Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Martinez for Vice President?
KOAT-TV (NM) ^

Posted on 07/13/2012 12:39:07 PM PDT by Perdogg

Susana Martinez for vice president? She's said no time and time again, but new reports state that Mitt Romney is considering a woman for his running mate.

(Excerpt) Read more at koat.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 07/13/2012 12:39:11 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

If he picks Rubio, he wins. Guaranteed.


2 posted on 07/13/2012 12:44:35 PM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wny

How so?


3 posted on 07/13/2012 12:45:32 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wny

Who guarantees it?


4 posted on 07/13/2012 12:51:34 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Get Palin in there and clinch the landslide. Or lose.


5 posted on 07/13/2012 12:54:01 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama Kills))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wny

At this point, it doesn’t matter who he chooses to run with him. Unless Romney starts countering/attacking/going on offensive, etc. it won’t matter. I have YET to see ONE television ad or scathing interview with the media to outline just how bad the current POSUS is. He needs to be out each and every day blasting what the White House is doing. Just today, the HHS welfare mess came out. What do we hear from the GOP - barely a thing. That should be a prime time ad along with the UN gun control, Obamatax and utter mess in Syria. What do we get?? Nothing. This election is Romney’s to lose and if he does not get off his butt that is just what is going to happen. You’d think after the whopping Dole and McCain got that he would learn.


6 posted on 07/13/2012 12:57:08 PM PDT by nurees (Oh...there is a NEW Mexico (Homer Simpson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wny
Think of what Rubio could accomplish if he publicly stated,

"I'd like to put these VP nomination rumors to rest once and for all. While serving as VP would be a great honor,
I'd not be able to accept the office as I am not a Natural Born Citizen.
My parents became US Citizens after my birth so by the eligibility requirements specified in Article. II. Section. 1. I'm not eligible.

The fact that the CommiecRAT Party lied about their usurper Obama's status doesn't change the Constitutional Natural Born Citizen requirement."

7 posted on 07/13/2012 1:01:18 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

Less of a chance Palin is picked up than Condi Rice.


8 posted on 07/13/2012 1:03:47 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wny

If he picks Rubio, he wins. Guaranteed

I would rather he pick a NBC. We don’t need a guy who is not constitutionally allowed to run for President be our VP.


9 posted on 07/13/2012 1:04:06 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wny
If he picks Rubio, he wins. Guaranteed.

Yep!

I think all this talk (Condi, Martinez) is a diversion, Rubio brings along the Tea Party, locks up Florida, and improves chances with Hispanics out west (Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada).
10 posted on 07/13/2012 1:04:52 PM PDT by nhwingut (Sarah Palin 12... No One Else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I love her. She’d be a great pick!


11 posted on 07/13/2012 1:05:27 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Check this out -

Susanna Martinez qualifying for her CCW permit

She is a good shoot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pxNbB2TeIM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AHJ36M3vm8


12 posted on 07/13/2012 1:11:10 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nurees

<< I have YET to see ONE television ad or scathing interview with the media to outline just how bad the current POSUS is. >>

That’s because Romney is STILL technically in a primary battle for his party’s nomination, and therefore cannot use the primary money that he has raised against Obama.

The beauty of this is that all of the record-breaking monies that Romney HAS been collecting will be there when he finally gets the nomination. Hopefully, by then the Obama campaign will be COMPLETELY out of money.

It’s still early. The proverbial poop won’t be hitting the proverbial fan until September or so.


13 posted on 07/13/2012 1:17:06 PM PDT by ObamaMustGo2012 (Obama Must Go In 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wny

Still think Romney wins Florida, with or without Rubio.

Its the north is where the VP will come from and it will be either Portman or Ryan. I really think he’s gonna pick Paul Ryan for a economic ticket, as he is polling well with young voters and would bring in Wisc and Ohio, possibly Penn. Thats the region Romney needs to concentrate on, the Veep will come from there.


14 posted on 07/13/2012 1:22:58 PM PDT by sunmars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade
"Get Palin in there and clinch the landslide."

Palin will result in a landlside...for the other side. While Palin may be popular here and with the TEA Party, she is damaged goods with most of the country. Sorry, but Sarah will never be a viable candidate for any national office.

15 posted on 07/13/2012 1:24:11 PM PDT by RayBob (If guns kill people, can I blame misspelled words on my keyboard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

Yes Rubio meets the criteria setforth In Section 1401(a) of title 8 of the US Code. Section 1401(a) applies because of the 14th amendment - article 5.


16 posted on 07/13/2012 1:24:12 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wny

Rubio is pushing AMNESTY and has rejected the TEA PARTY.

NO MORE RINOs!!!!!!


17 posted on 07/13/2012 1:26:23 PM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RayBob
Sorry, but Sarah will never be a viable candidate for any national office.

________________________________

For those of us who took an honest look at her record as mayor and governor, she never was.

18 posted on 07/13/2012 1:27:58 PM PDT by wtc911 (Amigo - you've been had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RayBob

sad but true, they got away with defining and that is largely due to McCain acting like a complete wimp in 2008 and not defending her properly, i’d have ripped the dems heads off for the crap they pulled on her.


19 posted on 07/13/2012 1:28:09 PM PDT by sunmars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut

“...improves chances with Hispanics...”

When identity politics become so popular with conservatives? What do we have to promise Hispanics to get their vote? How much more do they need besides all govt documents in Spanish, signs on Spanish, interpreters, etc.? Really? You can be arrested for saying “spic” but not honkey or whitey. I’m sick of hispandering.


20 posted on 07/13/2012 1:39:57 PM PDT by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

In 2011 New Mexico got rid of the corrupt, pay-to-play, radical environmentalist Governor Bill Richardson and replaced him with Susana Martinez, a person with integrity who is tough on crime and illegal aliens and is the first breath of fresh air we have had in eight years. Just this past week, Attorney General Gary King, the son of former well-respected Democrat Governor Bruce King, announced for Governor. Other than not being corrupt like Richardson, he shares the same liberal views. He is popular and will be a formidable opponent for any Republican running for Governor, including Susana who currently enjoys a high favorability rating. Take her out of the running and you have the governorship slide back into the hands of the Dems.


21 posted on 07/13/2012 1:55:00 PM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet; wny; Perdogg

So, does Martinez meet the Natural Born requirement?


22 posted on 07/13/2012 1:59:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes she does. She was born in the US to US citizens and was subject to the jurisdiction of the US.


23 posted on 07/13/2012 2:02:04 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Martinez appears to be a great choice, and, while Obots probably assume they have won the Constitutionality issue, Martinez, unlike Rubio, is a natural born citizen. With Roberts on the court there is a progressive majority. Since precedent is customary, but not mandatory, the court might have reinterpreted the precedent established by Chief Justice Morrison Waite had they ever allowed a case to be heard by the court. If a lawsuit or congressional challenge to laws signed by the naturalized Obama were to reach the court, it would be better to wait a few years for another justice or two who would respect the Constitution.

The naturalized Rubio continues with the tacit mockery of Article II Section 1 requiring a natural born citizen. If there is an amendment to Article II it should be along the lines of the Obama/McCaskill S. 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. It failed to pass in February 2008, but which would have made McCain eligible, and enabled conservatives to vet Obama, who told us all he was a naturalized, not natural born, citizen. The court is now a rubber stamp for “living constitutionalists”.

What is wrong with continuing to ignore the Constitution? One of the many tangible circumstances is that with the tacit rejection of long held precedent, a child raised by Jihadi Muslim illegal immigrants in a sleepy village in Arizona or New Mexico, indoctrinated with Sharia and committed to the global caliphate, raised in the US, like Wong Kim Ark, would be eligible to the presidency. The Supreme Court, Justice Gray, ruled that Wong Kim was not eligible, and was a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited and quoted Chief Justice Waite's precedent from Minor v. Happersett. There is no doubt. The Constitution never did include definitions of terms used, specifically referring to the common-law and common language familiar to its framers.

The child of Jihadis would hide his beliefs, consistent with taquiya, conceal the financial resources which would allow him an education of the privileged. Naturalized citizens sign an oath of sole allegiance to our Constitution. Of course people can lie, but having citizen parents makes that less likely. We know that Barack’s father hated our Constitution, and that the son regarded it an historic artifact which restricted his control of the economic behavior of our citizens. Had Barack’s father naturalized before his birth, making his son a natural born citizen, chances are he wanted the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. But he didn't, and Barack was was naturalized by the Naturalization Amendment, the 14th. Barack was honest, but both parties were trapped by complicity in the ineligibility of both candidates.

Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, knows about illegal immigration. She has really managed a sovereign state. Her Mexican background can't hurt. She is a conservative. She might make an excellent president, though there hasn't been enough exposure of her thinking to be certain.

Condi has some baggage which doesn't need to be aired, but which will surely become an issue if she becomes a candidate. If this writer knows the facts, Romney's enemies certainly do, and will use it as the skillful politicians they are. Now it should remain her private business. What was fine for the Clintons will not be for Romney's VP. Condi’s experience as Provost at Stanford is closer to the background of Woodrow Wilson than Suzanna Martinez or Ronald Reagan. Ms. Rice is charming, did her thesis in the history of the USSR (under Madeline Albright’s ex-husband, if memory serves), and is a fine pianist. She should stay where she is, and is probably not happy about this attention. Allen West would make a wonderful choice whether or not skin color is the issue. West is a real hero who appears to have a clear understanding of the dangers posed by Islamist infiltration.

Many don't remember the Colonel who was reprimanded for extracting critical military information from a captured Taliban officer, information which probably saved the lives of some of his soldiers. He fired his service revolver to frighten the prisoner during interrogation. That is a commanding officer solders would trust, and follow! He would be a real addition to a Romney ticket.

24 posted on 07/13/2012 2:12:25 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayBob

Then you’ve already lost. Enjoy your four more years.


25 posted on 07/13/2012 2:26:50 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama Kills))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

If he picks Rubio, he wins. Guaranteed

I would rather he pick a NBC. We don’t need a guy who is not constitutionally allowed to run for President be our VP.


I agree but can’t figure out with all the conjecture if he would be eligible for president or not. What is the REAL STORY?


26 posted on 07/13/2012 2:40:06 PM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Keep your head up and keep moving forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

Rubio’s parents were not US citizens when he was born therefore he is not a natural born citizen, neither is Jindal, and of course, neither is bambi.


27 posted on 07/13/2012 3:00:35 PM PDT by HerrBlucher ("The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travelers." GK Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

I wonder if Barry Goldwater was NBC since Arizona was not a state at the time of his birth.


28 posted on 07/13/2012 5:30:30 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

Here is the real story

http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/06/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-ii-from-william-learned-marcy-to-wong-kim-ark/


29 posted on 07/13/2012 7:47:00 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
The “Redstate” volumes by “Jake Walker” read like Dr. Conspiracy. Most of us interested in the legal history, and with the energy to chase wild geese strewn by Obots have read all these arguments, not just at FR but at some of the Obot sites. A cursory glance at "Jake Walker's" avalanche of citations shows his/her intent - to eliminate the difference between natural born and naturalized citizens. Forget that native-born American Indians were not made citizens. Forget that The Constitution itself, where each word must be assumed to have meaning, specifies a natural born citizen for president, and otherwise talks about citizens, and the need to create an Uniform Rule in Article 1 Section 8. Forget that the 14th Amendment nowhere mentions natural born citizens, and its author repeated the common-law definition cited by Chief Justice Marshall from Vattel. Forget that our naturaliztion oath requires sole allegiance to our Constitution of immigrants. Forget that natural law is the basis for our Declaration and Constitution - "...The separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures's God entitle them..."

This Redstate article threw the whole book, the English Common Law equivalent, the pre-John Jay letter Madison presidential requirement, when each state had a different definition of how citizens were made, and each state took just that part of English law it deemed relevent to its sovereign government, and English Common law was further divided into English-Welsh, Irish, and Scottish branches, with each Colony picking and chosing what to recognize. Then he relies on a New York State court decision, Lynch, again and again, rather like state court judges citing the ridiculous Indiana Court Ankeny case for a new definition of who were natural born citizens. That definition is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Obama's cadre has turned the law into a circus, perhaps weakening respect for justice and the judiciary intentionally.

The idea is to bury the less patient in enough names and confusion as to sound knowledgeable, and convincing. The sad truth is that we do not have a legal system that honors the Constitution. Federal Judges conform to the political will that appointed each of them. Even Supreme Court justices are now just political pawns who can be counted upon to carry the water of the power that got them each appointed. Roberts was identifiable the moment he accepted the oath of the naturalized citizen Barack Obama. It would have taken courage to refuse to confer legitimacy on the elected candidate, and Roberts was chosen because he was unknown, and not for his qualities as a jurist or his courage in administering constitutionally founded judgements.

Instead of clearly self-inconsistent citations from a potpourri of sources the single clear statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is sufficient, and, as has been demonstrated by the twenty five or so cases, including Wong Kim Ark, which cite Minor v. Happersettt when referring to natural born citizens, Minor turned the common law into positive law. The Constitution was written to depend upon our common-law, the ethical rules acceped by most common citizens. Here is the statement which Obots will never acknowledge, because they don't accept the Constitution as our foundation:

“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.”

Here CJ Waite equates “natives” and “natural-born citizens”. He reminds us that the Constitution doesn't contain definitions, relying upon the nomenclature and common-law familiar to its framers, which was not the familiar English Common Law which our framers repudiated for a federal government. “Born in a country of parents who were its citizens” is our law.

To see all these questions dealt with, and it takes lots of patience, read the archives of the Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo blogs. To know the truth, a truth cited as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, trust the decision cited above, or, better yet, read the case Minor v. Happersett, which, unlike many of those citing Minor, which were “munged” by Center for American Progress Obama comrades, Minor v. Happersett can be found intact at Cornell Law and several other sites (though Cornell too scrubbed cases citing Minor, including re: Lockwood, of citations confirming that later courts used Minor as precedent - "held" law).

30 posted on 07/13/2012 11:24:43 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
The “Redstate” volumes by “Jake Walker” read like Dr. Conspiracy. Most of us interested in the legal history, and with the energy to chase wild geese strewn by Obots have read all these arguments, not just at FR but at some of the Obot sites. A cursory glance at "Jake Walker's" avalanche of citations shows his/her intent - to eliminate the difference between natural born and naturalized citizens. Forget that native-born American Indians were not made citizens. Forget that The Constitution itself, where each word must be assumed to have meaning, specifies a natural born citizen for president, and otherwise talks about citizens, and the need to create an Uniform Rule in Article 1 Section 8. Forget that the 14th Amendment nowhere mentions natural born citizens, and its author repeated the common-law definition cited by Chief Justice Marshall from Vattel. Forget that our naturaliztion oath requires sole allegiance to our Constitution of immigrants. Forget that natural law is the basis for our Declaration and Constitution - "...The separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures's God entitle them..."

This Redstate article threw the whole book, the English Common Law equivalent, the pre-John Jay letter Madison presidential requirement, when each state had a different definition of how citizens were made, and each state took just that part of English law it deemed relevent to its sovereign government, and English Common law was further divided into English-Welsh, Irish, and Scottish branches, with each Colony picking and chosing what to recognize. Then he relies on a New York State court decision, Lynch, again and again, rather like state court judges citing the ridiculous Indiana Court Ankeny case for a new definition of who were natural born citizens. That definition is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Obama's cadre has turned the law into a circus, perhaps weakening respect for justice and the judiciary intentionally.

The idea is to bury the less patient in enough names and confusion as to sound knowledgeable, and convincing. The sad truth is that we do not have a legal system that honors the Constitution. Federal Judges conform to the political will that appointed each of them. Even Supreme Court justices are now just political pawns who can be counted upon to carry the water of the power that got them each appointed. Roberts was identifiable the moment he accepted the oath of the naturalized citizen Barack Obama. It would have taken courage to refuse to confer legitimacy on the elected candidate, and Roberts was chosen because he was unknown, and not for his qualities as a jurist or his courage in administering constitutionally founded judgements.

Instead of clearly self-inconsistent citations from a potpourri of sources the single clear statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is sufficient, and, as has been demonstrated by the twenty five or so cases, including Wong Kim Ark, which cite Minor v. Happersettt when referring to natural born citizens, Minor turned the common law into positive law. The Constitution was written to depend upon our common-law, the ethical rules acceped by most common citizens. Here is the statement which Obots will never acknowledge, because they don't accept the Constitution as our foundation:

“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.”

Here CJ Waite equates “natives” and “natural-born citizens”. He reminds us that the Constitution doesn't contain definitions, relying upon the nomenclature and common-law familiar to its framers, which was not the familiar English Common Law which our framers repudiated for a federal government. “Born in a country of parents who were its citizens” is our law.

To see all these questions dealt with, and it takes lots of patience, read the archives of the Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo blogs. To know the truth, a truth cited as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, trust the decision cited above, or, better yet, read the case Minor v. Happersett, which, unlike many of those citing Minor, which were “munged” by Center for American Progress Obama comrades, Minor v. Happersett can be found intact at Cornell Law and several other sites (though Cornell too scrubbed cases citing Minor, including re: Lockwood, of citations confirming that later courts used Minor as precedent - "held" law).

31 posted on 07/13/2012 11:37:00 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson