Skip to comments.Gingrich’s VP Candidate Choices for Romney
Posted on 07/30/2012 7:49:02 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
Asked on Friday who hed prefer to see as Mitt Romneys 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 ...
Looks to me like Gingrich is setting up Romney for defeat if he picks Portman who is a Bush-clone.
I wonder why he didn’t recommend Allen West?
“...what you claim to be required is NOT required...”
Put up or shut up.
No it has not. It has, however, as have other courts, made a number of rulings which indicate otherwise...although no cases directly involved the issue of Presidential eligibility. Given those precedents and the meaning of the phrase at the time it was written from the common law, it would be quite an uphill battle to get a finding that Rubio or Jindal would not be eligible. Some of the cases involved someone born to people with no connection to the US other than the child was born here...in their cases you people born in the U.S. where the parents were legally in the U.S. with the intention of staying permanently to become loyal citizens of the same.
The last time I posted all of the rulings including the actual text it was said that I was actually a secret agent of Barack Obama (even though we weren't even discussing Obama) try to mislead people on the issue by posting the text of Supreme Court rulings which contradicted their viewpoints - rather than actually address what the rulings said. Another person said that the text I posted had been falisfied and that over time the actual rulings have been lost to history and others revised and falsified the text we have today and that we would need to find the original copies of the rulings issued by the court and we would find they were different...
Palin would not bring in any more electoral votes.
IMO, Portman would guarantee a loss.
According to SCOTUS The President must have 2 citizen parents at birth and be born on U.S. soil.”
That the Senate mentioned McCain's parentage does not mean that parentage was required, if McCain met other requirements for Citizenship. You can be born outside the United States, of US Citizens (if of appropriate age) and still be a Citizen at Birth.
Because argument MIGHT be made about the exact place of birth for McCain, since the US Territory of Panama contained a few different jurisdictions, such as US bases, it was important for the Senate to make note of details.
The same is true of the few Court Cases your very small band of “NBC” types refer to.
That a legal decision mentions a point does not mean that point is controlling, such mention often means that that particular issue was not at issue.
Again, you do not know what you are talking about.
NOBODY buys your “Natural Born Citizen” argument -— nobody of any import, anyway.
No Judge, no Member of Congress, No attorney of any real stature, NO elected official, anywhere.
You are way out on the fringe and you are clearly wrong.
VA is lost. Too many overpaid left wing nuts working in DC live in the northern counties.
Leave Jindal alone, he is simply kicking ass. I don’t live in Louisianan but the waves he is making will spread.
You do not know how to read.
The Constitution does NOT mean what you say it means, and the Court case you cite is NOT controlling and does not say what you claim even if it was controlling.
You are wrong, and nobody with any authority or knowledge on these matters agrees with you.
Nobody at all!
Sure she would.
Better Palin would bring in the base also.
Imagine the base.
Obama didn’t do shit with welfare work requirements. That was clinton with a republican congress in the 90s. It needs to be reformed again..
“Palin would not bring in any more electoral votes.”
At this point and time, she wouldn’t lose any either. It would also be the biggest slap in the face to the left in all of history. Remember, they already destroyed her, yet she keeps gaining ground and stands firm.
I’d laugh for a month.
If romney has a brain, Sarah Palin is the choice!
“Jindal has the best resume”
Jindal is an excellent choice. He is certainly eligible since he was born in the US.
He would also help win southern voters skeptical of voting for a guy from MA.
You are, in effect, asking me to “prove a negative” -—
But, the fact that you “NBC” radicals do NOT have ANYONE in the conservative legal community on your side speaks volumes.
YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND YOU HAVE FAILED!
YOU need to “shut up” or show us that someone with any wisdom or stature or historical or legal knowledge or actual political power agrees with you. (Yes, political power matters, as CONGRESS has a duty to interpret the Constitution)
You are alone.
Your theory is loony and laughable and bogus.
You cant get Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, the Heritage Foundation, Landmark Legal, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, a single Member of Congress or a single Judge, anywhere, to agree with you.
You have FAILED, get over it.
You were wrong and it is over.
And if Palin has a brain, she’ll stay away from Romney.
I am not seeing how you are reaching the conclusion that you are by using that case...if you review the text, you will see that the Court specifically made no declaration or conclusion as to the definition of "natural born citizen" - specifically stated that the constitution does not specifically define it, mentions that it is a matter of debate as to whether or not natural born could include merely anyone born within a nation's border, and then specifically delcares for the purposes of the case before them it is not necessary for them to reach a conclusion on the matter because it isn't something needed to resolve the issues raised by the case.
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
So in this particular case there was no such conclusion made by the Court and in fact it is specifically stated it was not going to make a conclusion on that issue as it was not necessary for establishing the needed findings for the case before them. There are a number of other cases where the Court did go further with it, however.
“...I did show you...”
You ain’t showed crap to anybody.
I don’t get my legal interpretations from freaking insurance salesmen.
More to the point, we know how to read, understand what we have read, and do not presume what we want, when we do read.
You would do your arrogant, false, self aggrandizing and narrow mind a favor to meet a really good “insurance salesman” and learn from him or her.