Romney: Marco Rubio being ‘thoroughly vetted’ for VP consideration

Yahoo News ^ | 19 Jun 12 | Holly Bailey

[Drew68]

HOLLAND, Mich.—Mitt Romney said Tuesday his campaign is vetting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a potential vice presidential candidate, contradicting several reports suggesting otherwise.

Romney told reporters Rubio is being "thoroughly vetted" for the VP job and described stories reporting contrary news as "false."

...Snip...

"...The story was entirely false. Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process."

[Red Steel]

No court has contested Minor v. Happersett. The weaseling of judges is something to behold. Federal judges are a disgrace.

Right. The defendant Obama lawyers in Voeltz v. Obama FL ballot case were told by the presiding judge to cite supporting evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I quote from this thread's article,

"Then the judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the “authority” on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen. "

You may have noticed in yesterday's FL court hearing that the OBot lawyers ignored the judge to "cite the authority" as stated above. The OBot lawyer Herron in his last statement to the court was for the presiding judge to ignore old "treatise" and/or to this effect. The translation is for the judge to ignore all the past Supreme Court opinions, which decide that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

A damning weak and lame defense by Obama.

[rickyc]

You are woefully uninformed on the subject. Not your fault, most people are. It has nothing to do with the 14th amend. or being a US citizen. Art. II requires 2 citizen parents at the time of birth.

[Drew68]

Art. II requires 2 citizen parents at the time of birth.

No, it doesn't. Never has. This is nothing more than made-up birther nonsense.

[wolfman23601]

I’m not uninformed, but there are other interpretations. My point was that I don’t need to be convinced of that point of view to oppose Rubio as a candidate at this time. He needs about 20 more years of experience.

[jcsjcm]

You can not be a President or Vice President by the 14th Amendment.

Article II section 1 Clause 5 specifically states that you must be natural born for these 2 positions.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[wolfman23601]

Sorry, saw Woodsman and thought I saw Wolfman. You weren’t talking to me so disregard my reply please.

[muawiyah]

it’s a stupid story. nobody wants Rubio either.

[Drew68]

Leaving that aside, I hope Romney doesn’t suggest Rubio, because Rubio needs to move away from Romney and get back to his conservative roots.

I no longer believe Rubio is the shoe-in I previously thought he was. I'm starting to think he'll pick Bob McDonnell. Romney absolutely needs to win Florida and Virginia. I think he'll win Florida regardless of who's on the ticket and I don't think Rubio will help him pick up any Hispanic voters other than Cubans who were already going to vote for him. He's in a tight race in Virginia with Virgil Goode serving as spoiler and Gov. McDonnell might help push him over the top in this "must have" state.

All this being said, Rubio is indeed eligible for the presidency despite the birther clown car arriving on every thread with his name in the title to spew their losing nonsense.

[muawiyah]

You have to be a slave first, but that's not the point. Actually, it's not he 14th that makes you a citizen it's an administrative determination of ICE ~ from way back, but that's all it is.

If an administrative determination is found faulty all the prior benefits are withdrawn. A court, if ever asked to rule on the matter, could turn about 30 million Americans into funny little foreign people.

[jcsjcm]

Drew68 just likes to pull out the constitutionalists with these types of articles. He loves being on the side of debunking the 2 citizen parent requirement. He enjoys ruffling feathers! ;)

[wolfman23601]

McDonnell is damaged goods and will not help him in VA, in fact, he is the reason Obama leads in the state. McDonnell and Bush have jointly destroyed the republican brand in VA.

[Woodsman27]

“His parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. He’s just a plain old citizen - that doesn’t cut it.”

Look to the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

[Woodsman27]

Actually that is what it says.

“. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”

[Red Steel]

It’s irrelevant that Cuba’s communist law declares people outside of its borders to still be ‘one of theirs’. We do not recognize that law in the United States. It is also totally ridiculous to use a communist law in a foreign country making claims on people as evidence for “a problem with double allegiance.”

Not Correct.

Even countries that the United States have gone to war with, we have recognized their sovereignty.

As we see in the treason case of Kawakita v. US:

"KAWAKITA v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 570. Argued April 2-3, 1952. Decided June 2, 1952."

-snip-

"At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States;"

-snip- "MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97."

[As we see that Kawikita is citizen via the 14th Amendment - the same as Marco Rubio]

-snip-

"The difficulty with petitioner's position is that the implications from the acts, which he admittedly performed, are ambiguous. He had a dual nationality, a status long recognized in the law.[Footnote 2] Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-349. The concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. "

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

-end snip-

As we see from this 1952 Supreme Court opinion that Kawikita was responsible for two countries as a duel national. You cannot be a natural born citizen while serving two or more countries in "exercising the rights of nationality" because that person is subject to the responsibilities of those countries that he is a citizen of.

Rubio is being vetted OK. As this Supreme Court decision shows that Rubio is not a natural born citizen of these United States.

[Republican Wildcat]

This issue is not as cut and dry as many people on here are trying to make it out to be. If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when the wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Senator Rubio. The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a "U.S. Citizen" could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a "Vice Chancellor) made this declaration: Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. You an do a google search for the full ruling but that's the meat of dealing with that issue. In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s. There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.

Some of those individuals would be a bit concerning to me as far as dual loyalties - they left the country for long periods of time before returning. However, if they could be considered natural born citizens, then certainly someone like Rubio who has far greater ties to the U.S. could be considered one if challenged. Certainly those precedents and court rulings and common law application as it was understood at the time the Constitution was written would make it very difficult to put together a rock solid case that he is not.

I've posted similar information previously and I was blasted as making false arguments and "deficating on the constitution." But what was said in the rulings were in fact said in the rulings, and the English common law definition is what it was and the phrase meant that at the time that it was written. Those are not disputable facts...and to make a credible case that it means something else, those precedents, rulings by the courts, and the argument with regard to the definition at the time it was written must all be dealt with - with something other than personal insults and crude remarks because you are upset they were pointed out (which I'm not accusing you personally of...that's just what happens far to often...people want to pretend credible challenges to their position should not exist - but they do).

[Mr Rogers]

“Natural born by definition is that there is no need of intervention by law to make persons citizens of a country. The 14th Amendment or any other man-made statutes, cannot create natural born citizens and therefore, they are not natural.”

RS, thank you for finally agreeing with me. There are citizens by birth, or they need to be naturalized - as the Supreme Court has pointed out. A NBC is one whose citizenship is derived from his birth...which would mean Rubio qualifies, on that count.

There are reasons why I do NOT want Rubio on the ticket, namely his tendency to see every issue via the lens of race.

For those interested, the US Supreme Court has already said that the 14th merely echoes, using different words, what was already established by the NBC clause. It wasn’t a new definition, but a repetition:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words...the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[Drew68]

He loves being on the side of debunking the 2 citizen parent requirement. He enjoys ruffling feathers! ;)

Actually, I'd love to see SCOTUS adjudicate this matter once and for all. I'm confident it would be a 9-0 decision. Of course, the only way it appears that SCOTUS will take on this issue would be for a lower court to find Rubio (Or Obama) ineligible for office and this sure as hell ain't gonna happen.

[profit_guy]

it’ll be Portman

[Mr Rogers]

From the LOSING side of the WKA case in 1898 came this complaint:

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

[muawiyah]

Rubio is no more popular than Romney. Neither one of them can be said to be consistently Conservative ~ or even Conservative!~

Watching part of his (Romney's) interview with fascist party boss Hannity tonight ~ he said just the wrong thing on several topics.

An example, regarding federal programs we like he suggested we should cap their increases at the rate of inflation.

A better idea is consider even programs we like for elimination ~ we don't have the money to allow increases at any rate.

I'd probably listened to more of his pap and nonsense but I saw public tv had Bocelli on, and the sound track on these broadcasts is usually better than I can get over the net ~ so, one last slop at the trough. PBS has to be slashed to the bone and beyond. It's an idea whose time has come and gone.

Then there's federal government regulation of cable TV. It was pretty cheap stuff until the federales started regulating it ~ $15 a month. Now it's $100 a month.

I don't think that program is working at all. Time to eliminate regulation of cable.