Posted on 02/23/2012 12:40:00 PM PST by wrrock
New revelations that Republican rising star Senator Marco Rubio was a Mormon as a child may create a major obstacle for his political future.
Viewed by many as a likely- and popular- vice presidential candidate in the upcoming elections, the admission that Mr Rubio was an active and enthusiastic Mormon from ages 8 to 13 may hinder his chances because of the negative connotation many conservatives have with the religion.
And, if Mitt Romney- who is arguably the country’s best known Mormon- wins the nomination, Mr Rubio’s chances of being put on the ticket are slashed even further.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It’s interesting to me that being a Mormon is evidently considered to be a “negative” thing in politics....which it is not.
I cannot wait until a Muslim runs for office...so that I can watch the MSM claim that it is a “positive” thing.
Of course, considering Muhammed Obama...
It’s not negative, just new. Sometimes new things take a while to adjust.
Even if true, big deal. Seriously what 8 year old gets to chose what religion they can be?
only about the 10th thread on this. do you also count it negative if someone wasn’t born into a Christian family?
Rubio has been baptized into two different religions and one will claim him as a church member for life. I think he can be removed from the books of the LDS, but I don’t think the Catholics will stop counting him.
Why, all of a sudden, is a candidate or potential candidate’s religion an issue with the MSM? They didn’t give a rat’s hind leg about it in 2008............
Is this a spoof piece? Seriously, who cares whether he is, was or ever has been a Mormon . . . and for goodness sake, raising the fact that he was a Mormon for a few years as a kid? Somehow I think the Pulitzer committee will take a pass on this story.
Once you’re in, you’re in............
Hahaha! He was a rabid Mormon from 8 to 13!! Are these people insane?
I don't know what political sources you are reading, but everything I read about Mormonism and political polling says that it is a negative.
The figures I see are that 20% to 30% (depending on party) of voters nationally won't vote for a Mormon President, that is pretty negative.
Well, he may have been there as an 8 year old, but he probably didn’t “listen”.
He is not, according to me, a Natural Born Citizen. Neither of his parents was an American citizen at the time of his birth.
Is this a way to get the also ineligible Mombasa MF used as some sort of precedent? One wonders.
“Why, all of a sudden, is a candidate or potential candidate’s religion an issue with the MSM? They didn’t give a rat’s hind leg about it in 2008............”
You are making an excellent point. But then we all know MSM are hypocrites.
Well, he may have been there as an 8 year old, but he probably didn’t “listen”. And, what was Obama when he was an eight year old? And what drugs was he doing in college? Oh, yeah, none of that has any relevance because it was long ago. The media are becoming too ridiculous and do not see they are making themselves more irrelevant by the hour at this point.
For cyring out loud-I could care less
“It’s interesting to me that being a Mormon is evidently considered to be a “negative” thing in politics....which it is not.”
Indeed! During my 37 working years, I worked with a few mormons, and they were the best workers, always well mannered, and non-prejudicial to others. Actually I will go so far as to say they were better class of people than any other religious group I came across.
Great point about Obama. He was a Muslim attending a madrasa from 8 to 13. Something like that.
How was that sells pitch in anyway related to the fact that Mormonism is seen as a negative in politics?
Obama was born into Islam, and converted to Christianity at age 27.
And what you’re doing isn’t hypocritical? You can’t say what religion Obama was raised in is important but what religion Rubio was raised in isn’t. Both are important. These are a person’s formative years and it may have relevance as to what their world view is. Since it’s often impossible to trust what a politician says, it’s important to know all the verifiable facts about them that we can.
27, yikes.
Amazing isn't it Kenny. This appears a tactic like running McCain, to provide cover for Obama. We have learned that precedent doesn't mean much, seeing that judges can make up nonsense while ignoring Minor v Happersett, precedent confirming the common law. Both parties are complicit, and Ron Paul is a distraction. He has deliberately avoided addressing Constitutional eligibility, and will let Israel destroy the Middle East by itself if it must, to survive.
The law is so clear, and the avoidance so clear, that it is also clear that government of, by and for the people is a myth. What appears a political process is a distraction for the proletariat.
I think you misunderstood. When I said “it didn’t matter because it was so long ago” I was referring to the fact that the press said that about Obama in 2008. I am not being hypocritical at all. I am saying it either matters in both instances or it matters in neither, I didn’t state an opinion on that. My point is that it either matters/doesn’t in BOTH cases. It can’t matter for one and not matter for the other.
-PJ
Finally, an explanation for his tremendously misguided love of all things Romney.
You must have never worked with or come across any Lutherans.
No wonder he quit. Cuban coffee is just too intoxicating to avoid. Anybody else out there ever drink Cuban coffee? And for that reason you will find few Cuban Mormons.
According to YOU. If any such case were brought before the Supremes, it would be LAUGHED out of court within minutes. There are only TWO types of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized. No make believe third type.
This is a big to do over nothing. Who is behind this crap: Liberals or the GOP establishment?
What, you mean you haven’t seen all those attacks on Christian religion by the Mormons??? Calling it false, etc?
Me either.
And then there is this:
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Mormon Theocracy Meme Debunked.
Bigotry is bad; how hard is that to remember?
Apparently, very hard for a lot of American liberals who have allowed their dislike and suspicion of Republican politics to lower their defenses against cheap and ugly religious bigotry. Nasty, ill-founded slanders against alleged Mormon plans for theocracy are spewing forth from news organizations and writers who, when the better angels of their nature are more fully in control, recognize the vicious and evil nature of religious bigotry in other contexts.
Well Walter, that’s not just coming from liberals, I hate to have to tell you.
Disclosure: I don’t and won’t support Romney. My reasons for non-support are not related to his Mormonism, that’s all. There are plenty of political reasons to not support Mitt Romney.
Rubio actually enthusiastically endorsed Huck (as far from Mormonism as you can get) OVER Romney in 2008.
And endorsed no one since Huck decided not to run this cycle.
The DOpiest thing about this article is that who the hell at the age of 8 has any real knowledge of specific religious doctrine? I mean I remember at that age asking my father why they were always talking about “parties” on the radio and tube and he had to explain to me about political parties not being the same as birthday parties.
Please.
On the other hand, we have someone who had an atheist mother, a muslim father, a muslim step-father, non-practicing Christian grandparents, spent 20 years in a Black Liberation Theology church and describes himself simply as "Christian". There are a million questions to be asked here and no one seems to be interested in the answers.
Incorrect. Santorum is a practicing Catholic. Rubio is not unless he reverted in the last 18 months.
Whether or not Mr/Ms Comix is an Obot, though the allusion to ridicule -"LAUGHED" - is a strong hint of "Obot", don't be confused. We will keep trying to clarify while telling the truth doesn't put us in reeducation camps. There are just two classes of citizen, as Comix says, and Mr. Rubio is a naturalized citizen. It was a statute, a naturalization law, that made Rubio a citizen. The law originated in Congress, and was ratified as an amendment, but an amendment that never mentioned natural born citizenship, citizenship based upon natural law, whether cited by Vattel, Grotius, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, Locke, Wolff, Leibniz, Cicero, or Aristotle. Chief Justice Marshall thought Vattel's definition was the most concise, and cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253. Here is one of the most clear declarations of the common-law definition, but with no citations, because Chief Justice Waite fixed the definition as precedent, to be "held" by subsequent courts. Remember, there are essentially no definitions is the Constitution. The Constitution was written to be understandable by literate citizens, and depended upon the common language and law at the time of its framers.
Here is Chief Justice Morrison Waite explaining who are natural born citizens, and pointing out that there were many doubts about who were the naturalized citizens, just enabled by the 14th Amendment ratified less than ten years before Minor v. Happersett. Just try to follow who is a citizen to see that naturalization has always been a moving target. But natural born citizenship has never been altered, and Congress has no authority to interpret Supreme Court or Constitutional definitions:
“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.”
Being a Mormon is only a negative when it applies to a conservative. When it is applied to a RINO, it is a badge of honor.
?????????
Romney certainly gets a lot of grief for being a Mormon, so if he's the RINO you're talking about, you're wrong.
Harry Reid doesn't get any trouble from the media for being Mormon. Neither did the Udalls. But I doubt anyone's pinning a medal on them for that.
I live in Florida. Yes, Rubio did not endorse anyone, but when he ran for the senate he had Mitt Romney’s picture prominently displayed even larger than his own on the front of his website. He has spoken glowingly of Romney often here. I don’t recall him speaking about any of the other candidates running in the same way so, forgive me if I mention his Romney love.
Perhaps it’s just because stealth RINOs like to stick together.
“Romney certainly gets a lot of grief for being a Mormon, so if he’s the RINO you’re talking about, you’re wrong.”
Please point me to some MSM articles that go after Romney based on his ‘religion’.
Yeah, looks like it is pile-on Rubio night on FR.
in re: LAUGHED out of court within minutes
Plain fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS has absolutely dodged this issue, along with every other black-robed bumkisser before whom the strange and wonderful cases have arrived.
What is a "Natural Born Citizen?" The SCOTUS owes us a definition about now, instead of allowing the Mombasa MF and his advocates to settle it without benefit of adjudication. If a court actually hears the case on the issue and then laughs it out, OK-PJ.... then, I'm buying.
Until that happy, or sad, day. The issue hangs like a cloud over this administration and the country. This remains a valid constitutional question.
Rubio’s parents were NOT American Citizens when he was born. He is NOT a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the ONLY SCOTUS Ruling to ever define the term.
It REQUIRES two parents who are American Citizens and being born on American soil in order to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen eligible for POTUS and VP BOTH.
STOP trial ballooning an unconstitutional candidate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It makes us no better than Obamalamadingdong!
Well said as always Spaulding!
That’s right, and Rubio is a Naturalized citizen, by means of the 14th Amendment. A Natural Born Citizen is one which needs NO statute to provide citizenship status because both that persons parents were citizens at the time of his birth in the United States or it’s territory.
Rubio’s parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth, so his citizenship claims comes from the 14th Amendment, not from the condition of his birth.
(1)Team Obama, with the help of WND, Taitz, et al, has managed to turn this very real Constitutional matter into the "Birth Certificate" charade, adroitly shifting focus from the real to the surreal. If Obama is not paying these people, he ought to be.
(2) The Constitutional case is absolutely unique, giving courts, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS, ample opportunity to shuck and jive their administrative way around it. With no firm precedent upon which to actually opine, that could mean taking some sort of definitive stand on the actual matter. Heaven forfend!
(3)Obviously, no court in the land wants to be on record as opining on the eligibility of a sitting President to actually be sitting! (,i>especially after they swore the SOB in!) They pray that this cup may pass from them.
It is particularly galling to those many millions of us who want an answer on the issue to be dismissed ... as if this was res judicata. ... and that we are a bunch of silly moos for asking what is, I repeat ..again ... a legitimate question.
However Danae, it is just not our job to extrapolate from Minor vs. H, or the 14th Amendment. It is a job for the SCOTUS. It is ultimately their job to interpret the Constitution as the final court of appeal in the land.
The obstacle here is, as Justice Thomas, Alito, and Scalia have so heavily hinted, is that the SCOTUS wants no part of the issue, and has grasped any straw to avoid hearing a case on the issue.
Sadly, neither does it seem that any state AG wants a piece of the action. This is a massive case of national insanity. It won't go away until some part of the judiciary, legislature, or state officials act. So far, no good.
I agree Kenny. I understand their reasoning. Challenging it...DEALING with it brings us literally to the brink of dissolution of the Union. No joke. I don’t blame them for being cowards, I blame them for CHOOSING to act like cowards.
On their souls be it.
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.