Skip to comments.Ann Coulter Says Marco Rubio as VP Pick Would Be a ‘Mistake’
Posted on 04/01/2012 12:18:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
While pundits, politicians and prognosticators have tapped Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as one of the most likely GOP vice presidential picks, conservative commentator Ann Coulter warned today that such a choice would be a mistake.
I think that would be a mistake because the same people who loved Rubio loved [former presidential candidate and Texas Gov.]Rick Perry, Coulter told me Sunday during the This Week roundtable discussion. I want someone whos been a bit more tested.
As the rising star of the Tea Party and a Hispanic from the delegate-rich state of Florida, Rubio would fix Romneys two biggest problems: enthusiasm among the Republican base and lackluster support from Hispanics, argued conservative commentator George Will.
But Coulter, who is a firm Mitt Romney supporter, said the GOP frontrunner needs a running mate who is tried and tested, which, as a first-term Senator, Rubio is not. Coulter suggested Romney pick someone like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Hes been tested, hes steady, hes not frightening, Coulter said of Kyl. He could certainly step into the job.
Van Jones, a former environmental advisor in the Obama White House, threw a brand new name into the realm of vice presidential speculation: former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served under George W. Bush. She ticks off a lot of boxes as far as women, persons of color, but shes actually tested, shes a national figure and she has foreign policy experience Jones said. You want to do something bold, put Condoleezza Rice on the ticket and watch the Obama campaign go crazy.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
As I have said, my definition doesn't matter and neither does yours. I have no interest in an irrelevant exchange.
My opinion is the Supreme Court owes us a definition of NBC and Congress owes us some legislation that will require eligibility authentication and open documentation of that eligibility to challenge by any registered voter.
Again, the issue is not about what FReepers think, but the fact that our elected officials are sweeping a crucial, yet unresolved Constitutional issue under the carpet.
Everything else is for windbags obsessed with gratifying themselves.
As far as I know, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Rubio have not provided thorough eligibility documents for public scrutiny. These guys better get off their tushes and do it, because voters are a whole heck of a lot smarter than they were in 2008 and will be demanding to see clear evidence. Out of the group, it’s my understanding that Romney and Rubio especially need to air out their credentials.
"Was John McCain a "natural born citizen" when he ran for POTUS in 2008 or at any time in his life? If so, why? If not, why not?"
Not, since he was born at a hospital in Colon. There have been attempts by members of Congress to declare the offspring of military members born overseas to be Natural Born Citizens. Why would such efforts be made at all, if these offspring are good to go already?
2.2 Romney is eligible if both of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth on US soil. The rest of your commentary regarding mormonism, polygamy etc is once again irrelevant, and as far as it goes, George Romney isn't running for President at the moment, so his eligibility is not part of the discussion except as a matter of speculation regarding whether or not the issue would have become a problem for him if he had stayed in contention longer than he did.
3. "A man is in the US military and fought for our country. . . going all the way back to George Washington's officer corps. . ."
I don't understand these repeated appeals to false authority, debts of gratitude for service to country, and emotional patriotism. The soldier's service, however valuable, and however long his NBC pedigree is, do not trump the Constitution. If his Vietnamese love isn't naturalized at the time of the child's birth, that child is not eligible to aspire to the presidency. I myself have a child who was born to a non-naturalized alien, and my child is in the same ineligible boat.
4. Same response as for #3.
"The decision does NOT address anyone with only one citizen parent (or none) or who was born elsewhere since no such person was a party before the court."
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 the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
"Emotional 'outbursts' are not arguments and are no substitute for the real thing."
I'm sorry, I must have missed the "emotional outburst" part of my post.
"Your collective definition of "natural born citizen" does not hold water (at least not yet) and has no apparent precedent."
As another poster mentioned, SCOTUS owes us a ruling on it. "Of course, SCOTUS handed down Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and has kept it on life support ever since, so, who knows? Nonetheless, I suspect not. If you disagree, hire this Attorney D'Onofrio."
As I made no mention whatsoever of any Attorney D'Onofrio, I believe that last is what's known as an unsolicited verbal left hook.
I appreciate your having taken time to author such a lengthy post to me, but after reading and re-reading everything that you've written, I'm of the opinion that it is nevertheless merely a verbose and eloquent *shrug* vis a vis the simple logic exercise that I posited.
Minor vs. Happersett is, BTW, not at all on point.
It doesn't have to be "all on point". Certain points made are important.
It specifically also notes that there is controversy as to whether one born in the US of foreign citizens was to be regarded as a natural born citizen or whether one born elsewhere of American citizens would be so regarded without resolving either of those questions.
I note that you don't include there that there are any problems with the definition of what a natural born citizen is in that case.
...the court did not have occasion to make any ruling whatsoever as to people with lesser qualifications than Mrs. Minor as to number of citizen parents or place of birth, but at least some credentials.
Isn't that because the court neither had, nor needed that occasion?
And you're admitting that her two citizen parents made her a natural born citizen. You're skating right on the edge without quite going over with your, IMO, very guarded statements.
What you regard as "binding" in the ancient Minor vs. Happersett matter is nothing but dicta at best.
BS! Now you're talking smack! And you qualify your statement...again!
If it's dicta then how did it make it into the syllabus? Or is it your opinion that the syllabus is wrong?
You really are a shill, aren't you. Anything that rocks the liberal boat and there you seem to be with a seemingly rational argument...until it's dissected.
And you pretend to not recognize to whom the treason charge was being levied. You turn it around to where you imply the charge is a self accusation upon the poster instead of on the POTUS as was obviously the intent.
I spent 25 years practicing law, including constitutional law before retiring.
REALLY! Somehow I don't believe you.
Post under your real name then, it'll give you more credibility.
Anyone can be anything under a pen name/screen name.
If you disagree with my posts here, state substantive grounds.
Those citizens who are a "heck of a lot smarter than they were in 2008" ought to go to court then and press their claims before one of those guys (or Obozo for that matter) get elected in 2012. I have also heard claims that Santorum's dad who emigrated from Italy in about 1929 was not yet a citizen when Rick was born here in 1958 and rumors despite a long marriage producing 7 children, that he is "gay." I suspect that such claims are strictly used bull food but, hey, you never know!
When you have something of substance to say about an actual issue, let me know.
I have and you haven't responded to what I had to say.
If you disagree with my posts here, state substantive grounds.
I did. You didn't respond to them and you went into your little sanctimonious diatribe instead.
If you post actual substance, you may well be ignored anyway.
Translation - If I can't foment an actual response I'll fill in with BS.
What would happen? We will continue to get nice sounding form letters just like we've all gotten in the past saying that it's already been settled or our concerns will be taken into consideration.
And that's it.
The "emotional outburst" was not yours or Texas Voter's but that of Godebert shouting in all CAPS a one-word response: TREASON! rather than actually making an argument. Treason is very specifically defined in Article III, Section 3 of the constitution. Such an allegation requires a factual basis for the charge as specified in Article III, Section 3.
In reviewing the situation, it is obvious to me that by lumping three of you together because you have similar views as to the meaning of "natural born citizen," I have caused misunderstanding as to my references to Attorney D'Onofrio. That fault is entirely mine. I did not intend to deliver "an unsolicited verbal left hook." That left hook was aimed atone (Godebert) but managed to hit three including you. To you and Texas Voter, I acknowledge an obligation to apologize for that unintended consequence (a failing whether intended or not) and I hereby apologize to both of you (Flotsam_Jetsome and Texas Voter).
God bless you two and yours.
As you know from my previous posts on this thread, I thoroughly disagree with your answers. I do note that you have the integrity to provide those answers and the confidence to frankly state your position on them which differentiates you from many here.
I would note that if the constitution requires that one eligible to serve as POTUS be a "natural born citizen" as it does and, if that term somehow requires that the person have been born in the USA of two American citizen parents, GEORGE Romney was born at Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907 which would disqualify him as a natural born citizen under such a definition. If GEORGE was never even naturalized and therefore never became a citizen, then those who insist that both parents of GEORGE must be American citizens (for him to run for POTUS) would, if right, have additional cause for complaint. AND if George were neither born in the USA nor the child of American citizen parents, and not formally naturalized, then he was not even a citizen and MITT would not, under that theory, be a natural born citizen. I do not doubt, BTW, that Mitt's mother Lenore was a citizen of the USA.
Many wish to rely on Minor vs. Happersett but that is false reliance. A relevant issue in that matter was whether Mrs. Minor, born in Virginia of American parents, and who sought to vote in Missouri contrary to Missouri's decision to limit suffrage to male citizens, had standing to sue Missouri to vindicate that right. She was found by SCOTUS to have standing and, once that preliminary jurisdictional standing was established, proceeded to agree to hear her claim and to deny it.
One ought to place claims in an historical context. The decision in that case was rendered in 1874. Feminism was not invented in our time. Feminists were using various tactics to force suffrage rights for women, among other things. It took a World War I era constitutional amendment to make women's suffrage universal. In the mid-1870s, feminists were aroused politically by the movement to also enact legislation on a state level that would "emancipate" married women so that they, and not their husbands, would control their property and estates. The common law had generally been that a woman's independent legal ability to control her property and estate was extinguished at marriage and for its duration AND that her status as an independent person was extinguished as necessary for her to be merged legally with her husband who would then exercise all control of her property and estate. If and when she became divorced or widowed, she would again, as a femme sole, be in control of her property and estate just as single and never married adult women were.
The Minor decision references Mrs. Minor's Virginia birth and her parents' citizenship. Would anyone dispute that those three qualifications certainly qualified her as a citizen? I don't think so BUT that does not mean that all three of those facts (place of birth, father's citizenship and mother's citizenship) necessarily were required to establish her simple citizenship much less "natural born" citizenship. Simple citizenship could be obtained by naturalization by a foreign born person born to foreign citizens. Being born in the USA unless to foreign diplomatic personnel of a foreign nation would suffice for simple citizenship OR having one parent who was an American citizen at the time of one's birth. One qualification of those three would suffice for simple citizenship. Would one qualification or two of those three suffice to be a "natural born citizen?" is the actual question. I say yes. You and others say no.
The SCOTUS cannot just reach down out of the sky in the absence of a case on point before it to determine the answer to THAT specific question. I lack the financial resources to hire counsel and I am too old and too tired to get a case there on my own behalf. The status quo is not goring my ox. Further, if a court of relevant jurisdiction (preferably SCOTUS) would make that determination in such a case, I agree that it would be a worthwhile and long overdue determination on the part of SCOTUS on an issue quite likely to recur in the future.
I would add that if Mitt Romney AND Obozo were ruled ineligible as not "natural born citizens," I would rejoice and gladly button my lip on all the arguments I have made on the issue here. America's survival is that important.
Again, God bless you and yours!
One LAST time: Engage in substantive discussion rather than ad hominem baloney. Alternatively, evaporate. AND, for a change, you are right on ONE thing: I do claim you are stalking me as is demonstrated by the thread you have linked, this thread and, at least one other thread of April 3. Ciao!
At this point in time, Ron Paul has lost his support, so it doesn't matter where he was born or what country his parents held allegience to. He's finished.
It seems that we have a crackup in aisles #132-134. Check the links in the first two.
Agreed, but it would appear that Gingrich and Santorum seem likely to also be finished before long and, if it is Obozo vs. Romney, the country is likely to be finished along with them, making this discussion somewhat moot. I would be delighted to see those two excluded from the POTUS race by natural born citizen claims, if necessary. SCOTUS ought to resolve the question but SCOTUS will recess for the summer in late June or early July and not return until the first Monday in October. That is not a very promising schedule for what would normally require a lengthy process.
The Romney clan's move to Mexico and what effect it may have had on George Romney's citizenship still concerns me somewhat. Based on what I've read on the subject (which is little compared to that done by others, since I didn't even take an interest until less than a year ago, a la The Donald's brief conniptions), I believe that George Romney's parents did not renounce their US citizenship when they moved to Mexico. I also believe that George Romney, having been born in Mexico to (presumed, for argument's sake) US citizens was nevertheless born as a citizen of other than Natural Born type and was therefore ineligible to actually hold the office of the presidency, though there's nothing stopping him from throwing money away running for said office. The best term I've seen used to describe this class of citizen would be "naturalized at birth" by virtue of having at least one US citizen parent when born at any location outside of the US or its territories. If George was even this type of citizen, it would still then make Mitt eligible. If anyone on FR has information that can incontrovertibly establish George Romney's citizenship bona fides, I'd be very grateful if they could post such.
"The Minor decision references Mrs. Minor's Virginia birth and her parents' citizenship. Would anyone dispute that those three qualifications certainly qualified her as a citizen?"
Again, I'll extend the invitation to any FReepers reading this who are (likely) more knowledgeable than I am to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Ms. Happersett was attempting to litigate based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They denied her that tactic by pointing up her Natural Born citizenship status as a reason for denying her case under the auspices of the 14th, noting that there was nothing in law guaranteeing the right of women to vote and that such had been the case prior to the 14th Amendment.
"Would one qualification or two of those three suffice to be a "natural born citizen?" is the actual question. I say yes. You and others say no."
God's blessings upon you and yours also.
(I figured out that the "verbal left hook" wasn't directed to me. You have to admit that it's a pretty good line, though. . .)