Posted on 03/27/2012 2:33:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Marco Rubio seems to have been invented in a laboratory as part of an experiment to create the perfect Republican vice-presidential candidate. Former Bushie and torture enthusiast Marc Thiessen argues that there is some underground whispering campaign at work designed to deny Rubio his rightful place. The thing is, Thiessen is actually persuasive:
In recent months, a whispering campaign has spread in Washington suggesting that Rubio may look good on paper, but he cannot “pass vet” for the vice-presidential nomination. The whispers became more audible last October following a hit piece by Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, who accused Rubio of deliberately “embellishing” his family history by saying that his parents arrived in the United States after Castro took power when they, in fact, arrived during the Batista years. (I pointed out at the time that the story offered zero evidence that Rubio intentionally misled anyone). ...
Even in ranking Rubio first on his vice-presidential list, The Post’s Chris Cillizza writes, “We hear whispers that his time in the state legislature could be mined by a good opposition researcher.”And this month, the National Journal downgraded Rubio’s position on its vice-presidential power rankings because, it claimed, Rubio “skated into office without much of his past being vetted in the media."
But who is behind this? Thiessen doesn't venture a guess. Maybe he needs to employ more stringent measures to get people to talk.
The Communists at New York Magazine are worried that someone is undermining Marco Rubio because he’s too conservative?
I notice that they refrain from mentioning the natural born issue, perhaps because it might cast unfavorable shadows on their guy, Obama.
“...Rubio “skated into office without much of his past being vetted in the media.”” s/b Obama skated into..
Well, you know the rest.
Rubio is far from too conservative, unless that term includes ethnic favoritism.
“Ipso facto the poster boy for the Rubio Republicans is Marco Rubio. Yet he is perhaps the most suspect of the bunch.
In 2008, Rubio blocked a number of patriotic immigration bills in the Florida legislature. The Miami Herald reported:
“Florida lawmakers looking to pass bills targeted at curbing illegal immigration faced one major hurdle this session—convincing South Florida legislators, who hold key leadership positions in the House and Senate, to support their cause. Without the backing of House Speaker Marco Rubio, the first Cuban-American to hold the position, the bills failed to get any major play in their committees. Six weeks into the session, a three-hour workshop was held on the six House bills, but even that failed to produce its desired intent of combining the bills into one larger committee bill.
“’Speaker Rubio outlined the priorities of the session and this didn’t fall under that list,’ said [Rep. David] Rivera, one of Rubio’s lieutenants.”
[Miami-Dade lawmakers stymie immigration bills, by Laura Figueroa, Miami Herald, April 17, 2008]
When Arizona enacted SB 1070, Rubio wrote:
“Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem… I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens.”
Rubio eventually flip-flopped—after the conservative grassroots embraced Arizona. But he still made sure to qualify that we need “a legal immigration system that works” (a.k.a. more legal immigration) and that we must “Understand that what Arizona is facing is different from anything Florida has ever faced... Frankly, very few states in the country can imagine what that’s like.” (i.e. no other state should consider enacting a similar bill.
[Exclusive: Rubio Clarifies Critique of Arizona Law, by Jason Mattera, Human Events, May 6, 2010]”
vetting? vetting? perhaps Marc can work on vetting Zero, too
Rubio was born in the U.S. but to non-citizen parents so the argument as to whether or not he meets the “natural born” qualification for president or veep will need to be definitively settled. He’s not a democrat so there’s no way he can count on the press running interference for him.
Almost Mennehune56. To make Rubio eligible the Supreme Court will need to overturn precedent established in 1875, and confirmed at least as late as 1939, when Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes determined that Marie Elg, in spite of having been raised in Sweden, could return to the U.S., and after 14 years residence and reaching the age of 35, be eligible to the presidency. Hughes, in Perkins v. Elg, cited Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162. Because Marie was born after her Swedish-born parents had become citizens, and Marie was born in New York. Because Marie's citizenship was granted by nature - God - it couldn't be removed by statute, in spite of Marie's parents having repudiated their naturalized citizenship. Had Marie been born to an alien parent or parents, she would have been a naturalized citizen, a “native-born citizen of the U.S.” as Barack has described his own status, and Marie would have lost her naturalized citizenship when she was removed to Sweden, and when her parents changed their allegiance:
“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 childrenborn 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.”
The statement above by Chief Justice Waite includes mostly critical points. Noting that "The Constitution does not, in words, say..." acknowledges that definitions are not, with only a single exception, found in the Constitution. The definitions are found in our commmon-law familiar to the framers, who knew that the evolving meaning of words would render the Constitution meaningless in time. "It was never doubted" is the judgment of the court that the precedent they were establishing, by citing no other authority - not Chief Justice Marshall, or Vattel, or Pufendorf, or the clarification by 14th Amendment Author John Bingham. The statement above defined precedent which was cited in dozens of cases, including the famous Wong Kim Ark, where Wong Kim was made a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, having been born on our soil, but to alien parents.
Obama, Rubio, Jindal, Chester Arthur, McCain, Calero... are not natural born citizens. It appears that Santorum and Romney are, though if there are questions, we need a clear mechanism requiring vetting of candidates for the times that our legislators are politically compromised, as was the case in 2008.
The Left has been doing this for one hundred years and they are good at it. Rubio frightens them because he could pull votes from Hispanics that would negate the ballots of illegals and the dead, who always vote Democrat. Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Ohio are at stake, and a few thousand votes could swing them against the Kenyan Communist.
Rubio skated?! Please. 0bama lowered the bar so far in that regard that no one should be complaining about any conservative getting elected to anything.
And how exactly did Rubio “skate” into the US Senate? It isn’t as easy for a Republican in FL as it is for a lefty Democrat in IL! Rubio started out way behind against an incumbent governor. He managed to come on so strong that Crist dropped out of the primary race, as I recall. Then Rubio faced 2 opponents in the general election. They had several debates so it’s not as if the job got handed to Rubio on a silver platter.
As far as his being a running mate for Romney, I think I would rather see him gain more experience in the Senate and run for the top job on his own in 2016, if Romney loses.
I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that having a candidate like Rubio run is the way to get this settled. My understanding is that cases failed to get a hearing at the SCOTUS because of lack of standing. Wouldn’t the candidate himself have the standing to go before the SCOTUS?
If Rubio asked for a ruling and they rule him ineligible, even the dimmest of the MSM couldn’t get around the fact that in that scenario, Obama would also be ineligible.
It IS settled. In order to qualify as a "Natural Born Citizen" one must prove birth in Hawaii, paternity by a drunken communist wife-beating bigamist who is a citizen of an African Colony that is later given its independence, adoption by an Indonesian, and have a staff adept at MacIntosh versions of Photoshop.
Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal could have met all of these criteria, had they known about them from better public schools, so they qualify as Natural Born Citizens, too.
What here is so hard for you to understand?
I agree 100%! In fact, Rubio may not be necessary to push this issue to the front. Let Romney and Santorum prove their eligibility in light of the fact that they both have parents who may not have been US citizens when they were born.
I’ve remained highly skeptical of Rubio, and I have good principled reasons.
But, in any case, anyone who would support Romney, much less run with him, has disqualified themselves from consideration for a single ounce of political support from me.
If not why not?
Time to do it!
Marco Rubio is a spectacular Senator. However, a BIG “however”:
Marco is NOT ELIGIBLE to be President, and therefore VEEP, due to failure of satisfying the Constitutional principle of being “Natural Born”. Period.
Those of us who know this is the case must smack down every media, politician, or person who ever brings his name up for that office.
You are saying:
1. In order to be president, both parents must have been born in the Unites States, and the person must be born in the 50 states?
2. You are saying the Constitution has no controlling legal authority over the qualifications to be president?
3. You are saying Chester A. Arthur was never president?
that was a quote from the article. the intent was to change Rubio’s name to Obama, which was the proper name. Apologies for the confusion. I agree with you completely.
"1. In order to be president, both parents must have been born in the Unites States, and the person must be born in the 50 states?"
"2. You are saying the Constitution has no controlling legal authority over the qualifications to be president?"
"3. You are saying Chester A. Arthur was never president?"
1.) No Nick, both parents must have been citizens. I am quoting just one of the dozens of Supreme Court cases in which the common-law definition was recited, and the one case in which the decision depended upon the common-law definition. Is that clear? The parents could have been naturalized citizens. Malia, Obama’s daughter, is a natural born citizen because, while we don't know where Barack was born, his birth to a citizen mother makes him a naturalized citizen, and trust his assertion that he is a naturalized citizen, Malia WAS born to citizen parents on our soil.
2.) The Supreme Court does not execute or legislate. Not an attorney, I believe that Article III Section 2 gives the court jurisdiction to interpret the law, but that, as Clarence Thomas commented, “...they are avoiding the issue.” The Supreme Court is an appeals court. They have refused to hear the many appeals, perhaps because of the “Rule of 9” which provides for a poll among justices who can decide whether or not to hear a case. When, as today, one can tell how justices will vote from their political backgrounds, the Supreme Court is about political power and not Constitutional interpretation. It does not appear that they have authority to challenge eligibility directly, but there are those who claim, and perhaps precedent in a Marshall decision, to support the assertion that the Court 'shall' address this issue of constitutional interpretation. Chief Justice Roberts certainly knows Minor v. Happersett, and every justice knows Chief Justice John Marshall, a founder and framer who famously cited Vattel's explanation "born on the soil to citizen parents," but administered the oath to Obama, whose father was an alien. Obama swore to honor, preserve and protect the Constitution. That will be Robert's legacy. That is most likely the reason Roberts took three tries to get the oath right. This will be the most memorable act of Robert's tenure.
3.) Most definitely Chester Arthur was never a legitimate president. Arthur hid his legal birth certificate, and burned is documents just before his death. No one suspected his father, a minister, of never having naturalized. His father was an alien, like Obama’s. Yes, Chester Arthur was never legally our president. Neither is Barack, if we claim still to be a nation of laws, and not men.
I knew the quote about Rubio “skating” into office was from the article. It shows the author’s double standard in not caring that 0bama had the presidency handed to him. How he even got into that Senate seat without more competition from other Democrats also is a bit of a puzzle. Shows how low Illinois has sunk.
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.