Posted on 06/13/2012 5:11:32 PM PDT by Marketfly1
Conservatives attending a recent regional conference in Chicago voiced their support in a straw poll for Florida US Senator Marco Rubio’s selection for the bottom-half of the 2012 GOP ticket, which is hardly surprising.
Rubio is the closest thing the Republican Party has to a “rock star” politician. The young Cuban-American is for the GOP in 2012 what Barack Obama was to the Democratic Party after 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayoubuzz.com ...
Rubio is for amnesty.
‘If I am picked I will not run as I am not a NBC?”
STANDING OVATION!
“Does this mean you don’t vote?”
Yep. Didn’t vote for illegal 0bama
and won’t vote for ineligible Jindal.
__
So fight him on that. But for people to say he's ineligible, despite being born in Miami, because his parents weren't citizens is nothing but a load of pure horse manure that nobody outside of the birther clown car is buying.
“Original intent of the framers and subsequent Supreme Court decisions agree that you must be born on U.S. soil by TWO citizen parents.”
Horsepucky!
The Founders were using a variation of a very well known legal term they had used before: natural born subject. And the US Supreme Court, in 1898, said the meaning of natural born citizen is rooted in that term: natural born subject.
It had a long and well know legal history, was used interchangeably with NBC by early legislatures, and it meant, with a few exceptions, anyone born in the country, or who derived their citizenship from their birth. There was NO two citizen parent requirement. Ever.
Louisiana Purchase is the $300 million dollar deal for LA that purchased Mary Landrieu’s vote in the Senate for Obamacare. It turned out that Jindal worked behind the scenes with Landrieu’s and asked her to get the money. Jindal is a traitor and I can never forgive him for this. He is one of those who made Obamacare happen.
“...nobody is buying the made-up definition of Natural Born Citizen that birthers have been trying to sell...”
Ya mean you’re not buying it....Dosen’t surprise me!
Natural Born Citizen is a matter of language. And yes it was made up, and refined...hundreds of years ago. The term refers to persons born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country. These people form the bulk of any society and are the foundation upon which the continued existance of a nation relies. It is a simple concept that somehow escapes you. Willfull ignorance????
On previous threads, if I remember correctly, you were miffed that because your children were born out of country, therefore lack jus solis, you’ve taken on a personal crusade in muddling the meaning of NBC, to further your own adgenda (need I speculate someone else’s also???)
Frankly I’m not buying YOUR meme. The Founders did not coin the term NBC as you would have us believe, but rather used the term as they understood it from reading the leading European jurist’s books on Natural Law. No, not Royal Law, nor Common Law, but indeed Natural Law, where the government is responsible TO the citizens, not vice versa, and human rights are bestowed by God on his creation, not handed out as sops to a fawning population by corrupt politicians, or removed at the whim of some tryanical despot.
There is a very valid and good reason that the Founders wished that the highest office in the land be restricted to people born in the country to citizen parents.
Don’t believe me or them???? Look no farther than the one time the nation chose to ignore Article II and see the result. We got Barack Obama......nuff said.....The proof is in the pudding....
....or maybe you’re happy with his Administration, or dissatisfied with the Constitution. If so, on either count, you’re on the wrong website.
Thanks for posting that.
I see so many people here bound and determined that they know the constitutional definition of eligibility and I don’t see it that way.
So, somebody’s wrong.
Surely, it’s not me. that almost never happens.
“...nobody outside of the birther clown car is buying.”
You seem to like that term....birther clown car....you have used it twice in this thread.
Two thoughts.
Classic Alinski tactic....
“ridicule” can be an effective tool. The left and it’s operatives use it often when all else, especially logic and reason, fails.
When you don’t have a leg to stand on, I guess all you have left is ridicule......Time to move on sonny.
Wonder what Jindal’s approval rating is?
“...But the SC does not care...”
It isn’t within the Supreme Court’s Constitutionally derived power to make the decision concerning another branch of government.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1
INTRODUCTION:
Chapter 35§ 16-3501 Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
The federal statute for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.
This legal brief considers all relevant issues pertaining to the proper legal use of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to determine Presidential eligibility...
For more information, see: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The U.S.Constitution states that only the Congress has the power to remove a usurper from office. Two Senators were removed this way in the 19th century.
The Congress, reluctant to take on the political ramifications inherent in investigating a usurper President, delegated its authority to the Washington, D.C., District Courts to try the usurper President in that venue. The means is by Quo warranto.
“Wonder what Jindal’s approval rating is?”
• Spring 2012 — 61% positive, 38% negative
• Fall 2010 — 55% positive, 43% negative
• Spring 2010 — 61% positive, 37% negative
• Fall 2009 — 64% positive, 33% negative
• Spring 2009 — 68% positive, 30% negative
• Fall 2008 — 77% positive, 21% negative
I got these numbers from nola.com
Thanks. 61%(+) is still not bad in a traditional blue state.
Like I said he has the best PR machine. But all that glitters is not gold.
Do you have a reliablelink for that?
When? In 2020?
What do you mean, 2020?
The Federal statute has been around since before 1915; the lawyers filing these cases simply do not know what they are doing.
The Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional power to remove someone from a Federal elected office. Only the Congress has that power, and the power to remove a usurper from the Presidency was delegated, by Congress, to the District Court, Washington, D.C. The process is called Quo warranto.
Go and read at the link I provided in my original post.
If it is all that simple, Obama would have been out of office by now in chains. Every conservative attorney in Washington can’t figure out how to properly file the case? And, the SC cannot allow anyone “standing” so they can check documents? Wow, this is complex. I read the sentence and I get an idea what it means but the SC can’t? Frustrated.
If it is all that simple, Obama would have been out of office by now in chains. Every conservative attorney in Washington can’t figure out how to properly file the case? And, the SC cannot allow anyone “standing” so they can check documents? Wow, this is complex. I read the sentence and I get an idea what it means but the SC can’t? Frustrated.
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.