RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
September 29, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's Emmy in Loveland, Colorado. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's great to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Hey, I'm no fan of the establishment.
They irritate me most of the time, but what if they want Christie to run for the same reason I want him to run?
Because he's the best at articulating conservatism, besides you and maybe Marco Rubio,
but there's no one else out there.

RUSH: That's an interesting question.
Let me ask you, why do you think they're not begging Rubio to run?
Rubio has been just as adamant as Christie that he doesn't want to run.
In a contest of conservatism, Rubio wins versus Christie.
So why are they not asking Rubio to run?

CALLER: You know, I don't know. Maybe it's --

RUSH: Well, part of it is -- (crosstalk)

CALLER: He'd be my second choice.

RUSH: Part of it is, I think,
that they genuinely believe that whoever the other nominees are can't win.
That's another thing that frosts me.
I think Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this election coming up because I think this is going to largely be about Obama.
It's going to be a referendum on his outright destruction of the wealth-creating genius of this country.
I think Elmer Fudd could win, but I'm more concerned than that.
I don't want to just get rid of Obama,
I want to take advantage of the opportunity we have to finally get a genuine, full-fledged, unapologetic conservative
because this is going to be a major task, Emmy, rolling this stuff back.
It's going to take more than one election, and it's going to take somebody fearless.
And we're not going to roll this stuff back having compromise and bipartisanship as our primary objectives.

CALLER: I agree.

RUSH: I think as far as the establishment's concerned, there are two things.
They don't want a conservative to win for that reason,
plus they do want to win.
And I think they probably think
Christie has a better chance than anybody else up there of beating Obama.
That's my guess. But I think what will happen is this:
Whoever gets the nomination, if it is somebody outside the approval of the establishment,
what then will happen is
that all these establishment types will then start trying to buddy up to the winner,
want to be part of his administration,
and then spend the rest of their lives saying
they were there at the right hand of this great, terrific president.
That's what happened to Reagan.
Half the people that opposed Reagan did end up, especially in the second term, doing things in his administration,
and they made the rest of their life career out of it.

To this day, some of these people still guest on television shows as Ronald Reagan's X, or Ronald Reagan's Y.
Even the during the era of Reagan is over period, which Mitch Daniels also uttered,
I should say, even when they were saying the era of Reagan was over,
still some of these marginal characters in the Reagan Administration's second term are still out there, claiming
they were there, they were in the inner circle, they were making all these decisions. (interruption)
I know it's a serious question, Snerdley.
Why aren't people telling Rubio it's not up to him?
You've got Chris Christie saying,
"It's got to be in me.
It isn't in me."
"Well, it's not up to you."
Why aren't they saying it to Rubio?
Because Rubio would win in a walkover.
Rubio would win in a landslide over Obama.

I'm hearing Bob McDonnell, Virginia, is the preferred veep candidate.
I wouldn't waste that on Rubio.
Emmy, thanks for the call.

Folks, it's not true that other conservatives are not well articulating our beliefs.
What's happening is
that they're all competing with each other for time during these debates.
That's a crowded stage up there
and they are having to actually face each other and contrast and compare themselves to each other.
Christie doesn't have to do this.
And this could be a well-planned strategery.
Look at it this way:
You've got the people that have announced and they're on the stage of these debates.
They have 30 seconds here, a minute there, but some of them get an unfair amount of time.
Some of them don't get very many questions asked of them.
Some, the questions that are asked are gotcha types.

They don't have clearly an unfettered opportunity to explain themselves on such a crowded stage.
They actually having to face each other, contrast and compare themselves to each other.
But Governor Christie isn't having to do any of that.
He can go give a speech at the Reagan Library or release a YouTube video,
and there's no challenge on the issues and there's nobody out there disagreeing or contrasting or harping on it.
He can say what he says about global warming or gun control, immigration, what have you,
and he's not getting dirty in the process. Nobody's opposing him.
Nobody is disagreeing with what he's saying.
He has a free ride, so to speak.

Perry, same thing.
Perry had a free ride before he jumped in.
Look at what happened to Perry when he got in.
He announces, he gets in, automatically jumps to the top of the list, becomes the target of everybody on stage.
He's not an accomplished debater and wasn't prepped for it.
Look what has happened to Perry.
Christie is not running that risk. Could be a good strategy.
Christie is out there making these speeches and YouTube videos and they stand all alone.
No disagreement, no challenging to any of it.
But Perry jumped in, very little was said about the specifics of his record.
I'm not attacking his record. I'm just saying it was not as carefully scrutinized.
Christie would go through that, too, if he got in.

So as far as Christie is concerned, there's an understandably good strategy in not getting in now.
Now, at some point he's going to have to.
But he gets a free ride all the way down the road where he's not in.
Once he gets in, everything changes.
Everybody on that stage will be gunning for him,
and things about his record that some of you may not know will surface.
And then you'll be scratching your heads going,
"Gee, can't we all get along?
Why are we tearing each other up?"
Nature of the beast.

But Rubio, Rubio would win in a walkover.
He's conservative. He's articulate. He's great-looking.
He's Hispanic and sounds very smart.
How can he possibly lose?
If this were the Democrat Party,
the party father would probably tell Obama to step aside and let Rubio run,
if Rubio were a Democrat.
There are more Hispanic voters now than there are blacks,
and Rubio's got more experience than Obama had when he decided to run.
I don't know how many times Rubio has voted "present" versus Obama.

Here's Richard, El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, great speaking with you.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: Great to have you, sir.

CALLER: Your theme this morning has been Republican enthusiasm. Of course that equates to the voter turnout.
I understand that one of the major factors in us losing in '08 was that
Republicans were, quote, mad at Bush and many stayed home.
To me, that's ridiculous and childish.
We can't afford another four years of anything close to this socialist agenda.

RUSH: That happened in '06, by the way, too.

CALLER: I'm sure it's happened a number of times.

RUSH: Republicans stayed home because
they were mad at Republicans in Congress spending all the money.

CALLER: Yeah. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where it wasn't a choice of the lesser of the evils.
We've got to make some intelligent choices here
and it's absolutely essential that we must turn out in droves in order to overcome this obstacle.

RUSH: Frankly -- it's still 14 months out -- but I don't think that's a problem here.

CALLER: I hope you're correct.
We have to all do whatever we can to gin up the enthusiasm level and get these people to the polls.
They've got to understand what's at stake.

RUSH: I think they do. I think you'd be surprised.
I think you're going to be stunned. The voter enthusiasm...
The Gallup poll that's out today finds a 27 percentage point lead in voter enthusiasm, Republican over Democrat. (interruption)
Well, frankly, I'm not hearing people saying if it's X, they're not going to vote.
If I start hearing that, I'll talk to them about it. I'll fix it.
I'm not going to put up with that this time.
I'm not going to put up with that, "If it's X I'm not going to vote." (interruption)
Who? (interruption)
No. Shoot them at me!
If you've got some people who say
if Romney is the nominee they're not voting,
shoot them at me.

Let me just say, I haven't actually heard that specifically.
It doesn't surprise me. Some people think that.
I do know that there's a lot of passion for the proposition that Romney can't win,
and that if he does it's not enough to actually start rolling back what's going on.
Anyway, look, the reason why they're not pushing Rubio...
I'm going to answer my own question.
That's what I do.
I ask myself the best questions I'm ever asked and, therefore, I give the best answers.
They're not pushing Rubio because while they praise him, they don't think he has had enough experience yet.

And Rubio is --
sorry to say this, folks -- another example of the RINOs being wrong.
In case you have forgotten, Rubio was not initially supported by the Republican establishment.
Charlie Crist was.
I have not forgotten this.
Crist was supported by the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican millionaires and billionaires.
Crist was supported by McCain and Graham, and on and on.
Rubio was the Tea Party candidate.
Rubio was the conservative candidate, the candidate supported by conservative talk radio.
Rubio was the outsider. But look what's happened.
Now that Rubio has won,
"Oh, yeah, everybody was involved in the campaign!
Everybody had a role in electing Rubio!"

You people have forgotten:
Charlie Crist was the guy,
and Rubio kept coming on and on and on, and the conservative energy behind him and his conservatism triumphed
-- and Crist started talking to Democrats about a role in the party.
The RINOs had nothing to do with Rubio triumphing.
The RINOs weren't even in his camp to start with.
Another reason why they're not pushing Rubio is he's too conservative for them.
With Obama on any ballot, this whole notion of "lesser of two evils," I don't think exists.
Nobody's in that camp on our side.
There is no "almost an Obama" on our side, even Romney.
I think this "lesser of two evils" business gets thrown out, too.
There's a whole lot of conventional wisdom here that's going to be stood on its head before this is all over.
Don't doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Rubio/Crist election is almost a great microcosm of what we are talking about:
The Republican establishment versus an insurgent conservative Tea Party.
If you go back and try to remember that, Rubio came from nowhere.
He was seen as unelectable.
"Way too extreme. Too much of a risk.
Charlie Crist, he's the elected governor. He's the sure bet.
Charlie Crist will give us the majority in the Senate.
Charlie Crist is the way we need to go.
Who cares that Crist may as well have been a Democrat?
We need another (R), somebody who has an (R) beside their name.
We don't care whether they're conservative or not.
We just need the numbers here because we want to be in charge of the money.
We want the committee chairmanships."

You remember who the first prominent politician to support Rubio was?
It was Jim DeMint, South Carolina Senator.
Jim DeMint was the first prominent politician to come out and support Rubio.
Rubio, the outsider, fighting his way in.
Now, after he wins, the RINOs, the establishment come to his side (after Charlie Crist imploded) and they talk him up for vice president.
But don't forget:
There wouldn't be any Marco Rubio in the Senate today
except for the conservative movement and Tea Party movement
and a conservative effort to beat back the establishment.
Rubio, I'm not saying he had no role. Don't misunderstand.
He was, of course, key, but he had the Republican establishment against him.
It's almost, as I say, a microcosm of what we are talking about and facing today as we choose a nominee.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

Weekly Standard: It’s Not About You - William Kristol

New York Post: Christie Seriously Considering Presidential Bid after GOP Prodding

AP: Tea Party Darling Sen. Marco Rubio Writing Memoir



RUSH:

[DiogenesLamp]

There is much wisdom in the bible, if we could only learn it and follow it.

[Squeeky]

Well, there is what YOU and the other Vattle Birthers say, which is:

The Naturalization Act covered everyone who was not naturally a citizen by birth which was aliens, their wives and children, and children born abroad of citizen parents.

. . . .Marco Rubio falls in the category of doubt. His citizenship is not natural, but is instead dependent on a Constitutional amendment and/or naturalization law.

THEN, here is what the Supreme Court (and some common sense) says, that naturalization has NOTHING to do with people born INSIDE the country:

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Which means, now that you have been busted out on this fib, you will now go back to saying again that citizens under the 14th amendment are different from natural born citizens (because Vattle Birthers can not count to TWO (LOL!!!)). Sooo, let me head you off at the pass. They are the same. The Supreme Court judges say:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

And then it says that people who are born in the allegiance of the United States LIKE MARK RUBIO who was born in Miami which is INSIDE America, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

Which, even though the law is very clear about, Mark Rubio being a natural born citizen, YOU, being a Vattle Birther, will still try to muddy the waters for people here and mislead them about this, which I wonder WHY you don't just read the law and quit being one of the Vattle birthers. Are they holding your family hostage or something??? Do you owe them money???

[Yosemitest]

You did.

[edge919]

Again, you fail to understand what the court says and why it is saying it. Read this again:

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

Well, duh. England's statutes are very liberal in terms of subjectship. They wouldn't supersede or restrict an established rule of citizenship. In fact, they do the opposite. Their statutes ADD to that rule specifically by declaring the children of foreigners to be natural born subjects and children born of subjects regardless of the place of birth, but it was done with the understanding that the parents had to have "actual obedience" to the crown. The U.S. has no fundamental rule that requires "actual obedience." In the U.S., the only so-called "established rule of citizenship by birth" is natural born citizenship which = born in the country to citizen parents.

There is no established rule of citizenship by birth to foreigners except in certain states of which New York is a good example. The Lynch v. Clarke decision was a New York state case based on New York law which did recognize citizenship at birth to those who "abided" within the state. We learned this already through the Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor ruling that said:

The resolutions of the convention of New York of the 16th of July 1776, have been relied upon as asserting a claim to the allegiance of all persons residing within the state.

Not all states have such a resolution. But the law in New York meant that the parents had to intend to be permanent residents, according to Justice Story

Their 'temporary stay' is manifestly used in contradiction to 'abiding,' and shows that the latter means permanent intentional residence.

So, the so-called fundamental rule of citizenship by birth comes with strings. It is obviously not the same thing as NBC.

Which means, now that you have been busted out on this fib, you will now go back to saying again that citizens under the 14th amendment are different from natural born citizens ...

Sorry, but the Supreme Court said this in very plain and simple words that even you can understand. NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. "Citizenship by birth" is defined by circumstances IN the Constitution (via the 14th amendment). They ARE different. The court said NBC were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. Your quote about a so-called "established rule of citizenship" is qualified by this statement ... "So far as we are informed ..." This section is ONLY being used to bolster the 14th amendment. It doesn't supercede or restrict the fundamental rule of natural born citizenship as was cited by the Supreme Court.

They are the same. The Supreme Court judges say:

What you quoted does NOT say anything is the same. READ IT. UNDERSTAND IT. COMPREHEND IT:

... the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory ...

The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. It may affirm a fundamental rule of birth, but it doesn't supercede the NBC definition. And it is LIMITED:

... including all children here born of resident aliens

Nothing here says "including all persons born to citizen parents." It doesn't say "including all persons born to foreign subjects." It doesn't even say "all persons born in the United States." Read it AGAIN:

... the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers ...

If this was supposed to apply to all persons including those born of citizen parents and foreign subjects, why does it ONLY say "including all children here born of resident aliens"???

And ONE MORE TIME so you can wrap your head around this:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, ...

This passage is from a decision referring to people BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. It contradicts your belief because it means that simply being born in the U.S. does not automatically make the child a U.S. citizen. The persons born in the allegiance of the United States are those persons born to parents who adhered to the United States after the Declaration of Independence. IOW, these are persons born to citizens. That is why they are referred to SEPARATELY as natural-born citizens from those adhered to the crown.

[Squeeky]

OMG, you must be working overtime to NOT understand easy stuff. Oh Tee Hee!!! Here is what you asked:

Nothing here says "including all persons born to citizen parents." It doesn't say "including all persons born to foreign subjects." It doesn't even say "all persons born in the United States." Read it AGAIN:

... the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers ...

If this was supposed to apply to all persons including those born of citizen parents and foreign subjects, why does it ONLY say "including all children here born of resident aliens"???

==================

Uh, because there is NO DOUBT about people born to two citizen parents being citizens??? Uh, because that is the easy part where there aren't any questions??? Uh, because questions only came up when a parent or two wasn't a citizen, like with Wong Kim Ark, whose parents were Chinese??? Uh, because YOU can't read and you missed "birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens," being about a larger class of ALL persons, and "including" making sure it was understood to "INCLUDE" kids of foreigners. Uh, all of the above.

What is wrong with you??? Do you think the 14th amendment only applies to kids of foreigners born here??? Silly Vattle Birther, it is clear (to everybody but IRRATIONAL Vattle Birthers) that "the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory" means EVERYBODY born here, except the two exceptions.

Sooo, quit playing dumb and quit being a Vattle Birther, OK???

[edge919]

Uh, because there is NO DOUBT about people born to two citizen parents being citizens???

You're almost understanding. Those persons you are describing are NBCs. If the so-called "ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory" was so ancient and fundamental, then why is there doubt about those who are NOT born to citizens?? The answer: they are not NATURAL-BORN citizens. The ancient and fundamental rule comes with strings and doubts, but only one class within this rule has no doubt: those born in the country to citizen parents, i.e., Natural-born Citizens.

[Squeeky]

YOU are closer to getting it. They are BOTH natural born citizens. Children of citizens born here. Children of aliens and foreigners born here (with the 2 exceptions). ALL of them--BOTH CLASSES are natural born citizens. By the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself). . .It's what the court says. if they are born here, then they are born "in the allegiance"---both classes. Even Chinese kids. The court said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

But,but,but,but(you'll say). . .ALL persons just can't mean the aliens and foreigners!!! YES IT DOES. The court says:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13

Sooo, it is time for YOU to break out of the Vattle Cult, and quit being a Vattle Birther. This is as close to doing it as YOU will probably ever get. If you don't, you will end up like the Moon Landing Deniers, spending your life spouting off a bunch of cult nonsense and having people either ignore you as a nut, or poke fun at you. I hope you do the right thing.

[edge919]

YOU are closer to getting it. They are BOTH natural born citizens

Nonsense. How can it be "natural" if there's doubt???? "Natural-born" in all other respects means "by virtue of one's nature, qualities, or innate talent." If you have to solve doubts, then it is NOT by one's nature, it is NOT innate. Being born in a country other than where your parents was born is NOT natural. It takes extraordinary circumstances to occur. Rubio's parents were exiled. Obama's father was here on a student visa. Neither of their children could be natural-born citizens unless the parents naturalized.

It's what the court says. if they are born here, then they are born "in the allegiance"---both classes

Wrong. The court said "in the allegiance" was defined by "adhering" to the one side or the other, whether it was Great Britain or the United States. Justice Gray NEVER used this citation as the controlling criteria for Wong Kim Ark's citizenship. His citation from U.S. v Rhodes was within the first 1/3 of the decision. His NEXT citation of the term "natural-born citizen" was from the Naturalization Act of 1790 and then from the Minor v. Happersett decision which defined natural-born citizen as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." From this point forward, the term "natural-born citizen" is NEVER used again. Gray COULDN'T use it because Ark was NOT a natural-born citizen by the very precedent and definition by which he was bound.

You've now acknowledged that Ark's citizenship is a second class of citizenship (it is NOT a second class of natural-born citizenship. Such an idea is an oxymoron.) and that it still comes with doubt and with strings. The citation you want to use about allegiance is originally from Shanks v. Dupont in 1830. If that decision established that the children of foreigners could be natural-born citizens (which it does NOT do), then there would never have been a necessity for the 14th amendment, nor for the Minor case, nor for the Wong Kim Ark case.

It's time for you to be honest with yourself and to admit the TRUTH. The Supreme Court has a single, exclusive, no-doubt definition of natural-born citizen. It applies ONLY to children born to citizen parents. Period. Close is not good enough. Rubio is NOT a natural-born citizen. Had his parents naturalized first, then the answer would be different ... but it's not.

[Squeeky]

You are just running all over the place trying to keep from admitting you are wrong. Now you are into dictionaries, earlier cases, and just plain making up stuff. Enjoy your time with the cult. If you should ever wish to break free, try here. I as still editing this, and my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., has promised to double check it for me. But it has all the issues in our debate addressed:

A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship

[edge919]

The ONLY place to get an official definition of natural born citizen has been and remains Minor v. Happersett: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It was quoted and AFFIRMED in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Nothing supercedes this. Nothing.

[Squeeky]

Oh, you are just repeating the same old stuff. It does not get any more true the hundredth time you say it. BUT, you may be in luck!!! Do YOU have what it takes??? Take the test!!!

Mars Needs Vattel Birthers!!! Do YOU Have What It Takes???

I can not take credit for this. My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, wrote most of it. Thank you Fabia!!!

[Yosemitest]

Hello, Do you have supporting Marco Rubio's father had stated his intention to become a citizen prior to Marco's birth.
If so, can you post it here?

[Yosemitest]

Hello,
Do you have information supporting Marco Rubio's father had stated his intention to become a citizen prior to Marco's birth.
If so, can you post it here?

[edge919]

Oh, you are just repeating the same old stuff.

The same "old stuff" is STILL legal precedent. the Supreme Court is clear in their single, exclusive definition of natural-born citizens: all children who were born in the country to citizen parents. You can paint an orange red, but that won't make it an apple. Likewise, wishing that Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizen won't make it so. It is what it is and it ain't what he ain't ... and he ain't a natural born citizen.

[Squeeky]

The Case of Minor Rabbit Versus Happersett (1875)

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all rabbits were mammals, and their children were mammals, too. These were mammals, or common sense mammals, as distinguished from critters like platypuses or weird animals. Some authorities go further and include as mammals, platypuses. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Vattle Birthers: See!!! This PROVES platypuses are NOT mammals!!!

Wong Kim Platypus versus U.S.(1898)

History says if it has hair, and is warm-blooded, then its a common sense mammal. The U.S Constitution says there are only two kinds of critters—mammals and icky fishy/reptile/buggy/birdy ones. Therefore, Wong Kim Platypus has hair and is warm-blooded, and is a mammal.

Vattle Birthers: But the court didn’t say Wong Kim Platypus was a common sense mammal!!! There is a difference between common-sense mammals and mammals!! The 1875 case says only rabbits are common sense mammals, not platypuses!!! And what about Emerich de Vattel??? He says that in FRANCE, platypuses are not common sense mammals!!!

Vattle Birthers versus Indiana 2009

The Vattel Birthers said there is a difference between mammals and common sense mammals. We do not agree. There are only two kinds of critters—mammals and icky fishy/reptile/buggy/birdy ones. Based on Wong Kim Platypus, we rule that Barack Platypus is a common sense mammal. Plus, who cares what Frances says.

The Vattle Birthers: But that 1875 case is PRECEDENT that ONLY rabbits are common sense mammals!!!

Rational People: No it didn’t say that. You Vattle Birthers can’t read. It didn’t rule one way or the other on platypuses. It didn’t have to. Minor Rabbit, was a rabbit, not a platypus. The law is, if it has hair and is warm blooded, its a common sense mammal. Barack Platypus is stupid, but he has hair and is warm-blooded. He is a common sense mammal. And so is Marco Platypus!!! And so is Bobby Platypus in Louisiana.

[edge919]

Nice meltdown, squeeks. You can’t refute the facts, so you’re resorting to overwrought nonsense.

[Squeeky]

That’s not nonsense. That is just showing you Vattle Birthers how you are arguing the case in different words, because you don’t seem able to get it the other way. If what I have the Vattle Birthers saying in that example looks like nonsense, well. . .there is a real good reason. Think about it.

BTW (which means by the way) how high did you score on the test??? LOL!!!

[Diggity]

He is not eligible, neither is Jindal unless of course the SC decides what a NBC really is.

[Diggity]

He is not eligible, neither is Jindal unless of course the SC decides what a NBC really is and say it doesn’t matter about the parents.

[philman_36]

Look ... I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired Air Traffic Controller. This is complex, so I defer to the people I trust, and they say Rubio's eligible, ..., and I believe them.

So you let others do your critical thinking for you and you just act like a parrot. Got it.