Skip to comments.Rubio/West 2016?
Posted on 11/07/2012 12:18:19 AM PST by KerryOnNoMore
I know it's early to think but if this country isn't completely destroyed I think this is the best ticket that can win with true conservatives. It addresses two demographics that the GOP typically does poor with, that being the hispanic and black vote. It's especially critical if amnesty is passed adding millions of new latino voters. Rubio's eligibility shouldn't be a concern here since Obama was deemed eligible. I know it's brief and not expressed the most thoroughly but I just wanted to gauge people's thoughts.
Oh hell no.
I am not going through this again.
Rubio supports illegal immigration. No thank you.
Rubio is not NBC.
West just lost his seat.
Rubio. Latinos are a huge and growing demographic. Republicans need to court them.
Geraldo shows us they become single issue voters if immigration isn’t on the table. I’d prefer it not be but that’s the choice.
Can you please explain how he is not a natural born citizen? If Obammy is then so is he.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Rubio needs to acknowledge his ineligibility for POTUS/VPOTUS, otherwise he deserves to be sidelined for contributing to the debasement of the ruleof Constitutional law. He would make a fine cabinet secretary or governor, but he must first lead by example by acknowledging the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause. It is a litmus test for any candidate, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or otherwise.
If anyone doesn’t like it, they’ll just have to endure our unwavering opposition and its political consequences.
How about the Senate in 2014?
It’s time to stop thinking about achieving change in a broken system.
I think we need to concentrate on the next Congressional election in 2014. After two more years of Obama, we may be able pick up a lot of seats in the senate and house.
One of them would have to move. They’re both Floridians.
I think it is honestly gone.
We are suffering the thirty years of teacher’s union brainwashing, the growing of government union employment and the vast social programs that so many are attached to.
Romney was good enough in fact to earn the vote. He should have won this race, but the fact is we have SOOO many people on government employment and some sort of dole (and they vote in mass), that there isn’t a chance. It is all that try against the government party that uses the treasury agaisnt all coming candidates.
The press like the kids are also brainwashed and are only for the government party.
If Reagan were alive today, he would have probably lost to Obama hate to say it. I think the voters are that far gone.
Wouldn’t win. Even if we did court Hispanics with a Hispanic candidate, by this time, Dems will have gained massively among white voters, because another batch of brainwashed college students will be eligible.
Latinos are a huge and growing demographic. Republicans need to court them
Having a brown face on the ticket will do nothing. All they want is free stuff. There is no way the GOP can court them without completely giving up on anything resembling conservative ideas.
You are assuming we are going to have a Congress to vote for in 2014.
The dictator has won, and more than ever, he will rule by decree. If Congress still exists, it will be a puppet.
In fact, it already is.
Yep, been agreeing with this on every post tonite, check my tagline.
Trump: Obama Re-election Cause for ‘Revolution’
Neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth
No. West;but not Rubio.
Oh, I do too.
Obama is not and cannot be a natural born citizen. His father under U.S.law was Kenyan, and his stepfather may have been Indonesian and adopted Barry to make him also an Indonesian citizen.
Marco Rubio’s parents were citizens of Cuba at the time of his birth in the United States, which makes him a natural born citizen of Cuba and a possible native born citizen under statutory law of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio retained the right to denonunce his native born U.S. citizenship until his age of majority, which means he was born under the sovereignty and allegiance of Cuba and retained divided loyalty to Cuba and the United States until he lost the right of citizenship of Cuba. The authors of the Constitution wrote the natural born citizen clause for the specific purpose of making any person who was born after the adoption of the Constitution with the duty of loyalty to a foreign sovereign ineligible to occupy the office of the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army and the Office of the President. Marco Rubio was born with the duty of sovereignty to Cuba and its leadership. Being born with native born U.S. citizenship is a manmade law and not a natural law, so such native born citizenship is no better than an immigrant’s obtaining citizenship by the manmade statutory act of naturalization.
Rubio is a rino romneybot, and didn’t West lose?
Eff Off with race pick shite
God freepers are so weak and daft
The appeals court of appeals in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana disagrees. The constitution does not explicitly define what “natural born citizen” means. It’s been ruled that anybody with birthright citizenship is considered a natural born citizen.
Can you articulate why you are so in favor of Rubio’s policies and principles?
Or is this a shallow racial thing.
The past four years have shown that Tea Partyism won’t fix America. The only answer is a peaceful breakup of the United States.
Analyze until you paralyze. But do not apologize.
“Natural born citizen” has become a meaningless term. We are today none of us citizens, but subjects, as much without a state as Gypsies or bandits, within the territories where we first saw life.
Perspectives have been vastly changed, overnight it would seem, but the new reality has emerged. A little more than half of the occupants of the geographical region once known as the “United States” has chosen to turn its back on the vision that once was, in favor of a much older model of special privilege overlying a much larger underclass that is considered to be inferior and not to be allowed expression of free will.
It was conditions much like this, that the idea of a Declaration of Independence was first conceived. That document was brief and succinct, but it summed up the yearning on the hearts of all mankind, and the rationale for acting on that yearning. For there is to be no compromise possible with the continuing regime that has been pressing for most of the past century to gain and hold ascendancy over the richest nation the world has ever seen.
Wealth itself is considered by this reassertion of the ancient regime of rule by the shabby elite, as evil in and of itself, or at least until THEY have acquired the wealth for themselves. Then, there is no thought of philanthropy or magnanamity, but only an unslakeable thirst for still more concentration of power and influence that wealth can buy.
Ayn Rand was a person of great perspicuity, despite her proclaimed atheism, and it is incumbent upon us to “go John Galt”, withdrawing from supporting the current regime, until it should fall of its own weight.
There are many ways, not only in terms of wealth, but in paying any kind of homage or respect to an illegitimate regime, and this one is not only illegitimate, it is criminal as well, with an agenda that runs counter to most of what we have held dear for some two hundred twenty-five years.
Who cares? We are European now...
They will lose. It’s the republican way.
Have a nice trip Barry!You're Still Number One!
If Republicans can't defeat a corruption marred racist that has proved to be a failure economically, domestically, and on matters of foreign affairs, then we have zero chance of ever winning another presidential election.
Obama has been a complete failure on all levels and we still lost!
The GOP is done! There will not be a 2016—Only token opposition —Some one to lose to Obama or his hand picked successor. Van Jones or Michelle Obama is my guess. The Democrats are THE PARTY of the 21st Century. The GOP is finished—might as well run Sarah Palin.
No. Walker 2016.
Who cares? We are European now...
In Ankeny v. Governor the justices engaged in dicta, which is not binding as legal precedent. In other words, it was the justices blowing hard about something they were dead wrong about and probably knew it when they wrote it. The case was dismissable on grounds that had nothing to do with the natural born citizen clause, but the justices decided to insert a gratuitous strike at the natural born citizen issue when they knew full well they would abuse their authority to deny any opportunity to respond with truthful evidence and testimony. Anyone with an ounce of commosense can immediately see the dicta was an absurd and ridiculouspack of lies, and they were so denounced by other legal authorities. In particular, the claim that the United States obtained its common-law from English common-law, which is an outrageous falsehood. So, anyone who tries to use Ankeny v. Governor as an authority on the natural born citizen clause is either fooling themselves or engaging in gross dishonesty.
In other words,, Ankeny v. Governor is an even more absurd miscarriage of law and justice than the Chief Justice Roberts decision to find Obamacare was not a tax. These justices should have been impeached for engaging in high crimes in that case.
Nope, neither one of them, not voting for any GOP incumbent again. Rubio wouldn’t make a difference, the latinos are in the bag for the dems, they own the latinos and minorities lock, stock, and barrel. Obama and crew have a mandate now to keep them on the dole. The takers have tipped the balance of power in this country in their favor, now it’s only downhill from here on out.
The electorate has shifted hard left.
We couldn`t even get a moderate like Romney elected, sure as hell the idea of Rubio is dead in the water.
America is a center-left country that doesn`t embrace conservatism anymore. That was made abundantly clear last night.
Definitely not West. He just lost his House Seat. He could not convince his own neighbors to vote for him. We cannot have ANYBODY who didn’t win a seat, decided not to run again (Romney) or leave office. We need to have both Pres and VP as a 100 percent successful person who won every election and is 100 percent conservative but is able to intelligently explain the positions he holds.
Don’t figure it will matter by then, one way or another...
The “button has been pushed” on America...
I am agnry this a.m.; therefore, I will say it as it is.
You are an idiot.
If you had a brain cell in your head, you would know Rubio can not be president. Although he was born in the U.S., he was NOT born of 2 American citizens. Further, he lied, not unusual of politicians, saying his parents left Cuba during Castro’s upheaval. They left for the U.S. much before that.
“......If Obammy is then so is he.”
” We cannot have ANYBODY who didnt win a seat, decided not to run again (Romney) or leave office.”
Translation we couldn’t run Ronald Reagan......who failed in his 1976 attempt at getting the Republican nomination????
Heck Reagan would probably not become President in today’s world. Anyway, I meant not nomination but actual seat but you knew that....
If that is not a case of legal precedence can you find one that is?
“If that is not a case of legal precedence can you find one that is?”
There is very very little case law which even touches upon the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause. What little there is of that does more to remark upon how the case before the court did not depend upon a definition of the natural born citizen clause. Some of the courts’ decisions flatly contradict themselves and/or prior decisions with respect to the forms of citizenship and the role of natural born citizenship. None of the cases attempts to directly define the natural born citizen clause. Consequently, the only direct guidance to the meaning of the natural born citizen clause is the actual clause, the statements of the men who put the clause into the Constitution, the legal treatise they consulted when they borrowed the clause, previous legal treatises commenting upon citizenship, the customary law of England and the Continent stretching back to the Middle Ages and the Roman Empire, and the fundamental nature of citizenship making a part of the law of nations going back to the first cities from which citizenship was derived.
In other words, the Founding Fathers wrote the clause into the Constitution before the profession of law had developed the practice of recording case law. One of the most attrocious falsehoods put forth by the Indiana court was the claim that the United States law was based upon English common-law. Such a claim is simply impossible, because not even England had yet developed a practice for publishing common-law case precedents by 1797 when the Constitution was written. Americans developed their own unique common-law in parallel with the development of English common-law in England. Legal precedents varied by each court at a time when paper was a limited resource and publications of court decisions weere relatively non-existant.
Instead, American jurists relied upon native commonsense and sometimes upon usages in the handful of legal treatises that became available in the mid to late 18th Century. It was one of these legal treatises from a Swiss author which the authors of the Constitution used to represent their understanding of natural born citizenship and what they had been accustomed to practice in their international relations from time immemorial. Suffice it to conclude for the moment that for these and many other reasons the Indiana court acted so improperly as to perhaps justify their removal from office for their improper conduct.
This post is already long, and past experience has been for these threads on this subject to go on and on for weeks at a time. I’m preparing to leave on another transcontinental trip through some pretty atrocious weather, so engaging in yet another of these long discussions of this case and the natural born citizen clause cannot proceed at this time. Perhaps I can discuss this with you in detail another time when I’ve got the flu and considerably more extendeed time on the keyboard.
In the meantime, I would recommend some of what Leo Donofrio wrote about this case. Don’t let the Obot detractors mislead you and pettifog you. Finding the early sources and relating them to the Constitution is time consuming and challenging. The basic principle employed for millenia are quite simple. It turns on the issues of loyalty owed to the sovereign United States and how that loyalty must be undivided from birth to occupation of the Office of the Presideent and the Office of the Vice President after the Constitution is adopted.
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.