Posted on 06/19/2012 4:29:13 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
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,
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.
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.
No, it doesn't. Never has. This is nothing more than made-up birther nonsense.
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.
Sorry, saw Woodsman and thought I saw Wolfman. You weren’t talking to me so disregard my reply please.
it’s a stupid story. nobody wants Rubio either.
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.
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.
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! ;)
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.
“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;”
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”
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.
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).
“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
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.
it’ll be Portman
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.”
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.
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.