Skip to comments."Marco Rubio Doesn't Have Enough Experience To Step In As President"
Posted on 03/23/2012 5:55:59 PM PDT by Retired Chemist
Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly were discussing Marco Rubio as a possible VP contender and O'Reilly said Rubio doesn't have enough experience to step in as President. Dobbs replied saying Obama didn't have any more experiencce when he became president and O'Reilly had to agree.
You bet’cha. I will NOT vote for Mittens.....I’ll write in Mickey Mouse. Damn! When are people going to realize we don’t have freedom in voting. Our candidates are PICKED long before the campaigns start. Mittens had to take the back seat in 2008 and I’ll bet the ranch he was told he’d be the candidate in 2012. I’ve had it with both parties. I’m sick of them all! :(
Not according to our Constitution and the Supreme Court.
There are a lot of house reps. Does not mean they are all qualified to become president.
Really? Then that means he must be naturalized. When was Rubio Naturalized?
It does not matter if a conservative is in the VP position. It all just for show, no real power. Probably get to make a lot of speeches and inaugurate stuff.
Looks like an expensive coat! I wonder if Bill Ayers bought it for him?
Since when did the Constitution mention a candidates parents in reference to eligibility. A person born in the USA who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen period. It has been since 1789. I’m sick and tired of people like you who do not know what they are talking about making the rest of us look like nutters. You probably read something on some other nuts website and you take it as gospel. Nobody in over 200 years of American history has questioned the meaning of natural born citizen, born in the USA, until you nuts recently. As for educating myself, I will stick with legitimate books on American history over some conspiracy nuts website.
The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.
Wrong. I will post the very words.” No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Since then a person born in the United States and under the US’s jurisdiction (this excludes the children of foreign diplomats) are natural born citizens, period. The only controversy until this latest insanity has been over someone born outside the US to US citizens.
Translation: only dims are allowed on the ticket without experience and they are allowed on the very top of the ticket.
And the GOP can’t have an Hispanic on the ticket - that would just be so UNFAIR.
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 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.
Barry Soetoro couldn’t pass the security check to load bags or dump lavs at the airport.
The some authorities who go further happens to include the United States. Has been since the ratification of the Constitution.
You mean the same courts that were all for Jim Crow laws at the time. The same courts of the Dred Scott decision. Plessy v Ferguson.
I wouldn’t hang my hat on a decision that was a stain on American jurisprudence.
You can be born in this country and still not be a "Natural Born Citizen". The Constitution implies both parents must be Citizens of the Country at the time of the birth of the proposed Presidential contender. That's why the qualification factors for Presidents are different from Senators and Representatives. Here's what the Constitution says:
[Article II Section I] No person except a "natural born Citizen", or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The qualifying factor being....what I have underlined. The reason it says....Natural born citizen "OR" a citizen is simply because there is a great difference.
When the Constitution was adopted many qualified men who were being considered for the Presidency had been born of parents who were not citizens of the Country.....because the country had not existed yet. The framers knew this would eventually be sun setted (as time went on) because future presidential candidates would have no reason not to be children of citizens of this nation at the time of their birth. And.....that was the qualifier for the presidency (and not the House, the Senate nor the Supreme Court). You were not required to be a child of U.S. citizens at the time of your birth to hold these other offices. But to be called a "Natural Born Citizen" your parents must have been citizens as well.....at the time of your birth. The other elected (and appointed) offices of the Federal Government had no such requirement to be "Natural Born".
Now.....during the eighteenth century.....what did this term imply? What was its understanding among the populace? Here is what was written in 1758 by a Frenchmen, Emmerich de Vattel in his great work called "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Laws". This work was read throughout the world and understood to be the common explanation for the term "Natural Born Citizen". Here is the defining paragraph:
[Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 "Citizens and Natives"]
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
For this very reason both Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are neither one....."Natural Born Citizens". Their parents were not citizens at the time of their births.
This is also the reason the current occupant of the White House is not a "Natural Born Citizen". His father was a British subject at the time of his birth......and this is also the reason why his birth certificate controversy is such a waste of time. It makes no difference if he was born in Hawaii; Bozeman, Montana; Shangrila or the lobby of "Independance Hall in Philadelphia on the fourth of July with the Marine Corps band playing the National Anthem outside on the lawn. His father was not a citizen of this country and as such........he should have been vetted and disqualified. Unfortunately, no Republican had the cojones!
Now...........one more time for those in Rio Linda. You can be born in this country and be born a "Citizen"......but you are not considered a "Natural Born Citizen" unless both parents are citizens as well....at the time of your birth.