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.
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...”
-
Show me.
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...
You’re halucinating.
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.
Ping!
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.
Democrats can’t make an issue. Obama’s Kenyan father was never a US citizen.
Obama’s BC shows his father was a Kenyan who never was a US citizen. Last time I checked, he is running for 2nd term.
I have heard him mention Allen West in past interviews. Man would THAT rock the left! LOL!!!!
Who has standing to challenge it? That's the problem we face.
And now the barking moonbat contingent has been heard from and can't even spell their names.
anyone that would give citizenship to even one illegal alien isn’t fit to be President of the US!!!!
Rubio is liberal crap!
Reagan granted amnesty. I do not want amnesty but your "one issue" stance is not smart or even historically defensible. Get over yourself.
The point of EVERY election is to defeat the worst candidate.
Obama must go.
A congress critter would have standing since he is violating las they passed....
Also, conservative Mark Levin, who provided some of the legal analysis used to strike down the ObamaCare mandate under the Commerce Clause has also weighed in on the issue before and believes Rubio is eligible.
Also, you can't "no standing" is just a canard since that word doesn't mean what you think it does. Suddenly I'm seeing a pattern but I digress. It's a critical and crucial problem in our judicial system today. Real things happening that effect millions or even one, yet no one has standing to get the legal questions answered.
The Dems couldn't attack Rubio or Jindal without alienating immigrants. But they wouldn't have to, they have loony Birthers, supposedly on the Right, to do it for them.
Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government.: native born (Gov. Bobby Jindal); naturalized (Gov. Arnold Schwaznegger); and citizen-by-statute (Sen. John McCain).
All the above have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate, as per the U.S.Constitution, Article I, Section 2, clause 2.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
Natural born Citizen isn't listed in the above link. It is NOT a type of statutory citizenship as per the Federal Government. It is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution.
Natural born Citizenship was defined in the holding of Supreme Court Case Minor v. Happersett (1874). Virginia Minor, a suffragette, sued to run for the Presidency claiming that she qualified under the 14th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution.
The court unanimously determined that Virgina Minor belonged to that class of persons who were born in the United States of citizen parents, that she was a natural born citizen, and was not a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
This holding of Minor v. Happersett has been used in more than twenty other SCOTUS cases.
No one has the RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of natural born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
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.