Posted on 07/30/2012 7:49:02 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
Asked on Friday who he’d prefer to see as Mitt Romney’s running mate, three-time Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich offered an entire roster of would-be veep choices.
“Well, I think the people who would do the best job is somebody like either Sen. Rob Portman, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, maybe Gov. Bobby Jindal,” he responded.
“There are five or six people who each has the ability to be a good president and each of whom will help win the election and each of whom will broadly share the values that the Republican Party believes in,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
“The president of the United States does not have the power to personally revise the law,” he said. “This is not Venezuela. He’s not Hugo Chavez, and he can’t run around and do stuff like this. He’s done it on welfare. He’s done it on the whole issue of immigration. He’s done it with No Child Left Behind.”
“That violates the whole principle under which our Constitution exists, and I think Obama, in that sense, may well be the most anti-Constitutional president in American history. So I’m offended by that,” he added.
Hey Newt....Jindel and Rubino aren’t eligible under our Constitution....So I'm a little offended by you!
and yet the EOs stand and no one sues or does anything.
Jindal has the best resume, and has the best record of success as governor executive among those mentioned by Newt. He won re-election in democrat leaning LA, which speaks volumes. Newt himself would make an excellent VP choice.
As for Jindal’s eligibility, only two bodies charged with that responsibility by the US constitution, the congress and the SCOTUS. All other opinions are not worth the paper they are written on.
Not a single qualified legal authority disagrees with me.
Not a single qualified legal authority agrees with you, not a single Judge agrees with you, not a single elected official agrees with you, not a single historian agrees with you, not a single immigration lawyer agrees with you.
As for Jindal’s eligibility, only two bodies charged with that responsibility by the US constitution, the congress and the SCOTUS. All other opinions are not worth the paper they are written on.
If you don’t think the Democrats will make an issue out of Jindal’s eligibility...I got oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you
Just because the GOP and “conservative” media wimped out on the Obama Eligibility issue...does not mean the Democrats give a pass to Jindal or Rubio on theirs. In fact, time and time again, we see the Democrats bring up issues on GOP politicians that the GOP and “conservative” media refuse to do on DNC politicians
I would have no problem with Jindal being the GOP nominee...but he has eligibility issues, and the Dems will exploit that
0bamais well on his way to becoming a DICTATOR!
Who the heck is Bob McDonald ( or what ever) . If romney does that he will blow it even more.This “no name” is worthless. Obama is the worst and we pick romney? You cannot make that up!!
Rubio is an amnesty loving worthless clown. He and Romney deserve one another.
Rubio is qualified.
Not a single qualified legal authority disagrees with me.
Not a single qualified legal authority agrees with you, not a single Judge agrees with you, not a single elected official agrees with you, not a single historian agrees with you, not a single immigration lawyer agrees with you.
I would not consider MSNBC a “qualified legal source”
Since no “expert” has ruled specifically on an Obama Eligibility case...there is no “expert” on the issue. Using the canard “you have no standing” is not a ruling on the Eligibility of a candidate.
There are questions in regard to Jindal and Rubio eligibility. And only a fool would think the Dems would not exploit this
"We'd like to put these VP nomination rumors to rest once and for all. While serving as VP would be a great honor,
We'd not be able to accept the office as we are not a Natural Born Citizens.
Our parents became US Citizens after our births so by the eligibility requirements specified in Article. II. Section. 1. We're not eligible.
The fact that the CommiecRAT Party lied about their usurper Obama's status doesn't change the Constitutional Natural Born Citizen requirement."
According to the U.S. Senate resulotion confirming mccain as eligible, a President requires 2 citizen parents at the time of birth.
According to SCOTUS The President must have 2 citizen parents at birth and be born on U.S. soil.
[ will broadly share the values that the Republican Party believes in ]
What does that mean?.................
“Less federal givernment?”.... What?
Also less State and Local givernment?.... what?..
“Right to Work State” maybe...
Senator Kelly Ayotte is strategically a very bad choice - the other Senators have GOP governors to replace them guaranteed. New Hamphsire currently has a Dem governor and there is no guarantee he will be replaced by a Republican - we can’t afford to lose a Senate seat.
You should not admit that you don’t know a prominent name like Bob McDonald if you expect any respect in this discussion.
“...Who the heck is Bob McDonald?...
-
Who the heck are YOU?
Choosing Governor McDonald could help bring in Virginia’s electoral votes.
“Not a single qualified legal authority disagrees with me.”
I suggest that you read Article II of the Constitution and the USSC decision Minor v Happersett. Then post a retraction.
“Rubio is qualified.”
Qualifications are in the eye of the beholder, but that begs the question.....is he eligible? Rubio does not meet eligibility requirements of Article II of the Constitution.
Despite your denial, the Constitution is still the controlling authority. We are, after all, a nation of laws, not men or personalities. So bring on your political hacks, cowardly judges, or “qualified legal authority.” ( I assume that you are speaking about Nancy Pelosi as she was the “legal authority” that certified Barack Obama as eligible or uh uh ....the DNC nominee.)
Sarah Palin.
Even better, if Obama unexpectedly escalates with a female VP choice.
You do not understand the law, what you claim to be “required” is NOT required.
Can’t argue with a person who thinks they know more than all qualified legal authorities.
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.