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

Skip to comments.

Time is now for Trump to pick Rubio for VP

Posted on 05/03/2016 6:58:48 PM PDT by MagillaX

First the reason the time now to pick Rubio is to beat Hillary to the punch with picking an hispanic.

Second reason why. It locks up almost all of the southern states.

Rubio did well in Virginia and will also help in Nevada. This leaves Ohio for Trump to win. It also helps him compete in Minnesota and New Mexico.

This will allow Trump to put resources in the some of the Northeast states making Hillary compete in states they would not normally compete in.

Some argue for a women to cancel out the woman card or a black American. The problem with this is they a are more traditional base for the Democrats and the numbers available to be moved for women are less than the numbers available to be moved with hispanics.

With black Americans Bernie Sanders is an example of trying to move the black vote and is difficult.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Florida; US: Indiana; US: New York; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2016election; 2016issues; 2016veep; chat; election2016; florida; indiana; ineligible; marcorubio; newyork; noob; rubio; trump; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-234 next last
To: Texas Fossil

If Trump picks him and they win I guess that makes him a winner.

To answer several comments

People need to stop thinking the country is majority republican it isn’t. You have to build a coalition that includes registered democrats. And the blacks aren’t moving ask Mike Steele.

The women vote you want to move is 10 percent of the voting block. The Hispanics are the larger block and they swing vote.

Fact is Hillary Clinton received more votes than trump in Florida. The primary is over and time to build a coalition.

Trump can have the wall and Rubio. And if you want to keep floating the gay picture your dealing with democrats now do you think that will hurt with them on voting?

If you want to be one of the losing purists that have to have your way or the highway best to join Cruz and the rest of the losers.

Picking a no name is not helpful also you will need to spend the rest of the year explaining who it is.


121 posted on 05/03/2016 7:24:29 PM PDT by MagillaX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

The VP has to be a natural born citizen. Rubio isn’t.

Plus he’s abominable in every way. Trump will never pick him.


122 posted on 05/03/2016 7:24:48 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Half the truth is often a great lie. B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

Hell NO!!!


123 posted on 05/03/2016 7:25:06 PM PDT by Gator113 (~~Go Trump, GO!~~ Just livin' life my way. Don't worry, everything's gonna be alright. 👍)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

Marco has had a few weeks to wind back down, to regain his composure and confidence. I say yes! He’s smart, bold and different from Trump in all ways that matter.


124 posted on 05/03/2016 7:25:27 PM PDT by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

Maybe Trump should have listened to SE Cupp, Matalin, Fields or Megyn Kelly on “how to win”


125 posted on 05/03/2016 7:25:27 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal (Trump was born in the city, voters under Cruz feet, Cruz a man of Wall Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY

He did not win his own state!

You're being too critical. He did win his own county and I believe his own house.

126 posted on 05/03/2016 7:25:30 PM PDT by pgkdan (The Silent Majority Stands With TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

No....

If i wanted a backup emergency generator i don’t buy one that, won’t start, quits after the load gets heavy, and is undesized.


127 posted on 05/03/2016 7:26:05 PM PDT by Daniel Ramsey (Donald Trump has all the right enemies while Lyin Ted has all the wrong friends!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

I support Scott Brown on the trail remaining seen but unheard.


128 posted on 05/03/2016 7:26:06 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal (Trump was born in the city, voters under Cruz feet, Cruz a man of Wall Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

There is no logic. Rubio sold out to the gang of eight.He’s a Globalist. He likes bubble baths. He won’t be reelected in Florida for anything including dogcatcher.


129 posted on 05/03/2016 7:26:37 PM PDT by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

No way Mr. Trump will have Rubio anywhere near him. Anyone close to Rubio will lose Florida in the General Election + all other places Rubio took a beating too. He will pick a politically savvy person with some experience under their belt. I don’t know and will not predict but I am thinking maybe Sen. Sessions or maybe Gov. Jan Brewer. It can’t be anyone in the GOPe primary or the race is lost in November. You heard it here first. GOD Bless America.


130 posted on 05/03/2016 7:26:59 PM PDT by RAWGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

No, I think he’ll pick someone a lot smarter than little Marco.


131 posted on 05/03/2016 7:27:01 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

Duncan Hunter would be a much better choice in my opinion.


132 posted on 05/03/2016 7:27:15 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Still praying for a Commander In Chief who honors and supports our Military!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner
LOL at the "Dondi" reference. You're showing both of our ages! ;)
133 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:03 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("The bathroom deal is a big fat nothing burger." -- Jim Robinson, 04/22/16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"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."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"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."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

134 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:04 PM PDT by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

NOoooooooooo.......


135 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:14 PM PDT by beethovenfan (Islam is a cancer on civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

It is not a falsehood, it is the original intent of the Constitution. Marco Rubio is an “anchor baby”. He is an American citizen, however, so that makes him actually eligible to be a United States Senator.

The great thing about the Ted Cruz candidacy is that it has flushed out those “conservatives” who actually are not willing to conserve anything but their own jobs in a corrupt system.


136 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:17 PM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Varsity Flight

Perhaps.


137 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:35 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

If you won on securing the borders and no amnesty ,other things. Not sure you can pick Rubio.


138 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:42 PM PDT by Carry me back (Cut the feds by 90%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MagillaX

I’d hope Rubio would be honorable enough to kick him in the teeth and walk away.

Trump is disgusting from any point of view - politically or morally or anything in between.


139 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:46 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

Cruz may be out of the primary race-—don’t get complacent now though! It’s not a done deal that Trump will be the actual nominee. The committee selected from within the GOP , sort of like the super-delegates of Democrat fame, have opportunity to stack the deck yet for the convention.


140 posted on 05/03/2016 7:29:49 PM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-234 next 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