Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rubio/West 2016?
Myself | Today | Me

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.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: election; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: KerryOnNoMore

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.


41 posted on 11/07/2012 3:03:02 AM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; All

Don’t figure it will matter by then, one way or another...

The “button has been pushed” on America...


42 posted on 11/07/2012 4:20:14 AM PST by Rca2000 ( NEVER underestimate the power of "one little election", in WI.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: KerryOnNoMore

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.


43 posted on 11/07/2012 5:08:24 AM PST by GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KerryOnNoMore

“......If Obammy is then so is he.”

Easy.....Neither are.


44 posted on 11/07/2012 5:24:46 AM PST by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

” We cannot have ANYBODY who didn’t 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????


45 posted on 11/07/2012 5:39:07 AM PST by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

Heck Reagan would probably not become President in today’s world. Anyway, I meant not nomination but actual seat but you knew that....


46 posted on 11/07/2012 5:54:14 AM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

If that is not a case of legal precedence can you find one that is?


47 posted on 11/08/2012 12:26:05 AM PST by KerryOnNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: KerryOnNoMore

“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.


48 posted on 11/08/2012 3:07:37 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson