Naturalized citizens become citizens under law, such as the 14th Amendment; natural citizens are citizens based upon natural law, the guiding foundation according to our Declaration of Indpendence. And what is a natural born citizen? There are dozens of citations from legal scholars around the time our framers and founders were alive, but the most cited, by far, including frequently in Supreme Court decisions, and our first law book, as assigned by Thomas Jefferson, at our first law school, William and Mary in 1779, was Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’, an exposition of ‘nature's law’.
Through the turn of the twentieth century no one doubted the common definition of what was a natural born citizen. That is what Chief Justice Waite told us, and the rest of the justices agreed. Even in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes didn't question Marie Elg’s natural born citizenship, even though she was raised by her parents in Sweden when her dad repudiated his US naturalization because he found a good job in Sweden. She couldn't be denied citizenship, though our State Department argued otherwise, because her's was natural born citizenship, granted by nature, not men.
The term natural born citizen appears nowhere in the 14th Amendment. The attempt to conflate natural born and native born using Wong Kim Ark, which is based upon the 14th Amendment, is logical and legal nonsense - which doesn't mean that the court won't do it if forced to reinterpret natural born citizenship. We are seeing politicians chafing under the constraints imposed upon government by our Constitution, both Democrats and Republicans, both bodies becoming wealthy parasites upon the productivity of free men. They are killing the host by devaluing the Constitution written to protect those individuals who are now, unwillingly, supporting Washington D.C.'s growing wealth as government, its employee salaries, and benefits, exceeds twice the national average. Obama, with no allegiance inherited from his parents, is an ideal choice, unless people realize that we have protections. Allegiance is difficult for many to grasp, particularly as we welcome citizens whose clearly stated objective is to turn US citizen into subjets of the Caliphate, into our defense and justice departments.
Naturalization is a legal process as defined by Congress.
Being born a citizen is not a legal process of naturalization - it is being naturally born a citizen.
One is either born a citizen according to U.S. law - which should always be our best reflection of natural law - or one must be “naturalized” into that condition that otherwise only birth could bring.
Natural law is key to our Constitutional Republic - it is not to be found in a dusty book written by one man - but it is up to us as citizens and our elected Representatives and our Courts to decide how best to conform our law to what is natural and correct.
At some level anyone who has studied the constitution even if only in middle school... knows the truth of what the framers intended when they specified that the president must be a natural born citizen. I don't really even need to specify because at a gut level we all know that their intention was to protect the Republic from malevolent foreign influence. Those born with a parent with foreign allegiance are the ones that the framers intended to exclude. It is not rocket science... it is common sense.
It is both laughable and disturbing that someone could actually believe that the framers could have intended that Adolph Hitler's progeny would have been eligible to be our president even if Eva Braun had given birth to him within our borders and even if she were an underage Nazi girl who was a US citizen. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Yet we see it argued over and over and over in this forum... all to protect a president whose actions have demonstrated repeatedly that he puts foreign interests ahead of the interests of our own country.
I don't care how elaborately they construct their legalese arguments... it is all wrong and everyone who is a patriot knows at their very core that it is all wrong. Why do these people continue to spew out this trash? Why do the rest of us put up with it? The Alinskyites especially deserve to be grabbed by the ear and kicked in their asses on their way out.
Those who identify with the left are not ignorant. They hold most citizens in disdain. For many of them, confusing people is sport. They, along with their teleprompter-driven tool, Barack, consider the Constitution an unwanted constraint. Since few are successful entrepreneurs, they take advantage of the inherent vulnerability of a society which members aren't subjects of a tangible monarch. One of our presidents before we had a Constitution, Dr. David Ramsay explained why we are not subjects, and do not observe British common law, in 1779:
“The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possesses sovereignty.”
“Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure: but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.”
Our continued efforts to inform are having an impact. Many on FR recognize the tactics, even when the Obots change their names. Membership dates help. The older Obots are now too well known to have the impact they once did. But education is the antidote. Like any topic, having a problem to solve makes probing the mass of sources easier. It opens up the two hundred thirty years since the ratification. When people are vulnerable to the implication that there is no definition in the Constitution for natural born citizens, when the Constitution explicitly does not contain definitions, the cleverness of the professional confidence men now controlling the Executive branch is exposed.
Few connect the fact that a liberal activist, whose desire for a Supreme Court appointment was dashed by his being caught plagiarizing a recent book, was Obama's adviser at Harvard, constitutional law professor, and on Obama's campaign committee - Larry Tribe. Larry's potential legal problems were smothered by Elena Kagan. Obfuscation of Obama's ineligibility was likely engineered by Larry and Elena. Look who was made solicitor general, responsible for presenting or preventing cases from reaching the court - Kagan. Look who wouldn't recuse herself when cases from Donofrio and Apuzzo were selected for hearing - Kagan, now Justice Kagan. We are vulnerable because so few of us know anything about our history. But we are leaning quickly!
I have a feeling that Rubio is getting ready to turn into a BIG FAT RINO.
I’m sorry, but I can’t help but see this happening very soon.
I really hope I am wrong.
He already has NYCslicker. He has become the stalking horse for the RINOs still running the Republican party to keep their promotion of the ineligible McCain and, by implication, knowledge that Obama too was ineligible, under the cover of protection already provided by the press, and by the beholden pundits too afraid of Alinsky ridicule, or too afraid of losing their crony contracts dealt by Republican power brokers.
“Would this be a good thing, or a very, very bad thing?”
As Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen and ineligible to be POTUS, this would be avery bad thing.
I agree. Some feel that his being on the GOP ticket would perforce make the DNC go after him for not having (any) citizen parents at the time of his birth. No way. I think that they wouldn't say a peep, and would allow the"Obama" precedent be reinforced by a Rubio candidacy.
I think the GOP-e is in for a very rude awakening if they think that there aren't enough people who know of and care about this issue to make them lose in November if they try to put this guy up. Of course, they may very well desire just that.
Stupid Sellout Party.