Martinez for Vice President?

In 2011 New Mexico got rid of the corrupt, pay-to-play, radical environmentalist Governor Bill Richardson and replaced him with Susana Martinez, a person with integrity who is tough on crime and illegal aliens and is the first breath of fresh air we have had in eight years. Just this past week, Attorney General Gary King, the son of former well-respected Democrat Governor Bruce King, announced for Governor. Other than not being corrupt like Richardson, he shares the same liberal views. He is popular and will be a formidable opponent for any Republican running for Governor, including Susana who currently enjoys a high favorability rating. Take her out of the running and you have the governorship slide back into the hands of the Dems.

So, does Martinez meet the Natural Born requirement?

Yes she does. She was born in the US to US citizens and was subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Martinez appears to be a great choice, and, while Obots probably assume they have won the Constitutionality issue, Martinez, unlike Rubio, is a natural born citizen. With Roberts on the court there is a progressive majority. Since precedent is customary, but not mandatory, the court might have reinterpreted the precedent established by Chief Justice Morrison Waite had they ever allowed a case to be heard by the court. If a lawsuit or congressional challenge to laws signed by the naturalized Obama were to reach the court, it would be better to wait a few years for another justice or two who would respect the Constitution.

The naturalized Rubio continues with the tacit mockery of Article II Section 1 requiring a natural born citizen. If there is an amendment to Article II it should be along the lines of the Obama/McCaskill S. 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. It failed to pass in February 2008, but which would have made McCain eligible, and enabled conservatives to vet Obama, who told us all he was a naturalized, not natural born, citizen. The court is now a rubber stamp for “living constitutionalists”.

What is wrong with continuing to ignore the Constitution? One of the many tangible circumstances is that with the tacit rejection of long held precedent, a child raised by Jihadi Muslim illegal immigrants in a sleepy village in Arizona or New Mexico, indoctrinated with Sharia and committed to the global caliphate, raised in the US, like Wong Kim Ark, would be eligible to the presidency. The Supreme Court, Justice Gray, ruled that Wong Kim was not eligible, and was a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited and quoted Chief Justice Waite's precedent from Minor v. Happersett. There is no doubt. The Constitution never did include definitions of terms used, specifically referring to the common-law and common language familiar to its framers.

The child of Jihadis would hide his beliefs, consistent with taquiya, conceal the financial resources which would allow him an education of the privileged. Naturalized citizens sign an oath of sole allegiance to our Constitution. Of course people can lie, but having citizen parents makes that less likely. We know that Barack’s father hated our Constitution, and that the son regarded it an historic artifact which restricted his control of the economic behavior of our citizens. Had Barack’s father naturalized before his birth, making his son a natural born citizen, chances are he wanted the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. But he didn't, and Barack was was naturalized by the Naturalization Amendment, the 14th. Barack was honest, but both parties were trapped by complicity in the ineligibility of both candidates.

Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, knows about illegal immigration. She has really managed a sovereign state. Her Mexican background can't hurt. She is a conservative. She might make an excellent president, though there hasn't been enough exposure of her thinking to be certain.

Condi has some baggage which doesn't need to be aired, but which will surely become an issue if she becomes a candidate. If this writer knows the facts, Romney's enemies certainly do, and will use it as the skillful politicians they are. Now it should remain her private business. What was fine for the Clintons will not be for Romney's VP. Condi’s experience as Provost at Stanford is closer to the background of Woodrow Wilson than Suzanna Martinez or Ronald Reagan. Ms. Rice is charming, did her thesis in the history of the USSR (under Madeline Albright’s ex-husband, if memory serves), and is a fine pianist. She should stay where she is, and is probably not happy about this attention. Allen West would make a wonderful choice whether or not skin color is the issue. West is a real hero who appears to have a clear understanding of the dangers posed by Islamist infiltration.

Many don't remember the Colonel who was reprimanded for extracting critical military information from a captured Taliban officer, information which probably saved the lives of some of his soldiers. He fired his service revolver to frighten the prisoner during interrogation. That is a commanding officer solders would trust, and follow! He would be a real addition to a Romney ticket.

Then you’ve already lost. Enjoy your four more years.

If he picks Rubio, he wins. Guaranteed

I would rather he pick a NBC. We don’t need a guy who is not constitutionally allowed to run for President be our VP.

I agree but can’t figure out with all the conjecture if he would be eligible for president or not. What is the REAL STORY?

Rubio’s parents were not US citizens when he was born therefore he is not a natural born citizen, neither is Jindal, and of course, neither is bambi.

I wonder if Barry Goldwater was NBC since Arizona was not a state at the time of his birth.

Here is the real story

http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/06/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-ii-from-william-learned-marcy-to-wong-kim-ark/

The “Redstate” volumes by “Jake Walker” read like Dr. Conspiracy. Most of us interested in the legal history, and with the energy to chase wild geese strewn by Obots have read all these arguments, not just at FR but at some of the Obot sites. A cursory glance at "Jake Walker's" avalanche of citations shows his/her intent - to eliminate the difference between natural born and naturalized citizens. Forget that native-born American Indians were not made citizens. Forget that The Constitution itself, where each word must be assumed to have meaning, specifies a natural born citizen for president, and otherwise talks about citizens, and the need to create an Uniform Rule in Article 1 Section 8. Forget that the 14th Amendment nowhere mentions natural born citizens, and its author repeated the common-law definition cited by Chief Justice Marshall from Vattel. Forget that our naturaliztion oath requires sole allegiance to our Constitution of immigrants. Forget that natural law is the basis for our Declaration and Constitution - "...The separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures's God entitle them..."

This Redstate article threw the whole book, the English Common Law equivalent, the pre-John Jay letter Madison presidential requirement, when each state had a different definition of how citizens were made, and each state took just that part of English law it deemed relevent to its sovereign government, and English Common law was further divided into English-Welsh, Irish, and Scottish branches, with each Colony picking and chosing what to recognize. Then he relies on a New York State court decision, Lynch, again and again, rather like state court judges citing the ridiculous Indiana Court Ankeny case for a new definition of who were natural born citizens. That definition is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Obama's cadre has turned the law into a circus, perhaps weakening respect for justice and the judiciary intentionally.

The idea is to bury the less patient in enough names and confusion as to sound knowledgeable, and convincing. The sad truth is that we do not have a legal system that honors the Constitution. Federal Judges conform to the political will that appointed each of them. Even Supreme Court justices are now just political pawns who can be counted upon to carry the water of the power that got them each appointed. Roberts was identifiable the moment he accepted the oath of the naturalized citizen Barack Obama. It would have taken courage to refuse to confer legitimacy on the elected candidate, and Roberts was chosen because he was unknown, and not for his qualities as a jurist or his courage in administering constitutionally founded judgements.

Instead of clearly self-inconsistent citations from a potpourri of sources the single clear statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is sufficient, and, as has been demonstrated by the twenty five or so cases, including Wong Kim Ark, which cite Minor v. Happersettt when referring to natural born citizens, Minor turned the common law into positive law. The Constitution was written to depend upon our common-law, the ethical rules acceped by most common citizens. Here is the statement which Obots will never acknowledge, because they don't accept the Constitution as our foundation:

“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 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.”

Here CJ Waite equates “natives” and “natural-born citizens”. He reminds us that the Constitution doesn't contain definitions, relying upon the nomenclature and common-law familiar to its framers, which was not the familiar English Common Law which our framers repudiated for a federal government. “Born in a country of parents who were its citizens” is our law.

To see all these questions dealt with, and it takes lots of patience, read the archives of the Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo blogs. To know the truth, a truth cited as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, trust the decision cited above, or, better yet, read the case Minor v. Happersett, which, unlike many of those citing Minor, which were “munged” by Center for American Progress Obama comrades, Minor v. Happersett can be found intact at Cornell Law and several other sites (though Cornell too scrubbed cases citing Minor, including re: Lockwood, of citations confirming that later courts used Minor as precedent - "held" law).

The “Redstate” volumes by “Jake Walker” read like Dr. Conspiracy. Most of us interested in the legal history, and with the energy to chase wild geese strewn by Obots have read all these arguments, not just at FR but at some of the Obot sites. A cursory glance at "Jake Walker's" avalanche of citations shows his/her intent - to eliminate the difference between natural born and naturalized citizens. Forget that native-born American Indians were not made citizens. Forget that The Constitution itself, where each word must be assumed to have meaning, specifies a natural born citizen for president, and otherwise talks about citizens, and the need to create an Uniform Rule in Article 1 Section 8. Forget that the 14th Amendment nowhere mentions natural born citizens, and its author repeated the common-law definition cited by Chief Justice Marshall from Vattel. Forget that our naturaliztion oath requires sole allegiance to our Constitution of immigrants. Forget that natural law is the basis for our Declaration and Constitution - "...The separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures's God entitle them..."

This Redstate article threw the whole book, the English Common Law equivalent, the pre-John Jay letter Madison presidential requirement, when each state had a different definition of how citizens were made, and each state took just that part of English law it deemed relevent to its sovereign government, and English Common law was further divided into English-Welsh, Irish, and Scottish branches, with each Colony picking and chosing what to recognize. Then he relies on a New York State court decision, Lynch, again and again, rather like state court judges citing the ridiculous Indiana Court Ankeny case for a new definition of who were natural born citizens. That definition is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Obama's cadre has turned the law into a circus, perhaps weakening respect for justice and the judiciary intentionally.

The idea is to bury the less patient in enough names and confusion as to sound knowledgeable, and convincing. The sad truth is that we do not have a legal system that honors the Constitution. Federal Judges conform to the political will that appointed each of them. Even Supreme Court justices are now just political pawns who can be counted upon to carry the water of the power that got them each appointed. Roberts was identifiable the moment he accepted the oath of the naturalized citizen Barack Obama. It would have taken courage to refuse to confer legitimacy on the elected candidate, and Roberts was chosen because he was unknown, and not for his qualities as a jurist or his courage in administering constitutionally founded judgements.

Instead of clearly self-inconsistent citations from a potpourri of sources the single clear statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is sufficient, and, as has been demonstrated by the twenty five or so cases, including Wong Kim Ark, which cite Minor v. Happersettt when referring to natural born citizens, Minor turned the common law into positive law. The Constitution was written to depend upon our common-law, the ethical rules acceped by most common citizens. Here is the statement which Obots will never acknowledge, because they don't accept the Constitution as our foundation:

“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 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.”

Here CJ Waite equates “natives” and “natural-born citizens”. He reminds us that the Constitution doesn't contain definitions, relying upon the nomenclature and common-law familiar to its framers, which was not the familiar English Common Law which our framers repudiated for a federal government. “Born in a country of parents who were its citizens” is our law.

To see all these questions dealt with, and it takes lots of patience, read the archives of the Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo blogs. To know the truth, a truth cited as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, trust the decision cited above, or, better yet, read the case Minor v. Happersett, which, unlike many of those citing Minor, which were “munged” by Center for American Progress Obama comrades, Minor v. Happersett can be found intact at Cornell Law and several other sites (though Cornell too scrubbed cases citing Minor, including re: Lockwood, of citations confirming that later courts used Minor as precedent - "held" law).