Posted on 09/19/2011 4:29:58 AM PDT by maggief
As a Floridian I can not understand the hype over Rubio. He was terrible as a state legislator and speaker what makes people think he is the second coming of Reagan. More like the second coming of his predecessor Mel Martinez. For the record I voted for his remaining primary opponent and the Libertarian in the general election.
Rubio is not eligible to run fro VP or President because he in not a natural born citizen. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Obama and Romney are NOT eligible to be POTUS.
Is he?
Why isn’;t Romney?
“Rubio is not eligible to run fro VP or President because he in not a natural born citizen. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.”
This also makes him a dual national. It is not acceptable.
Rubio himself has made it VERY clear that he will not do this.
Oh for pete’s sake. That’s nonsense. The only thing necessary for natural born citizenship is that the individual be born in the US, which he was. On the other hand, even if his parents had been citizens but he had been born outside of the US, he would not be considered a natural born citizen even if he elected US citizenship at the age of 18; that was the whole debate with McCain, when the Dems were trying to prove that because he was not born on US territory, technically (since the hospital wasn’t on the military base in Panama, but elsewhere in the city), he wasn’t qualified. It was finally agreed that he would qualify because the hospital was used by the US military at that time and was sort of an extension of the military base.
Obama, on the other hand, had one parent who was not a citizen and had no intention of becoming one, yet that was never raised as an issue - simply because it doesn’t matter. The thing that people have always sought is proof that he was born elsewhere, either in Kenya or in British Columbia, because this would make him ineligible even though his mother was undeniably a US citizen.
There is no foundation in either the Constitution or US precedent for the silly position that somebody’s parents have to be citizens at the time of his birth for that person to be a natural born citizen.
I think the main appeal is that he’s a minority and he gives good speeches.
I don’t see any of the candidates wanting Rubio as their VP simply because he would easily overshadow them (or at any rate, any of those now considered likely Presidential candidates).
At the same time, I don’t think most people would vote for a Presidential candidate simply because they liked his VP. McCain tried that with Palin, and while it definitely helped his numbers, there’s no way it would ever be enough to make up the winning number for a loser Presidential candidate.
You ignorance of the Constitution (Article II, Section I, Clause 5) and Supreme Court binding precedent (Minor vs. Happersett 1874) is appalling.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, he is not eligible for the office of VP or President.
LOL - Who does that remind us of???
You know no one would even make an issue of that after Obama. It will not happen.
David Ramsay and John Jay would have disagreed. Get yourself an education.
Being born in the U.S. makes you a U.S. citizen, but not necessarily a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen requires US citizen parents at the time of birth. It is a matter of dual allegiance, which the Founding Fathers specifically put in the Constitution to prevent the following:
According to your contention that only birth in the U.S. is required, Anwar al-Awlaki is eligible to be President because he was born in New Mexico.
Al-Awlaki is the “spiritual leader” of al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula, whose sermons at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia were attended by two hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour.
Likewise, you believe that Fort Hood shooter and al-Awlaki disciple Nidal Malik Hasan is eligible to be President because he was born in Virginia.
Nor is Bobby Jindal a natural born citizen; nor is the present occupant of the office; however, Jindal and Rubio are capable people.
Florida should be pretty safe for Republicans in 2012. Obama has burned out down here. I don't think Obama could carry Florida. I'm pretty sure Bill Nelson will lose his seat there, too. Especially if Republicans down here can nominate a Veteran who is a bit of an outsider for that seat. I know they are pushing some Tallahassee insiders, but Col. Mike McCalister could win that seat and pick off Nelson. The others in the race, I'm not as sure about. Nelson has strong support among veterans down here. I don't see the "establishment" candidates overcoming that.
Also, I think that Ohio and Pennsylvania are in play for the 2012 Presidential race, and both of those states are critical to a Republican Presidential candidate. Kasich or Santorum would bring their "home state advantage" to the ticket for one of those states, and possibly some "regional appeal" in the other state, and maybe Michigan as well.
The only thing I'm sure of in the Presidential race is that I haven't seen the next Republican President at any of the debates so far.
Romney will lose if he's the nominee. He's the next McCain or Dole. Even if he wins, Romney = 4 more years of socialism.
Perry is the choice of the Party (or is it the Ruling Class) Propaganda Ministry. Obama and his campaign want to run against George W. Bush again. That's what they will do with Perry. Republicans underestimate the hatred of George W. Bush from the left, and the extreme disappointment in George W. Bush from the right. Perry will face a really bad uphill battle against that should he get the nomination. It won't be a factor in the Party Propaganda Rags during the primaries, but after he has the nomination, it will be the big theme of Obama's campaign. Yes, I'm saying it, in 2012, "Read my lips, No new Texans!"
It might be fair to say the “natural born” requirement is the subject of debate, but to say there is no basis to the higher standard is either ignorant or deliberately misleading, given that “natural born” at the time was commonly understood to mean born of citizens such that there was no potential divided loyalty.
You might claim that the SC has instituted a lower standard and so that does not in practicality pertain, but to say there is no basis to the higher standard is just wrong.
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.