Posted on 06/23/2012 3:07:09 PM PDT by rightjb
I will not vote for Marco Rubio as Vice President if Mitt Romney selects him to run on his ticket. He is NOT constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice President, and I would be a damn hypocrite in holding my ire and giving him my vote after working as hard as possible to educate people on Barack Obama’s ineligibility.
Call me a Birther, call me a Tea Party hick, call me an “extremist” or racist, I could give a flying forgery. I just don’t care anymore. I’m not going to be like one of those liberals who complain about the rich not paying more taxes and not voluntarily putting their money where there mouth is. And conservatives have constantly compromised on principle to the point where most Americans don’t think there is much difference in the spending habits of either party.
If you consider yourself a conservative – let me advise you that you can’t buy back your integrity when it’s convenient.
Continued at: I Will Write In Palin If Rubio Is VP
(Excerpt) Read more at politijim.com ...
No he's not.
If you think he is eligible then any Mexican women that sneaks 5 feet inside the fence and drops an anchor baby that person is ALSO eligible.
If someone like Rubio gets in there and gives amnesty to millions of Mexicans the Republic is GONE and we won't get it back peacefully.
I have to go with the OP. Rubio is an absolute deal breaker. We have an ineligible man in the white house now, we must never have another if we are going to survive as a nation.
Calm down. Rubio is not going to be selected for VP. Portman or TPaw will be the running mate. But I hear ya. I won’t vote for Rubio either.
Calm down. Rubio is not going to be selected for VP. Portman or TPaw will be the running mate. But I hear ya. I won’t vote for Rubio either.
Calm down. Rubio is not going to be selected for VP. Portman or TPaw will be the running mate. But I hear ya. I won’t vote for Rubio either.
Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy........Obama! No vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, and Marxism and radical supreme court justices, and higher taxes and welfare and fast and furious, and unemployment, and Nancy & harry, and solyndra. Bottom line I’d take Rubio in a heartbeat is he the best around, hell no but at least loves this country.
Well praise God for your expert legal opinion.
Puh-LEESE!
I wouldn’t vote for him because he is an amnesty loving turd. That doesn’t even take into consideration the gun grabbing socialist he would’ be pairing with.
I disagree. That was the only reson I was able to choke back my disgust and vote for McLame besides knowing that Obama would be a disaster.
I wouldn’t vote for him because he is an amnesty loving turd. That doesn’t even take into consideration the gun grabbing socialist he would’ be pairing with.
Here is some more reading for you then:
Four 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):
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.
ut 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”.
Hell, I wouldn’t vote for Romney if he picked Jesus Christ as his running mate!
Rubio’s being born on US soil does make him eligible.
I was not aware the VP could grant amnesty.
If you stay home, let me know how that works out for you.
Let's assume you are simply naive ex_cowboy. You are certainly not alone. Try this:
“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,”
Those words came from the unanimous decsion written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Minor v. Happersett.
How about:
"“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”
Those were the words spoken to and recorded in the Congressional Globe by Congressman John Bingham - Judge, Abolitionist, and author of the 14th Amendment. Bingham was explaining the context of the amendment, based upon Article 1 Section 8, establishing the need for Congress to create an uniform code for Naturalization. He repeated the unchanged class of citizenship established by the framers, the never doubted class of natural born citizens. While the sovereign states each defined citizenship in their own way until 1866, and Congress tinkered with it a bit until after the Civil War, when the need to make Slaves citizens was essential, and the Southern States were too weak fight back. The Constitution needed to specify the federal requirement for a president. Wong Kim Ark was made a citizen, not natural born, based upon the 14th Amendment, because he was born to alien parents.
The evidence is voluminous. Our parties, all three, now find the legal definition inconvenient, embarrassing, and perhaps, legally risky, since every Senator signed Senate Resolution 511 in April of 2008 proving that they knew the truth. They refused to vet Obama because that way McCain would be allowed to run uncontested, in spite of the six hearings which couldn't resolve his ineligibility, including the Obama/McCaskill Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. which failed to pass the Democrat Senate in February of 2008. Why do you think Obama and McCaskill, Obama’s campaign manager, would work so hard, two Senate actions for McCain in three months to try to claim the McCain was eligible?
If you are really interested, read the two natural born citizen blogs, Mario Apuzzo's or Leo Donofrio’s. No court has ever addressed the many supreme court cases. The Constitution was explicity written to leave definitions to the common law and language of the framers because Madison and others realized that changes in language over time would alter the meanings described by the Constitution. “it wasn't written in the Constitution” is simply legal misdirection. Why do you thing there is such a fuss about Rubio, and no mention of Suzanna Martinez, a natural born citizen, born to parents who were citizens, and born on US soil. She is Governor of New Mexico, and a gem of a conservative governor. But she doesn't provide cover for the Republican party who let McCain run, always knowing he was ineligible.
Fer Pete’s sake. This is ridiculous. Rubio is fully qualified, and whatever your personal opinion is doesn’t matter based on precedent and settled law, but that’s not the point.
I simply won’t vote for Romney and I don’t care who his VP is. Voting for a VP never works.
Says you.
Since the 14th Amendment was adopted and based on court cases since the 14th Amendment was adopted, a natural born citizen is one born in the US. Rubio was born in Miami. Obama may or may not have been born in the US. That's the difference between the two.
I don't think Rubio will be it anyway.
Have you checked under your bed for a boogieman ?
It says a lot about a poster who throws this crap at the wall of FR yet doesn’t reply to any comments.
I've never seen so many people wanting Obama to win. I don't care if Bugs Bunny against Obama - I'll vote for Bugs.
And don't give me that silly excuse that you are not willing to compromise your values.... This president has done more harm to more people than any leader in my lifetime - and I'm old. By allowing him 4 years is nothing less than negligent particularly if you know better.
ANYONE BUT OBAMA - that's pretty simple.
fl
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.