Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
It has been claimed by Obama apologists that in relatively recent cases, circuit courts have given their opinion on the term "natural-born citizen" as meaning nothing more than being born in the country. Supposably this would presume that Obama, if it can be legally proven that he was born in the United States, as he claims, is a natural-born citizen in spite of being born of a foreign national father and NOT being born to citizen parents, as the Supreme Court defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, etc.
One example of such a recent decision is Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), in which it says:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But, there's a problem. Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.
In the case at hand, no special circumstances are presented sufficient to bring petitioner's situation within the extreme hardship standard. His children are still of pre-school age and thus less susceptible to the disruption of education and change of language involved in moving to Mexico. There are no unique reasons why petitioner, in comparison with the many other Mexicans in his situation now resident in the United States, will be unable to find employment upon returning to Mexico or why he or any member of his immediate family requires health care available only here. Thus, although we recognize the unhappy prospects which the petitioner faces, we cannot hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at openjurist.org ...
Gray quoted Justice Marshall in this instance to explain why the exceptions in the Slaughterhouse Cases were not to be presumed to be the ONLY exceptions to the 14th amendment.
Minor v. Happersett was about whether the 14th amendment meant women could vote.
You say you can read, so why do you ignore that Waite specifically says:
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
Waite framed the argument very specifically as hinging on a 14th amendment citizenship claim. Waite accepted this as a significant part of the argument and accordingly dealt with why Minor was not a citizen via the 14th amendment. Why do you think he would talk about this at all if it was not partially about her citizenship??
It was not about who was a citizen by birth. Justice Gray, after citing numerous cases,(many of which speak of birth within the country to alien parents as "natural born") comes to his point: 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...
You're making my point for me. Gray is talking specifically about the fourteenth amendment — the same amendment that he said EXCLUDED the children of citizens and the same amendment he noted does not say who natural-born citizens are. When he gave a full quote from the Minor decision, it was for the definition of natural-born citizenship. Do you disagree that he did this???
Got that? The Fourtheenth Amendment conferred no authority to restrict the effect of birth, or change the Constitutional mention of two categories: born and naturalized.
It doesn't say anything about changing the Constitutional mention of two categories. You've made that up. All it says ia that the 14th amendment still reserves naturalization authority for Congress and that Congress can't restrict the effect of birth via the 14th amendment. Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. The court already said NBC is defined outside the law. IOW, by this declaration, the court says Congress can't change that. This court said that the 14th amendment affirmed a second type of birth citizenship. So accordingly, Congress can't change that. No one is asking them to. This still respects the distinctions Gray made. NBC = defined outside the Constitution ... not by Congress. CBB = defined BY the Constitution via the 14th amendment ... not by Congress.
Sorry, but you are in a fantasy world. The court did not hold that Obama is an NBC. Even if we were to accept this contradiction-riddled decision, there was never any legal proof that Obama was born in the United States in order to satisfy their errant definition.
The court rejected the Minor case and instead used the precedent of WKA to hold Obama to be a nbc.
It didn't reject Minor; it invented a false justification to make a declaration via common law to expand the definition of natural born citizenship in a way that has NEVER been done by the Supreme Court. And you're fooling yourself if you think this court legitimately used WKA as "precedence." The only precedence this court cited was in relation to the plaintiff's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" which was a general citation of the Indiana Supreme Court. The Hoosier Hillbillies wisely avoided any declaration about ANY quote from WKA being a precedent. Instead, they used the term "guidance" but this was from a combination of two sources, neither of which said what the court divined. The stupid part is that under their "guidance," Obama would be a natural-born subject, not a natural-born citizen.
Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”Thanks to the Treaty of 1783, you can be born on U.S. soil and be a foreign subject ... just like Obama. There was no dual citizenship either. You've been shown the contradictions and the actual precedential language that was accepted and affirmed in WKA: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
You underlined the wrong part -
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.The case was about whether Virgina Minor could vote, or the state could restrict voting to male citizens.
Gray quoted Justice Marshall in this instance to explain why the exceptions in the Slaughterhouse Cases were not to be presumed to be the ONLY exceptions to the 14th amendment.
Better go back and read it again - Gray quoted Marshall in reference to Miller's statement
"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."Gray then proceeds to call this statement
" wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for ..."Then comes your claim based on a butchered quote, where the real quote says the opposite - the Justices did not understand the court to be committed to the view that either children born in the US of citizens or of foreign subjects were excluded from the 14th amendment.
When he gave a full quote from the Minor decision, it was for the definition of natural-born citizenship. Do you disagree that he did this???
Sure do, and the WKA decision, as well as Rogers v Bellei disagree with you as well. Justice Gray quoted several cases and authorities, many of which directly or indirectly specified children of foreigners born in the US as natural born citizens. Some examples
It is salient to the point. If YOU admit the court gets things wrong, then your entire argument referencing the courts as the epitome of infallibility is defunct. Now are you going to dodge the question, or are you going to answer it?
Did the Supreme Court decide Roe v Wade wrongly?
It is obvious to anyone who has researched the issue of nbc, that if you are a citizen at birth and you do not have to go through a naturalization process (ie: Rubio or McCain) you are a Natural Born Citizen. There are ONLY 2 types of citizens, Natural born and Naturalized. Not a single court in the last 100 years has used the dicta of Minor to define nbc.
Perhaps you missed it, but I am attempting to explore a sub-theme of your argument; that the courts are infallible. I'm using the example of Roe v Wade because it has special relevance to conservatives of which the people on this website are assumed to be. Did the Supreme court get this decision wrong?
I now understand that there are birthers who are now claiming that even though Rubio was born in Florida, he is not a nbc. If that is the case, all they are doing is helping reelect Obama. These crazy theories need to be addressed and put to rest now, so as to not cause problems in next year's election. Will you support the Republican ticket next year if Rubio is on it?
The FIRST crazy theory that needs to be addressed is whether or not decent people will accept false rulings by a court, as legitimate. Do you believe Roe v Wade was decided correctly?
The fact that dissent exists indicates the legal concept is not so clear as people would have us believe. It is an article of faith among conservatives that the Supreme Court et al gets it wrong far too often. Now I am just trying to find out if you are a typical conservative that believes the courts get things wrong, or whether you believe they are infallible. Do the courts ever get it wrong? Say, Roe v Wade?
You may not like the 14th amendment, but it will continue to be enforced, short of a constitutional amendment. That is real life and real law, not some fantasy about it being “dubious”. If you wish to change anything about the 14th Amendment, I suggest you help organize movement to amend it. That will be much more effective than what you doing now.
I have no difficulties with the INTENT of the 14th amendment, I have issue with how badly it was written and how subject to abuse it has been since it was ratified at the point of a gun. If people would just count it as having granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to Freed Slaves, then that would be perfectly acceptable. This side track by a "legislating from the bench" court into citizenship for foreigners, banning religion in the public square, and creating a fake right to abortion is utterly stupid.
Again, Do you believe the court ever gets anything wrong?
And you keep repeating that false accusation. The fallibility of the courts is directly related to this issue. Many of us argue that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, and THAT is the linchpin of many of your arguments. If your side will admit that the court sometimes gets things wrong, then we could demonstrate how they got Wong Kim Ark wrong, and at the very least stop discussing the ridiculous subsequent cases based on the wrongly decided Precedent.
The issue isn't whether WKA or Rogers v Bellei is correctly decided. The issue is that they were decided a certain way, and as of now, that is the law of the land. When we think it's wrong we need to try to change the law, not claim it's what we want it to be.
We need to declare it wrong, and keep explaining WHY it is wrong, until the public eventually accepts the meme and demands that it be fixed. Constantly repeating that something is "correct" when it is in fact "wrong" does a disservice to the nation. With that goal in mind, the first step is to get the supporters of wrong decisions (that would be you and co) to admit that the courts will get things wrong.
What the Vattel "natural born" crowd seems not to realize is correct or not, "thems the rules." So when one of the Vattel crowd says that 0bama should have been deported with his father, they may be expressing a common wish of all of us, but not what the law has been held to be. So my question to you - do you recognize what the law is? Or are you assuming it is always what we want it to be?
I think that point is still valid. Had Stanley Ann and Barack Obama actually been a REAL couple, Stanley would have left with Barack, and took Barry with her. He could have grown up in Kenya where his idiocy wouldn't have been noticed. It is obvious that some years later Stanley Ann DID leave with Lolo Soetoro when he was deported, so the central argument of this entire thread is established as true beyond any doubt.
Now, to get back to the point which I want to establish (Whether or not your side is going to defend the court as Infallible) Do You believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided?
No more than John Brown had a right to raid the south and free slaves, or that the polish underground had a right to ambush concentration camp personnel. Obviously these were both serious violations of the law.
Do you think you have to respect, and obey, laws with which you disagree???
I think each person must decide for themselves whether or not they should obey evil laws. Obviously the Germans had no problems stealing and destroying the property of Jews during Kristalnacht, and they could always console themselves with the fact that what they were doing was acceptable because it was "The Law."
... from the Slaugtherhouse Cases as I already said. Miller wrote the decision for that decision. I didn't realize you needed that spelled out for you because it was already understood since I was refering Slaughterhouse. You really need to pay attention. And I said it was about the exceptions in that case, which you promptly cited. You're making my argument for me.
Gray then proceeds to call this statement " wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for ..."
Right. Again, you're making my argument for me. This is why Gray pointed out the Minor and Elk decisions. The exceptions or exclusions that were listed in Slaughterhouse were not comprehensive. What you're missing or intentionally left out is that the only part of the exceptions that Gray actually took exception to was that consuls were not the same as "foreign ministers." He accepted the other exceptions and added the exclusions from Minor (NBCs) and from Elk (Indians - subjects of foreign States); except that the latter, he argued, were "alien nations" and not "foreign states" (note that he quotes no authority for this declaration. Rather ironic after he criticized Miller for the same thing).
Then comes your claim based on a butchered quote, where the real quote says the opposite - the Justices did not understand the court to be committed to the view that either children born in the US of citizens or of foreign subjects were excluded from the 14th amendment.
My claim is NOT based on a butchered quote. The only thing that is "butchered" is YOUR understanding of what this quote actually says. This quote still says the Court was committed to the view that chidren born in the US of citizens or foreign subjects were excluded from the 14th amendment. That Miller did NOT understand two years ealier does NOT change the facts that he and the rest of the Slaugherhouse judges voted unanimously to exclude citizens from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. It's time for you to quit ignoring the facts.
Justice Gray quoted several cases and authorities, many of which directly or indirectly specified children of foreigners born in the US as natural born citizens.
Sorry, but this is factually untrue. Out of all your bullet points, only one specifically mentions the term natural-born citizens, but in that quote, it does NOT say anything about the children of foreigners. It's talking about the children of the inhabitants of the U.S. at the time of the founding of this country. It noted that persons born on U.S. soil could be either natural-born citizens (if born to parents who adhered to the U.S.) OR natural-born subjects (if the parents adhered to the crown. Under this citation, it makes Obama a natural-born subject of Great Britain/Kenya.
So I'll see your quote from Minor v. Happersett which explicitly said the case would not resolve the doubts, and raise you several cases or authorities quoted by Gray which affirm that the US follows English common law in this matter.
Sorry, but Gray affirmed the quote and definition of NBC from Minor. He only used English common law as a justification for the 14th amendment ... AND he specifically noted that the 14th amendment does NOT say who natural-born citizens are ... specifically by citing Minor. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Do you understand?? When construing the 14th amendment (the Constitution) Gray acknolwedges that Justice Waite said the Constituion does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Gray says Waite used common law as an aid, but the definition of NBC used by Waite is NOT from English common law.
... 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.
By affirming that Virginia Minor was a citizen by virtue of being born in the country to citizen parents, Gray upheld the Minor decision and its NBC definition. Notice that he did NOT ever call Wong Kim Ark a natural-born citizen. He couldn't because he wasn't.
The other part of this that is critically important is that is the fact that the law in these cases is not respecting the claims of natural-born citizen children. They are basically saying, "These are your kids and they belong with you in their home country. Our laws discourage people like you from coming here and having anchor babies, so we're not going to treat them as natural-born citizens." Had Barak Sr. sued to extend his visa by citing his child as an NBC, they would have been on the next BOAC flight back to Kenya.
You are the one who is embarrassing themselves, by cutting and pasting words and phrases from here and there without any context or meaning or even simple logic. All to try to mislead people here about the law, on purpose.
Your theory that people who are born in America to two citizen parents are NOT covered by the 14th Amendment is something I have been reading about:
Note: The militia myth is that the Fourteenth Amendment created a distinct category of citizen, distinct from native born white militia members, consisting of non-whites and immigrants - and later women, so that the American population is divided between “preamble citizens” who are citizens of individual states but not necessarily citizens of the US nor subject to federal law, and “14th Amendment citizens” who are covered by federal law and who may not have the inherent rights. This myth is discussed in Koniak, When Law Risks Madness, 8 Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 65 (1996), which also covers some other militia-type notions.
See what your kind of thinking is called—madness.
squeezy, this is absolutely false. I've given full context and explained everything in very simple language that even you should be able to understand. The language speaks for itself. Now you're off in lala land again with whatever this "militi myth" is.
And you keep repeating that false accusation
Our conversation has gone something like this (slight - but only slight - exaggeration for effect):
"Legally, 0bama should have been deported with his dad!"
Discussion as to what the law actually says, and the fact that the law doesn't say that. Stanley Ann could have chosen to take baby Hussein and follow her sort of husband, but no law mandated that.
"Do you love abortion"?
"What are you talking about, this has nothing to do with the subject!"
"You didn't say no, so you must love abortion!"
"No, I am pro-life. Lets get back to the subject at hand." More discussion of WKA, etc.
"If you believe jus soli is the law of the land, you must love abortion!"
"No I don't! This is a ridiculous distraction! We're talking about the legalities of 'natural born' and deportation!"
More discussion, some pointing out that like it or not, this is currently accepted law.
"You sure you don't support murdering babies? I think you do!"
And you wonder why I say you're trying to distract. There are good court decisions and bad court decisions, and some flat out wrong and dumb. The way to change it is to change the law or change the Constitution. It is not to deny that the decision was made, deny that it exists, and deny that it is currently accepted law.
Agree 100%.
It is obvious that some years later Stanley Ann DID leave with Lolo Soetoro when he was deported, so the central argument of this entire thread is established as true beyond any doubt.
Nope. The central argument was that "Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father." That is incorrect. The children were not deported and would not have been deported. There was always the option of the child to stay in the US with a US citizen or legal resident.
This quote still says the Court was committed to the view that chidren born in the US of citizens or foreign subjects were excluded from the 14th amendment.
when the real quote says
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...I realize the language is a bit complex for you, but again:
What you're missing or intentionally left out is that the only part of the exceptions that Gray actually took exception to was that consuls were not the same as "foreign ministers." He accepted the other exceptions
Read it again. He used the consul/foreign minister issue as an example showing that care had not been used ("apparent from") and went on to adress the "subject to the jurisdiction" issue:
that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
Out of all your bullet points, only one specifically mentions the term natural-born citizens
But they specifically mention English common law don't they? And state that the US follows the English common law in this matter - jus soli. And English common law says that the born on the soil = natural born.
Gray affirmed the quote and definition of NBC from Minor.
Oh? Where did he affirm that he saw this as the definition of NBC? Or do you think just by quoting it (as he did the Napoleonic codes) that meant he agreed with everything he quoted?
He only used English common law as a justification for the 14th amendment
And that's probably the nuttiest thing you've said so far. He had no need to justify the 14th amendment, it was already the law of the land. He quoted quite a bit about birth and natural born - I suppose that was about the 14th amendment also?
No I am not. You are the one who said that the 14th Amendment did not apply to people who were born in America to two citizen parents. People like me and like most Americans. This is the same argument used by the Militia Movement to make all kinds of stupid legal claims. There was 127 pages in that one report and there were no spaces or anything between the cases or lines. Here is just one example of a person getting into legal trouble by following your type of goofy legal theory about the 14th Amendment. There are bunches more:
ditto US v. Updegrave (ED Penn unpub 5/28/97) 80 AFTR2d 5290, 97 USTC para 50465 (”The 14th Amendment controls the definition of citizenship. The Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the US ... are citizens of the US ...’ According this court finds that Updegrave is not a resident of Pennsylvania but a citizen of the US by birth, and as such he is subject to federal income tax.”
Is that what YOU want, for people here to get in legal trouble, or to not vote for Mark Rubio or Bobby Jindal because you can’t, or won’t, understand what the law is???
No. This is only you making a lazy and inaccurate characterization. I diagrammed the sentence piece by piece and proved your own analogy was flawed.
Read it again. He used the consul/foreign minister issue as an example showing that care had not been used ("apparent from") and went on to adress the "subject to the jurisdiction" issue:
Are you really this stupid?? What you cited supports MY point. I said Gray took exception that consuls were not the same as foreign ministers. That's what the quote says: Read it.
... is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together
Do you understand?? Gray is taking exception ONLY to this as it pertains to being an exception to the subject clause.
... consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers ...
Consuls, Gray says, are not considered entitled to privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers. Of course, this is kind of a stupid thing to say, because when he talks about P&I, it's not in a Constitutional sense, but as from the "Law of Nations" (note how Gray is citing the same source as was used to define NBC). We'll continue.
... are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
So Gray concludes that consuls should not be excluded from the subject clause of the 14th amendment, but that foreign ministers (which Miller excluded) should be. As I said, this is the ONLY thing Gray took exception to, and then, in the NEITHER/NOR paragraph he added the exclusions of NBCs via Minor and subjects of foreign States via Elk. IOW, lurker, you just proved my point for me. Thank you.
But they specifically mention English common law don't they?
It doesn't matter. They aren't referring to NBCs. Don't you get it. You've failed to prove that NBC follows English common law. Do you understand why??? Because NBC does NOT follow English common law. The definition Gray used from Minor follows the Law of Nations.
Oh? Where did he affirm that he saw this as the definition of NBC? Or do you think just by quoting it (as he did the Napoleonic codes) that meant he agreed with everything he quoted?
In the part that said NBC are "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizesns" followed IMMEDIATELY by a paragraph saying the V. Minor's citizenship was due to being born in the country to citizen parents. From this point forward in the decision, Gray does NOT use the term "natural-born citizen" again.
And that's probably the nuttiest thing you've said so far
It's not my words. It is what Gray said specifically. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
He's directly equating CBB with English common law and that it was the object of the 14th amendment to affirm this rule. Next he cites a quote that says the same thing:
In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said:The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage.
The 14th amendment affirms common law SO FAR as it assert the status to be fixed by place. NBC, defined OUTSIDE of the Constution is NOT irrespective of parentage. And technically, neither is the 14th amendment because of the subject clause. And one more time: 14th amendment affirms CBB, which Gray had already said was defined by English common law:
....the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory ....
Clearly 14th amendment citizenship is NOT the same as NBC. As Judge Waite said, NBCs do NOT need the 14th amendment to confer their citizenship. Gray must have agreed because he never equates 14th amendment citizenship with NBC. Never.
All we need is the clear and plain language from BOTH Minor and WKA: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives, or natural born citizens. Period. There's no other way to interpret that.
In every law suit there is one party who thinks the courts ruling is correct and the other party to suit who thinks the court was wrong. The judicial system is an adversarial proceeding and much depends on the facts of the case and the application of the rule of law to those facts.
The sub-theme being discussed is the issue of nbc as it relates to the deportation process. You appear to be trying to hijack this thread once again by bringing up abortion, a totally unrelated topic to the thread. Your trolling on this thread has been noted by others. Do you realize constant attempts to hijack a thread is considered to be one of the worst forms of trolling? Your misleading posts are also trolling (ie: using the Nazi card when discussing Scotus) If you wish to discuss Roe v. Wade go to an abortion thread and quit trying to hijack this thread.
You act like a troll, talk like a troll, and I bet you walk like troll. I believe you are a troll.
What are the birthers going to do if Rubio is nominated by the Republicans to run for VP? Not voting for the Republican ticket is the same as voting for Obama, and that is a disaster. I see birther heads exploding at that time. Btw, I agree with Rush that Rubio will be a great candidate for VP and will eventually become POTUS. In fact my feelings for Rubio and the absolute necessity to defeat Obama is why I have stayed on this thread. I want other conservatives to know that the Birther madness is not helpful to our cause.
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.