Skip to comments.CNN Pundit Declares Rubio's Presidential Ambitions “Finished” (Satire)
Posted on 02/15/2013 4:17:40 PM PST by John Semmens
Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio's pause to take a drink of water during his rebuttal to President Obama's State-of-the-Union speech was declared a possible career ender by CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Voters may tolerate a lot from their prospective leaders, Blitzer observed. We've learned that diddling interns is okay. A bogus birth certificate may be worth a few snickers, but does not seem to undermine our confidence in a man's leadership capabilities. However, the jarring interruption of a high-profile speech by a moment of thirst would appear to be the type of thing that raises serious questions about fitness to serve.
No President has ever interrupted a speech by pausing to take a drink of water, Blitzer remembered. It's just something that isn't done. You can go back through the film archives and not find a single instance.
As for the substance of Rubio's remarks, Blitzer admitted that I can't honestly recall what he said. I was so thrown by the water drinking incident that I couldn't concentrate on his words. In this regard, I think my reaction was fairly typical. Only those hopelessly enthralled to the GOP's right-wing agenda could've gotten past this major gaffe to spy something of relevance in Senator Rubio's speech.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
What do you call satire that can make you cry it’s so close to the absolute truth?
So if Rubio gets nominated for president in 2016 you’ll be down at the convention protesting? How much you want to bet that if he does get nominated, you and friends won’t be able to do a thing about it?
I’m not a Rubio for president guy (maybe in 20 years), but this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
At least he didn’t extend his hand and say, “Pull my finger”.
He was born in Miami. Miami is in Florida. Florida is in the United States. Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen.
Citizenship status of his parents does not matter, has never mattered and no court will ever declare Marco Rubio ineligible. Please stop spreading this bullcrap.
You're absolutely correct, Yulee. A "natural born citizen" is a person born in the United States or under the American flag, to parents who are both American citizens at the time of the birth.
Unless Rubio's parents' naturalization documents that have been available over the Internet are fakes, they indicate that they did not become citizens until young Marco was more than three years old.
Yes, Marco Rubio is a good senator and he is constitutionally qualified as such. But unless and until the Constitution is amended to change "Natural Born Citizen" to "Native Born Citizen," he is not qualified to be POTUS (or VPOTUS).
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it's about time we see judges with the guts to respect it as such. It's a matter of survival of the American republic.
"No man is above the law," as Theodore Roosevelt famously stated.
That is the attitude of the GOPe; vote for our choice, or you’ll do what?
I refuse to vote for someone who is ineligible to be President, that’s what!
Marco Rubio is a citizen because he was born in the U.S.A.
But he is not now, nor will he ever be, a natural born Citizen.
Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the governments own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship. Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires, as per the Founders, the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUSs unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Virginia Minor sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution.
SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment.
This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
No one has the RIGHT to be President.
The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
I posted this a week ago in response to one of your categorical statements regarding what you believe (despite no evidence) is the meaning of “natural-born citizen” in the Constitution.
With all due respect, that only those who are born in America and both of whose parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth can be deemed to be natural-born citizens is not, and has never been, the prevailing interpretation of the natural-born citizen clause. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who has been a U.S. citizen since birth (a citizen at birth pursuant to the laws at the time of his birth); the term is used in contradistinction to a naturalized citizen, who became a U.S. citizen sometime after birth.
The confusion stems from the fact that, under 18th century British law, persons born in Great Britain whose parents were not citizens would not be British subjects at birth (Britain had jus sanguinis to the exclusion of jus soli). But in the United States, Congress adopted as early as 1791 two ways for persons to be U.S. citizens at birthbeing born in the U.S. (jus soli), or being born abroad of U.S.-citizen parents (jus sanguinis). Jus soli was later enshrined in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declared all persons born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be citizens at birth. Had the U.S. never adopted laws regarding U.S. citizenship, then the common law would have been applied and the U.S. only would have jus sanguinis. But the common law only is in effect in the absence of a statute, and Congress decided to supercede the common law in that instance. The U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress, not British legal traditions, are the Supreme Law of the Land.
Another misunderstanding has occurred due to a recent misreading of the 19th-century Minor case. The Minor case was about a woman claiming some right, and the Court first had to consider whether she was a cititen. The woman had been born in Iowa of citizen parents, and the opinion of the unanimous Supreme Court stated that, *at the very least*, a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents was a natural-born citizen (which does not mean that it means that and only that). The Court also wrote that the term natural-born citizen meant citizen at birth and was used in contradistinction to naturalized citizen.
And insisting that natural-born status required that both parents be citizens at the time the child was born was a fringe position even in the 19th century. When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President (which has the same NBC requirement as the presidency) in 1880, Democrats claimed that he had been born in Canada instead of northern Vermont, and some even claimed that he had been born in Ireland (where his father was from), had he been born abroad, with a father who was a British subject, he would not have been a U.S. citizen at birth and thus not eligible for the vice presidency. But you know what claim was *not* made by prominent Democrats? That the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Chesters birth meant that Chester was not an NBC (his father became a naturalized citizen years after Chester was born).
The both-parents-must-be-citizens requirement was still a fringe position in 1916, when recently retired Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes was the Republican candidate for the presidency. Hughess father was Scottish, and it was undisputed that he was a British subject (and not a U.S. citizen) when Charles was born. Yet no Republican objected to his nomination, and, as far as I know, only one prominent Democrat rose in opposition on constitutional grounds, penning a well written, but entirely unconvincing, argument about the both-parents-must-be-citizens requirement. His main evidence was how some letters from U.S. consular officers to Americans with French parents warning them that, if they moved to France, France might draft them into military service *because they were French citizens under French law*, somehow proved that such persons weren’t U.S. citizens at birth (when all it meant was that U.S. law is valid in the U.S. and French law is valid in France). And if that argument proved anything, it proved too much; if Italy or Germany claimed that the grandchildren of Italians or Germany were Italian or German citizens, would that mean that someone born in the U.S. with two U.S.-citizen parents wouldnt be a NBC due to a foreign governments claims? Is Italian or German law the Supreme Law of the Land in America, having precedence over U.S. law and our Constitution? In any event, no state kept Hughes off the ballot, and Congress counted each of Hughess 250+ electoral votes (he came within less than 1% of carrying California, which would have given him the victory over President Wilson).
Which brings us to 2008. For years, it had been an undisputed that Barack Obamas father never was a U.S. citizen, which, had the both-parents position been the prevailing interpretation of the NBC Clause, would have meant that Obama was ineligible for the presidency. But you did *not* see prominent constitutional scholars or jurists step forward to argue that position. Only when circumstantial evidence pointing to Obama having been born abroadwhich, given federal law in 1961, would have meant that he was not a U.S. citizen at birthdid his possible disqualification become an issue. When some plaintiffs later claimed that he was unqualified because his father was not a citizen, the claim was laughed out of court, and no state even considered keeping him off the ballot because of his father not being a citizenthe only serious controversy was that it wasnt clear whether Obama had been born in Hawaii or abroad, and had he been born abroad them he would not be a NBC under U.S. law at the time of his birth. In the end, Congress counted every one of his EVs, with no objections from any members of either party based on his fathers non-citizenship.
So, given this history, you believe that Republicans unilaterally should disarm and apply, for the first time ever, a fringe interpretation of the NBC Clause so as to disqualify Marco Rubio (and Bobby Jindal, and maybe Ted Cruz?) from the presidency? I will defend your right to say that Marco Rubio would make a bad president, or that he isnt good on the issues, or that he is untested, or that he would lose the electionwhile I cant say that I agree with any of those positions, reasonable minds may disagreebut I will not engage in unilateral disarmament based on a legal theory that is disrespectful to U.S. sovereignty (giving foreign law precedence over U.S. law) and which has been rejected again and again by our judicial and political institutions for well over a century.
Good for you...that will show those lousy GOP pukes after another leftist gets elected because the Pubbie candidate "was not a natural born citizen." Even though virtually nobody can agree on what that is. But that's alright. This country needs another Obama to thoroughly drag it down. (snicker)
“With all due respect, that only those who are born in America and both of whose parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth can be deemed to be natural-born citizens is not, and has never been, the prevailing interpretation of the natural-born citizen clause.”
James Madison wrote the U.S.Constitution. As President, it was his administration’s official position that ONLY those born to U.S. citizen parents could be U.S. citizens themselves.
The following is often used to support people like Rubio who seek to be President, but it was superceded centuries ago and is a false argument.
The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are natural born citizens and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute, rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.
This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define natural born Citizen, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they dont have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words natural born were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
Natural born Citizen is a class of citizens born in the United States (jus solis) of Citizen parents (jus sanguinus).
This has been the legal definition of natural born citizen, per Minor v. Happerset, since 1875.
As for Chester A. Arthur, usurper President, he knew he wasn’t eligible and burned all his private papers to prevent that discovery later after his death. Ha! It didn’t work.
Truth is the daughter of time.
But the Minor V. Happersett case originally had absoutely no relevance whatsoever to presidential eligibility. Ms. Minor was not seeking the office of President when she filed her suit, far from it. (At the time, it would have been an earth-shaking event if a woman was seeking the presidency; this case was decided in the late 1800s, decades before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing a woman's right to vote in all states.) Minor v. Happersett frequently comes up in the debate over constitutional qualifications for the presidency merely because in discussing citizenship in its ruling, the Court went off on a bit of tangent and explained the definitions of various types of citizenship, including natural born citizenship. That definition from the SCOTUS in the Minor case was in accord with the definition of "natural born citizen" expounded by Vattel c. 1770, which is the source used by the framers of the Constitution when they inserted the phrase into the document as a qualification required for the President.
Minor has never said what birthers seem to think it says. Sorry to rain on your parade but nobody is buying this crap. Nobody important anyways. No reputable conservative constitutional scholars, attorneys, judges or legal foundations. Only crackpots like Orly Taitz, Philip Berg and Leo Donofrio. And when Marco Rubio throws his hat into the ring, this nonsense will continue to get laughed out of courtrooms just as it has justifiably been for the past four years.
I am well aware that you don’t understand what the Minor Case says, having read your posts before. Feel free to keep spreading your urban legends all you want, and I’ll stick to the truth. The Minor Case isn’t very long, and I invite people to read the entire opinion (not just a single sentence taken out of context).
I’ll make you a deal—get a court to remove Obama from office because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, and I’ll accept that your fringe theory, after having been refected for two centuries, finally has become the prevalent interpretation of the NBC Clause, and then I’d be willing to rule Rubio out as a presidential candidate. But I don’t think we should disarm unilaterally, particularly based on a legal theory that no one takes seriously.
This is an era of many gutless federal courts, so I would sadly and reluctantly agree with you, AuH2ORepublican, that no court likely will "remove Obama from office because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born."
However, that is a different question than the one of the definition of "Natural Born Citizen." Contrary to your post, there is no new "prevalent interpretation of the NBC clause" (except perhaps by the leftist MSM). In all the cases litigated regarding Obama's constitutional qualifications for the presidency or lack thereof, federal courts have never had to reach the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" in order to dispose of these challenges. Rather, they have dismissed the constitutional challenges to Obama by ruling that the plaintiffs in these cases lacked standing. How convenient on their part, telling the plaintiffs, in essence: "Get out of my courtroom, who are you to challenge the legitimacy of the new Messiah?"
“...get a court to remove Obama from office...”
Don’t be silly. No court has the Constitutional power to remove a sitting President.
Only Congress has the power to remove a President. The House of Representatives brings him up on charges of Impeachment, and the Senate tries him for those crimes.
Right now, at this moment, BHO2 has committed treason numerous times. It should be done, but no one has the stones to do it.
Follow the money, as the saying goes.
Standing?! Every US citizen should have standing. He is the acting commander in chief of the US armed forces, the executive branch of the US federal government, and it’s all paid for by US taxpayers. Every federal employee, especially members of the armed forces, should have standing. They ultimately take their orders from the President. The courts are not gutless. They are whores.
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.