Posted on 04/23/2012 3:31:23 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
On the prospect of suspects showing documentation to police to prove they are legal, Rubio said, “That’s not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state.”
But rather than jumping on the Left’s race baiting band wagon against the State of Arizona, he should have critized Obama for not protecting the State from the illegal invasion. He betrayed everyone by joining up with the open border, one world internationalists to shout down Arizona.
Rubio is eligible.
Indeed, Rubio is certainly eligible and probably a likely VP selection.
Birther arguments have been rejected everywhere - by every court, by every reputable conservative legal foundations, by virtually all serious/influential conservative leaders, and by near every significant conservative commentator/analyst. Mark Levin is a constitutional scholar and, along with most other radio talk show hosts, has banned birthers from wasting his airtime. There is a reason goofballs like Orly Taitz have to represent the birther cause, and that is because few if any serious people are going to waste time on an obviously silly argument.
I dunno. Some guy told me you have to have to have to parents who were US citizens to be a Natural Born Citizen. He used lots of legal terms and cited court cases, so he must know what he’s talking about. He also told me there is no legal obligation to pay income taxes.
Just to expand upon Sudetenland's declaration, here are some “looney-tunes birther” quotations:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
From the Senate Resolution 511 hearings in the Sen. Judiciary Committee, a resolultion signed by every US Senator in April 2008. The hearings were the Democratic effort to provide cover for McCain's candidacy, since having McCain as a candidate would necessarily silence Republicans, who would face Hillary if Republicans said a word about eligibility. That is why the sponsors of both SR 511 and the prior, Feb 2008, Senate Bill S.2678, ‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’ were Democrat Obama supporters, S.2678 by McCaskill and Obama, and SR511 by McCaskill, Leahy, Coburn, Obama, Clinton, and Webb (a couple of Republicans added, since they were all complicit). SB.2678 failed to pass. It would have failed judicial review, since Congress cannot interpret the Constitution.
From the WaPo ‘Fact-Checker’ column by Michael Dobbs in May 2008, Dobbs addressing the Larry Tribe (Obama’s Harvard adviser and con. law professor) and Ted Olson letter to the SR 511 McCain ‘whitewash committee’ - the Senate Judiciary committee:
"They argue that McCain is a natural born citizen because the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, he was born on a U.S. military base, and both of his parents were U.S. citizens. The Olsen-Tribe opinion is available here.
From the Author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman John Bingham, in his address to the house prior to voting on the Amendment:
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…."
From Chief Justice Morrison Waite whose court was unanimous in establishing common-law as ‘held’ precedent in Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875), needing the only constitution definition of any class of citizen before 1868 (14 Amendment) to prove his assertion that Mrs. Minor, born to citizen parent on our soil, did not gain voting rights from the 14th Amendment's ‘equal protections’ clause:
“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.”
Important, since so few, including our ‘conservative’ pundits appear to have read the Constitution, is Waite's “At common-law...” statement. The Constitution explicitly avoids definitions. While he won't openly address it. read Mark Levin's book, ‘Liberty and Tyranny’ beginning p37. Hamilton describes the propriety of, and necessity for interpreting the Constitution in the language familiar to its authors. Hamilton said “What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.” There are dozens, probably hundreds of such statements by framers and justices explaining why there are not definitions in the Constitution, and why it was written assuming that interpretation of terms would come from the common language and common-law of its framers, as Waite explained.
Finally,a citation in fact, from another ‘looney birther’, one clear not in good graces with his excellency Barack, Chief Justice John Marshall, who was also a founder, and a framer of the Constition. This statement is not repeated by ‘loony birthers’ often because Waite's restatement of the definition cited by Marshall, and from Vattel, established the common-law as positive law, and the Obots unanimously screech “Dictum,” “Dictum!” Justice Marshall's comment is certainly dictum, since in this fascinating citizenship case, the citizenship issue appearing so often in the courts during the post-Revolution division of spoils, inheritance battles, resolving differences between states still being governed by parts of English Common Law. Marshall, with whose Marbury v. Madison decision Barack appears unfamiliar also said, in his contribution to The Venus, 12 US 253, (1814):
“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.”
The Obots argued endlessly about the English translations of ‘indegines’ used by Marshall, probably due to Marshall's using the origintal French version of Vattel's Law of Nations, then by far the most cited legal reference in American jurisprudence (Grotian Society Papers s, 1972, F.S. Ruddy). But Justice Waite eliminated the confusion in his Minor precedent by making the terms equivalent - “natives or natural born citizens”. This is, as Waite pointed out, the “never doubted” common law. But “looney birthers” are simply too mired in the ancient history to realize that to be a happy and prosperous nation it is time to appreciate what Barack told us before he became a candidate for the presidency, that “A doctrine of negative liberties does not allow me to do the things for society that I believe it needs.” He wanted a new bill of rights. The legitimate interpretations of the musty old Constitution would now emanate from the Center for American Progress, whose minions scrubbed twenty six Supreme Court decisions of their citations to Minor v. Happersett, and, with Googles help, pointed web queries first to their handywork at justia.com and Cornell.
Rubio has found himself in a web created by crony capitalist Republicans. They believed more in McCain's long experience covering up corruption including his Keating Five experience, covered up like Obama's ineligibility, with the able assistance of the media. Both sides were complicit so they sacrificed a a player, leaving the knight in play. For Obama they sacrificed a seldom used provision of the Constitution, and want to use Rubio to protect them lest a constitutionalist gain power in the executive and put them all in jeapordy. Susanna Martinez is, from what this writer has seen, presidential material. Hispanics are not maleable pawns, though promises to illegals might be real motive behind using Rubio, even if he were eligibile. Amending the Constitution is legitimate; ignoring it is not, and may constitute, using the only term defined in the Constitution itself, treason.
100 million illegals by 2020
Do you seriously believe that the Founders of this nation put something in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to be President of the United States?
Seriously?????
If the GOP nominates a candidate who doesn't meet the Minor vs Happersett SCOTUS decision's definition of NBC, I WILL vote 3rd party for the first time in my life.
So how do you feel about anchor babies and those born to undocumented Mexicans here in the US? I suppose we should give amnesty to anyone born here to undocumented Mexicans?
You can’t argue common sense with these guys.
We are crazy nutjobs.
BTW, did you know that Natural Born and Native Born mean the same thing?
Analogous to cool and hot meaning the same thing in a certain context.
Yeah...awesome...he wants to implement his brand of amnesty...the GOP Dream Act.
No thanks.
If he gets the nod what will the “He’s not a natural born etc.” crowd do? Will they sit on their hands and not vote? I dont think so. They will just swallow that pill and vote. Anything to get Obama out.
These must be qualifiers for the position.
Last week Rubio made a Freudian slip that may have hinted at his interest in the job. "Three, four, five, six, seven years from now, if I do a good job as vice president -- I'm sorry, as senator -- I'll have the chance to do all sorts of things," Rubio said Thursday at a forum.
It's like he is repeating for all to hear what the GOP-e have whispered to him behind closed doors. It's creepy.
I heard that also.
The term “birther” was made up by the left in order to discredit those with that view (I personally don’t care).
Interesting to see that some on this board have adopted the language of the left...
What’s ironic is, with the racist ‘hoodies’ working full-time trying to demonize Zimmerman and create an anti-latino race war, the GOP-e might actually have blindly stumbled onto circumstances which could result in breaking the democrat party’s stranglehold on the entire hispanic vote.
There’s a determined group of that bloc, which is all about racial solidarity and “reconquista” of the American southwest - they’ll never vote GOP, even if the Bush family were to promise them the American southwest, in exchange for it. But Rubio would be a powerful influence on latinos if he were on the ticket.
Not saying I like the GOP-e, nor Mitt Romney.
However I like Rubio; so do a lot of people. He’s not a lightweight IMO.
The GOP prospects for November, aren’t actually that bad. Trending positive.
This is not turning into a re-run of McCain 2008.
I don't know where you have pulled your figures from, but the GOP-e is not "trending positive" as you say.
But also notice the trajectory of the Republicans' support. The GOP's favorability rating is down to just 35% -- 13 points lower than their rivals -- which isn't just low, it's also the third lowest it's been since CNN polls started keeping track 20 years ago.It would appear the support that helped drive GOP gains in the 2010 midterms has completely faded away. This matters, not only in the Republican drive to take back the White House, but also when it comes to the 2012 congressional races.
Thirty-four percent hold a favorable opinion of Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential candidate in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. His unfavorable score is higher than Obama ever has received; it's been exceeded by just one other Republican candidate this year, Newt Gingrich, and by only one top candidate in 28 years, Hillary Clinton in 2008. Obama, for his part, remains above water - 53 percent favorable, 43 percent unfavorable in this poll
Well other than that the argument of two citizen parents and born on U.S. soil wasn’t the argument until sometime AFTER the election in 2008.
It seems that this should have been known to all and sundry - if it were true - and not a dusty old argument taken down off the shelf sometime AFTER the 2008 election.
Better than Hillary as Romney’s VP.
Darn the UNANIMOUS lunatics on the Minor and Ark courts.
By ‘AFTER’ do you mean AFTER 1789, when Dr. Ramsay, Congerssional historian, wrote his “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Priviliges of a Citizen” - or after 1814 when Chief Justice Marshall cited Vattel - or the dozen cases citing common law until 1875 and Chief Justice Waite, who turned the common law into precedent - or 1898 when Justice Gray, in spite of his dilemma, his having been appointed by the ineligible Chester Arthur, made Wong Kim a citizen, because his parents weren't citizens, in spite of his having been born on our soil - or 1916 when Attorney, later Ambassador, Breckenridge Long wrote a lengthy legal article in the US’s largest legal newspaper explaining the law and two parent sovereign birth requirement in Chicago Legal News Volume 49, ironically protecting Woodrow Wilson's candidacy - or 1939, or 1939 when Chief Justice Hughes’ decision confirmed that Marie Elg, like Steinkuler, could not lose her natural born citizenship, granted by nature, not Congress, even though her parents repudiated their US cititzenship and raised her in Sweden, because she was born in New York to citizen parents?
Either you belong to the crowd depending upon the media or crony capitalist Rinos for truth, or, like so many stalking FR, you are working for Barack. It doesn't matter. Those who don't appreciate the advantages of a nation built upon laws will have to learn the hard way about life under a dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Some people with the necessary skills will take their ability to produce to societies where bureaucrats haven't spent the capital of human productivity to support the drones who allow them to languish, whose creativity is spent on schemes for redistributing the productivity of the diminishing few who still do produce.
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.