Most like Rubio except for his closet open borders amnesty bent. He is not eligible unless you really want to cr@p all over the Constitution, and all the bodies of the Patriots that have died defending it.
Yes Master I Will Do Your Bidding.
There is absolutely, positively, no legal case against the eligibility of Rubio.
If you don't like Rubio, that is your right and decision, but please drop the crackpot radical birther nonsense!
I do like Rubio, very much. That was not the question. And I could not agree more re: the radical birther nonsense.
In fact, I like Rubio so much I hope against hope that he does not run with Romney. I think it would hurt him in 2016. I cannot imagine how anyone would run with Romney. Most of all, Rubio. He does not need Romney.
How about radical “birther” certificate fraud nonsence?
To demonstrate how unbelievably misinformed you are, I present the following:
If Rubio is eligible as you believe, then so are Ahmed and Shaimaa Morsi.
Who are Ahmed and Shaimaa Morsi?
Why they are the children of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.
There is a reason the Founders specifically included a requirement for the president to be “natural born” — two American citizen parents and born in the USA.
And being a Birther is far preferable to being a GUllible.
http://theobamafile.com/_opinion/Gullibles.htm
Go away, troll!
Go away, troll!
Please don’t resort to the leftist tactic of calling anyone who doesn’t agree worn you a crackpot. It’s a vile way to argue.
Most like Rubio except for his closet open borders amnesty bent. He is not eligible unless you really want to cr@p all over the Constitution, and all the bodies of the Patriots that have died defending it.
Here are 6 Supreme Court cases that say otherwise. All specifically outline the requirement for the parents to be citizens at the time of birth to be a NBC.
Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme%20Court
If you want to change the rules, the process is called “ratifiying a Constitutional Amendment.”
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in 1971 to Yemeni citizens in Las Cruces, New Mexico. US Intelligence reports that, from the age of seven, al-Awlaki was raised abroad, becoming an enemy of America, indoctrinated by the highest powers of Al-Qaida and studying under the same teachers as Osama bin Laden. He eventually influenced various terrorists such as the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, and helped plan the thwarted attack of the “Underwear Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Al-Awlaki’s phone number was found among the contact information of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the man known as “the 20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks.
Those who suggest that there is no distinction between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” would have us believe and accept that such a person might have been eligible to run for President of the US simply because he was born in America. According to defenders of the alleged eligibility of Barack Obama (or Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal), any person born on US soil to one or more alien citizens could be the leader of the free world. At some point, according to that path of logic, this should have included Anwar al-Awlaki.
So, to say that every child born in America is a natural born citizen is also to say that any foreign interest whose child was born in the US could be allowed to raise that child abroad as an enemy of the US and return that child to this country in time to meet the Constitution’s 14-year residency requirement for President.
Considering that Islam has been at war with itself and the rest of the world at least since the death of Muhammad almost 1400 years ago, it takes very little imagination to project how a powerful enemy of the US might take the necessary 35 years and other resources to groom a “Manchurian Candidate” for the US Presidency. If we accept the premise that every person born in the US is a natural born citizen, we allow the establishment of a flawed precedent permitting a family such as that of Anwar al-Awlaki (or a communist government, or a Mexican drug cartel, etc.) to gain control of our country through an orchestrated, long-term attack on the Presidency.
This is precisely what the Framers were trying to prevent with the natural born citizen requirement. A note from John Jay to George Washington explains to us why the Framer’s included the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. It was not, as some would have us believe, to discriminate against any particular race or to keep white men in power. Jay stated outright that the goal was “to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.” This is not a proscription against any ethnic heritage. It was the Framer’s best effort, within the framework of a free society, to restrict the trust of our highest office only to persons with the greatest likelihood of being reared with an abiding love of American values.
The Constitution itself argues against the assertion that every child born in America is also a natural born citizen. Constitutional eligibility requirements for members of the House and Senate include that they be “citizens,” with progressively tighter restrictions on length of residency for Senators and the President. Following that same pattern of progressively increased restrictions, the Constitution also requires that the President must be, not just a citizen, but a “natural born Citizen.”
The natural born citizen requirement is not an incidental flourish of language, but a national security provision of the supreme law of our land. It is not a “big tent” invitation but an intentionally restrictive, but not racist, prohibition. It serves as a foundation on which to permanently secure and preserve the rights and freedoms which are the heritage of all Americans. Its purpose is to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, that every American President has sole allegiance to the USA by virtue of a childhood steeped in the richness of American culture, anchored in a respect for freedom, emboldened by the spirit of independence and innovation, and committed to the continuation of the noble experiment of a republic created and protected by free men and women and their progeny.
http://www.art2superpac.com/blog/?viewDetailed=00011