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

Skip to comments.

Time To Draft Rubio For VP
Red State ^ | 1-31-2012 | Tom Thurlow

Posted on 01/31/2012 9:49:41 PM PST by reformedcrat

Forceful, unapologetic articulation is a new requirement for Republicans: it is not only a good track record or voting record, conservatives also demand the ability to forcefully articulate conservative principles. Just ask Texas Governor Rick Perry.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012veep; fl2012; rubio; rubio2012; vp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last
To: pray4liberty

That case is interesting, but a “default judgment” will not actually get to the merits, will it? And the other 49 States can all come up with their OWN decisions on this matter.


101 posted on 02/01/2012 8:25:11 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

HUH?
You make so many leaps in your arguments against me, why would anyone listen to you on citizenship law?

How am I “anti-sovereignty”? Who died and made you ruler of this issue?


102 posted on 02/01/2012 8:29:04 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

You are wrong.
NOBODY with any authority under the law agrees with you on this matter.
The Court cases your small choir comes up with were all decided BEFORE the various acts of Congress defined citizenship for us. (Look at a Passport application).
The Court rulings you rest your very weak case upon, therefore, had to use Common Law and Natural Law definitions, as Congress had not provided guidance. (YES, Congress interprets the Constitution all the time, that is part of the job of Congress, to ENACT provisions of the Constitution.)

Your case is very, very weak.


103 posted on 02/01/2012 8:33:24 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: zipper

again, Natural Law and Common Law can be and often are over ridden by LEGISLATION!

You have no case.


104 posted on 02/01/2012 8:35:42 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: sneakers
That was a default judgment, due to FAILURE TO APPEAR, and was not really decided on the merits.
We have 49 other States.
They can all define this matter for themselves.
The vast majority of States will not agree with you.

BTW, I think Obama deserved a default judgment for his arrogance in refusing to answer the Court.

105 posted on 02/01/2012 8:39:04 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Marco is not as conservative as you might think and he’s not eligible to be VP. Drafting him this year will just result in a bunch of lawsuits and bad press. Its a bad idea. Allen West is a much better choice for VP.


106 posted on 02/01/2012 8:41:16 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
The vetting that Perry received did not speak well of his capabilities to be President of these United States.

I find it rather unlikely he will be a VP choice.

107 posted on 02/01/2012 8:42:04 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I agree.
Besides, Texas will not vote for Obama, anyway.
108 posted on 02/01/2012 8:45:03 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Agreed.

Texas is in the bag.

Perry provides little other than a good record of job creation in a major State - his ethics personality and intellect seem to be major drawbacks.

He isn't much as far as ideological balance - rock ribbed conservatives don't seem especially enamored - and he provides little in the way of swaying the electoral map.

Not a likely choice.

As far as Rubio - and those on this thread that maintain he is not a NBC - the U.S. Constitution only mentions or envisions two types of U.S. citizen going forward - those who owe natural allegiance to these United States via conditions of birth and are “natural born” - and those who must undergo a legal process of “naturalization” to shift those natural allegiances.

109 posted on 02/01/2012 8:52:29 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: reformedcrat

“conservatives also demand the ability to forcefully articulate conservative principles”

Yeah, like illegals are illegal and need to be deported. And we don’t need to import millions of foreigners here, particulary when we have high unemployment as it is.

Rubio, speak out on these issues—conservatives demand it.


110 posted on 02/01/2012 8:53:39 AM PST by SharpRightTurn ( White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

ABO...Rubio is paying back Willard because he supported him in his senate run.


111 posted on 02/01/2012 8:57:30 AM PST by BreezyDog (PLAN A: A Peaceful Restoration of the Republic.....PLAN B: A Restoration of the Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Spot ON!

Look, in any battle, there might be arguments with the General over strategy. A smart General will listen to the concerns of his officers.

I do not like Obama, but the radical birthers on FR are far too quick to call everyone in disagreement over strategy the “enemy” when we point out the weakness of their arguments.

112 posted on 02/01/2012 9:00:58 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Your shouting that “NOBODY with any authority blah blah blah...” is like global warming’s settled science. Shout it often enough and maybe the easily fooled will believe you. But your opinion on settled law means nothing and your shouting about it means even less.

The Constitution is what it is and only liberal sovereignty destroyers like you want to change the original intent of those who created the law. Shout all you want. Rubio is not a natural born citizen and he never will be.


113 posted on 02/01/2012 10:18:40 AM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, the father of gay marriage and socialized medicine in the US, is a lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: reformedcrat

By your standard, you would claim the child of our worst enemy, Iran’s Pres. Ahmadenijad, was eligible to be President of the United States if said child was born on U.S. soil and met the other qualifications listed in Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution. This is why “born on U.S. soil of U.S. citizen parents”, the standard unanimously supported in Supreme Court case Minor vs Happersett, is critical in protecting the American people from foreign dominance.


114 posted on 02/01/2012 10:31:01 AM PST by sforkjoe57 (How much longer must Americans be slaves to the stupidity of John Maynard Keynes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

And yet you would claim the child of America’s worst enemy, Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, would be eligible for the office of U.S. President if said child were born on U.S. soil and met the other qualifications listed in Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution.

The founders used the term “natural born citizen” because they didn’t want a person with a natural allegiance to foreign countries serving as president or commander in chief. No court or legislature has provided a lesser standard than that found in Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” (born on U.S. soil of U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth) because a lesser standard would obviously permit the child of our worst enemies to become our president.


115 posted on 02/01/2012 11:06:45 AM PST by sforkjoe57 (How much longer must Americans be slaves to the stupidity of John Maynard Keynes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
The Constitution does NOT support your argument.
Not at all.
The Constitution does NOT define NBC. The Courts were left, for a time, to base their decisions on Natural Law or Common Law.
Legislative LAW trumps Common Law and Natural Law.
We now have such guidance, and no Court, no Legal Authority, will support your views on the merits.
116 posted on 02/01/2012 11:36:02 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: sforkjoe57
Actually, the Founders pretty much trusted THE VOTERS and the STATES.

You are looking for a “magic wand” to get rid of Obama.

I am very much a Constitutional Conservative, and I object to anyone who distorts the meaning of that document.

I believe that you are guilty of just that.

117 posted on 02/01/2012 11:39:05 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

You are playing semantic games and I outed you!

Now you’re showing yourself to be a full on Alinsky-ite.

The country doesn’t need your type of ‘debate’.


118 posted on 02/01/2012 11:44:23 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

And when house democrats officially legislate that anyone can be president, instead of ‘certifying’ illegal candidates like in the last election, then you’ll be happy.

I see very little respect for the Constitution and the founding of this nation in your posts.

Only the globalists want the natural born clause erased from America’s cultural memory, citizens don’t. Its a very Stalinist of the globalists, don’t you think?


119 posted on 02/01/2012 11:51:12 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: sneakers

We should know as early as tomorrow (or possibly even late today) what the administrative judge’s recommendation to the GA Secretary of State will be.

The deadline for the written briefs is today.


120 posted on 02/01/2012 12:47:23 PM PST by zipper (espions sur les occupants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Look pal, I have paid my dues for the conservative cause, several times over.
You have no clue how petty and foolish you look right now.
You have no idea who you are insulting here.

Do you know how to disagree without getting ridiculous? I am not “angry” with those who disagree with me, as has been alleged on this thread -—

I am frustrated at the waste of resources that results when foolish ideas are not called out for what they are.

I can't stand Obama, but your line of attack will not hurt Obama.

121 posted on 02/01/2012 1:53:37 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

If the Founders trusted the voters and the states, they wouldn’t have given us a Constitution and a Constitutional Republic form of government and challenged us to keep it.

A Constitution that protects We the People and our Constitutional Republic form of government from enemies, foreign and domestic, is not a “majic wand”.

IMO, Constitutional Conservatives believe the words in We the People’s Constitution mean what the authors say. In a Permanent Ruling Aristocracy form of government, the words in We the People’s Constitution mean whatever the Permanent Ruling Aristocracy says they mean.


122 posted on 02/01/2012 1:54:58 PM PST by sforkjoe57 (How much longer must Americans be slaves to the stupidity of John Maynard Keynes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
My view IS the accepted view of almost every Constitutional Scholar out there.

Natural Law and Common Law are controlling, where no Constitutional or Legislative guidance is available.

Court cases, Case Law, can be overturned by LEGISLATION on such matters. This is an accepted legal standard.

Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH, and NOTHING ELSE.

Your view is not supported by even 5% of the legal profession or 5% of elected officials.

Your view is not supported by ANY leading conservative voice in this country.

123 posted on 02/01/2012 1:59:15 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: zipper

It will be a “default judgment” and therefore will not gain much ground in any other venue.


124 posted on 02/01/2012 2:00:19 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: sforkjoe57

Checks and Balances means that

People and States

Check and Balance

Federal power!

NO, the Founders trusted no one group with all the power. The Founders realized, full well, that a Zealot such as yourself might misuse their power, and assume that weak personal opinions should be the Law of the Land.


125 posted on 02/01/2012 2:03:07 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I think the ideas and opinions of the Founders regarding the people’s Constitution should be the Law of the Land while you think the ideas and opinions of the Permanent Ruling Aristocracy regarding the people’s Constitution should be the Law of the Land. Who is the pawn of the power crazed zeolots in the Permanent Ruling Aristocracy made up of party bosses, career politicians, and corporate media thugs?


126 posted on 02/01/2012 4:00:03 PM PST by sforkjoe57 (How much longer must Americans be slaves to the stupidity of John Maynard Keynes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

We are very fortunate the founders were such prolific writers and documenters. They wrote about what they were thinking when they created the Constitution. So we can determine their intent. The problem with you people who believe the Constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean is that you forget the Founders had an intent. You can pretend there is no definition and say it that it will mean whatever, but the writers of the Constitution had an understanding of what Natural Born Citizen meant. To that definition, Marco Rubio is found wanting because his parents were not citizens when he was born here. He is not NBC and all your protestations will never change that fact.


127 posted on 02/01/2012 4:01:47 PM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, the father of gay marriage and socialized medicine in the US, is a lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
"You, and the dozen or so people who agree with you on this matter, have actually become “a law unto yourselves” as you refuse to debate the points that the VAST MAJORITY of legal authorities make, to prove you wrong."

If you have proof the NBC clause in our US Constitution has been nullified by a Constitutional Amendment, then bring it. Otherwise, your so called "legal authorities" don't mean dip to me. Sick twisted contortions of the US Constitution are abundant. Especially when it come to marxists and socialists.

128 posted on 02/01/2012 4:18:12 PM PST by takenoprisoner (Constitutional Conservatism is Americanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
you and, what? maybe a dozen people think Rubio is not qualified! lol

Exactly. Rubio is going to get the nod and there will be a handful of birthers standing on the sidelines, stomping their feet in indignation while the rest of the country ignores them.

129 posted on 02/01/2012 4:23:03 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sneakers
We expect the administrative judge in Atlanta to issue a recommendation to the GA Secretary of State soon.

Today's post at Liberty Legal Foundation:

Judge Malihi moved the deadline for filing our legal briefs up to today, so today we filed two documents with Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings. We expect Judge Malihi to rule promptly on this matter. As soon as he does, we will let you know both what his ruling is and what it means.

The first filing was our Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This is written as a proposed order in the Judge’s voice, but it is not his order. This filing is written in this way to show how we would like the Judge to rule on the evidence and arguments we presented last Thursday in Atlanta. We showed that Obama’s father was never a citizen via several documents. We then showed Supreme Court precedent that “natural born citizen” requires two citizen parents at the time the candidate was born. We therefore propose a ruling that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be on the Georgia ballot for the office of President.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Welden-GA-Prop-Findings-of-Fact-and-Conclusions-of-Law.pdf

The second filing today was a Motion for Finding of Contempt against Obama. My message last week, Is the Judicial Branch Dead?, covered the implications of Obama’s actions last week. Never before in our history have we had a President simply ignore a court order. We have had Presidents subject to a court order more than once, but in every one of those instances, the President in question followed lawful procedure in dealing with those orders. We now have a sitting President that has openly declared that he is not subject to the Judicial Branch of our government. This is dangerous territory and our Motion urges Judge Malihi to recommend “that the Superior Court find the Defendant in willful contempt of Court, and that the Superior Court impose sanctions commensurate with an act that threatens the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.”

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Welden-GA-Mtn-for-contempt.pdf

Source page:

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1689/georgia-ruling-coming-soon/

130 posted on 02/01/2012 5:42:25 PM PST by zipper (espions sur les occupants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: zipper

Thank you zipper!!


131 posted on 02/01/2012 5:47:57 PM PST by sneakers (EAT YOUR PEAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
The Constitution NEVER meant what you say it meant.
The Court Case Law, you Birthers think is so important, was based on Common Law and Natural Law, which ONLY apply when there is no Constitutional or Legislative guidance.

Now there IS.

At the time of the Court rulings cited by Birthers, the Courts were free to interpret as they did.

Now? Now they are not, since the CONGRESS HAS DEFINED THE LAW, SPECICALLY, as to CITIZENSHIP!

Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and nothing else.

132 posted on 02/01/2012 6:01:28 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
You could not fill a Walmart Restroom with all of the attorneys and legal experts who agree with you.

You are wrong.

You are spouting crackpot legal theory not supported by established law and not supported by history or logic.

IF the FOUNDERS did not want Congress to interpret Natural Born Citizen -— then the FOUNDERS SHOULD HAVE SPELLED IT OUT as you wish that they did.

The Founders did NOT do so. Which leaves Congress to decide the meaning of the term.

Congress interprets, enacts and enables Constitutional mandates all the time.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

133 posted on 02/01/2012 6:07:30 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Obama is a ‘constitutional scholar’.


134 posted on 02/01/2012 6:42:40 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: zipper
"Our Constitution simply says that you must meet the Natural Born Citizen requirements or you cannot be President."

Our Constitution does not define natural born citizen.

135 posted on 02/01/2012 6:49:06 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (Don't wish doom on your enemies ... plan it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde

Brilliant


136 posted on 02/01/2012 7:31:05 PM PST by zipper (espions sur les occupants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I’m sure you have enough to fill up plenty of restrooms. Now you want to tell the Founders what they should have done?! I’m sure that if they had known so many no nothing commies would have been trying to destroy our Constitution with the help of some people born in this country, they would have done many things differently. But they imagined that people had enough sense to look at what they had written and would interpret the laws as they intended when they wrote them. They had no idea that people would decide the meaning of words and phrases could be changed by communists and others who don’t like the outcome.

There is only one cracked pot around here and your disdain for our Founders and their decisions is disgusting. With all of your dislike for our Constitution and its Founders, you should just take yourself to a country more to your liking. Be sure to say hello to your friend Soros when you go.


137 posted on 02/01/2012 7:42:32 PM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, the father of gay marriage and socialized medicine in the US, is a lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

You are alone.
You are wrong.
You have no case, and you have no history to prove that you are right.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH!

That Courts said it meant something else in the past only shows that, in the PAST, it might have meant something else -— as Congress had not defined Citizenship yet, and the Courts had to rest their decisions on Common Law and Natural Law.

Now Congress has defined Citizenship, clearly in most cases (Congress does need to pass simple legislation on the “Anchor Baby” issue, Congress has the power to do so, as immigrant children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction thereof -—”).

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth. At one time, during our Founding and for a long time there after, Common Law and Natural Law did restrict Citizenship as you state, but that was BEFORE Congress defined Citizenship requirements, more specifically.

You have no clue how this Country works.

You have no understanding of the law, Constitutional or otherwise.


138 posted on 02/01/2012 7:50:53 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Your jumping up and down and screaming about what can and can’t be done changes nothing. NBC is not the same as “citizen” or the Founders would have said that. The only “citizen” they allowed to become president was a “citizen” who was alive at the adoption of the Constitution.

Think you can find the amendment that you say changes the meaning Natural Born Citizen? Some people make an argument for the 14th Amendment changing the definition of “citizen.” But there has not been even one amendment changing “Natural Born Citizen.”

Commies want to remove the Founders intent and their understanding of the definition of NBC from the interpretation of the Constitution. From what you have written, you seem to want to align yourself with those commies. Liberals in the court system wanting to ignore the original intent behind our laws is a problem that has plagued our country for years. You can continue to align yourself with them and keep your supposed belief in safety in numbers just as the global warming supporters do. But I choose to stick to what is true and right.

It might help you make your argument if you would stop screaming. Your yelling adds nothing. In fact, it makes you appear unhinged. Get some help for your apoplectic behavior. Calm yourself.


139 posted on 02/01/2012 8:43:48 PM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, the father of gay marriage and socialized medicine in the US, is a lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Your qualification where a citizen at birth becomes eligible means (the alleged former) Bin Laden, could shuttle one of his wives into the US, have her plop his child here, and the child could grow up to become POTUS. Are you kidding me?

Do you actually believe this was the intent of the founders, when they placed the NBC clause in Article 2? Or, was it their intent to prevent such an atrocity?

I’ll leave it there so as not to become rude, to not say what I am really thinking regarding your atrocious misguided belief.


140 posted on 02/01/2012 9:42:34 PM PST by takenoprisoner (Constitutional Conservatism is Americanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

Problem is they don’t teach Government in schools today. To busy teaching the latest feel good happy horsesh@t. If some here would take the time to read the documents that actually do exist written by those who wrote our Constitution, they might sound at least half educated when they post their cr@p.


141 posted on 02/01/2012 9:54:55 PM PST by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: All
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “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.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/cite-obama-with-contempt-lawyers-urge-judge/

142 posted on 02/01/2012 11:28:38 PM PST by zipper (espions sur les occupants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: zipper

Dang. I don’t need a law degree or any knowledge of what the so-called constitutional law experts say or care to. Furthermore, I don’t care if we who know the truth are outnumbered 100-1 or worse.

How’s bout some NATURAL COMMON SENSE? Citizen at birth? Okeeeeey dokey. Words do mean things, and if plain ol’ vanilla “citizen” is all you need to express what is meant, then why go to all the trouble and wasted words and ink and put in there the term “natural born”. I don’t even need to see any contemporaneous thoughts expressed in other documentation or a SCOTUS decision to see the delusional twistings of thought needed to dismiss it so cavalierly.

Whatever. I’m done with this conversation. Won’t waste my words on closed minds that expect me to suspend natural reasoning, sheesh


143 posted on 02/02/2012 6:33:44 AM PST by SaintDismas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SaintDismas

Yes, agreed.

The founders wanted to prevent a usurper or a person of divided loyalty from candidacy for the nation’s highest office.

Or put another way, someone who exactly fits the description of Obama.


144 posted on 02/02/2012 8:00:48 AM PST by zipper (espions sur les occupants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

WRONG


145 posted on 04/13/2012 11:44:27 AM PDT by Airspeed10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Airspeed10

Nobody with any legal authority agrees with you.


146 posted on 04/13/2012 1:40:28 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last

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