Marco Rubio Takes Drink of Water, Disqualifies Himself For The Presidency In The Eyes of Liberals

February 13, 2013 RUSH: This is Ann, Littleton, Colorado. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Hey, I'm one of those that didn't listen last night or didn't watch, and so I'm just glad to learn all this that I'm learning. But I did watch Marco Rubio and I wondered if you were as offended as I was when he took a sip of water.

RUSH: Again, just tell you the truth: I'm watching Rubio, and I have had dry mouth before, and I knew he had it. I could tell the way he was speaking.

RUSH: Snerdley is saying, "He was wiping sweat and his..." No, that's not what he did. He had dry mouth. His mouth was dry. He kept... (smacking lips) He kept doing this. (smacking lips) That comes, by the way, from being nervous. It comes from butterflies. That's what causes it. Either that or the room was too hot. One other thing that can legitimately cause it is excessively warm temperatures. That room could have been hot. The TV lights could have been hot.

So he reaches for the bottle of water, takes a drink of it, and, yeah, they're making fun of the guy all day and laughing for taking a drink of water. He's handling it very well, by the way. He tweeted a bottle of water last night. He did television interviews today with a bottle of water all day. I think that slot is one of the lowest-payoff slots that there is in politics, responding to a presidential speech. I don't care if it's State of the Union, whatever it is.

I mean, you go from the magnanimity of the House chamber and the the American flag. You get Boehner and Plugs back there, but just the majesty of that, with the constant applause! And then you go to a little room with no noise, no audience, no applause lines and nobody applauding and so forth. It's a really, really tough thing to do and to stand out, and he did it, and the way he's handling that bottle of water, I think it's just another illustration of the odds that Republicans face.

As far as they're concerned, he's disqualified to be president because of that. He's disqualified to run 'cause he took a drink of water. He had dry mouth. Oh, his speech was excellent! It was an excellent speech. He took it right to Obama. He took it right to Obama. In fact, we've got it. I'll play some excerpts of Rubio. I'm not gonna play any excerpts of Obama. I did not see any of the Spanish part because I wouldn't have been able to understand the Spanish part. I watched the English version.

RUSH: Okay, I said we're gonna listen to some Marco Rubio, and I better do it. Let's get a couple of those in here. He did a response both in English and Spanish, and of course we have the English version response. Here's the first of our sound bites...

RUBIO: Presidents in both parties, from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems, that the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough, or control enough. And therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more, and spend more. This idea that our problems were caused by a government that was too small? It's just not true. In fact, the major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.

RUSH: Here's the next one. We getting closer here. It's why this was good, because Rubio was getting as close as anybody on the Republican side has to properly putting in context and understanding how Obama is doing all of this and what his motives are.

RUBIO: Any time anyone opposes the president's agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives. When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather, he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air. When we suggest we strengthen our safety-net programs by giving states more flexibility to manage them, he accuses us of wanting to leave the elderly and the disabled to fend for themselves. And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts, cuts that were his idea in the first place.

RUSH: That's because you guys are the mythical enemy standing in his way. You guys are the cause of all the problems. You guys, Senator Rubio, caused all these problems and he's trying to fix them. And he's running a perpetual campaign to do it. Now, move forward sound bite number ten. This is a direct statement to the president that Rubio made.

RUBIO: Mr. President, I don't oppose your plan because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans 'cause I want to protect my neighbors -- hardworking, middle class Americans who don't need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They need a plan to grow the middle class. Tax increases can't do this. Raising taxes won't create private sector jobs, and there's no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That's why I hope the president will abandon his obsession with raising taxes, and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.

RUSH: Okay, let's parse this. "Mr. President, I don't oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors -- hardworking, middle class Americans who don't need us to come up with a plan to grow the government." He's not growing the government. That's not what he's doing. Everybody that hears Obama thinks that he's making government smaller. He said that last night.

He said (impression), "Government can't solve everything, but my gosh. We've gotta use some powerful force to fight against all of you people out there who've created this problem, or these problems. Tax increases can't do this. Raising taxes won't create private sector jobs. I'm not trying to create jobs by raising taxes. I'm trying to get even with people! I'm not trying to create jobs by raising taxes.

"Senator Rubio, you totally misunderstand. I'm raising taxes on people to get even. They've taken too much of what other people have earned. They're living off the hard work of other people. It's time they paid their fair share. Who's talking about creating jobs by raising taxes? That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm creating jobs with my jobs programs, and you're standing in the way. I've got plan after plan to create jobs, and you oppose me!

"You're trying to protect the rich. You don't want their taxes to go up. Who ever said anything about raising taxes to create jobs? I'm not doing that!" This is Obama. This is how he reacts to this. There's no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficit by almost $4 trillion. "Well, we don't have to lower the deficit by $4 trillion. We already did! Didn't you hear what I said last night? We've already had nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and people from both sides of the aisle agree with this, economists and everybody.

"I'm not raising taxes to lower the deficit. I'm lowering the deficit because we can't handle this kind of debt anymore. I had nothing to do with creating this debt. I've only become president a short time ago. That debt was here. I'm trying to reduce it, and at the same time I'm trying to make sure that people who benefited unfairly give a little back." That's all he's saying. That's how he would react to what Rubio's saying here if he tried to specifically react to Rubio's charges.

So the point is, we're gonna have to figure out a proper and effective way of opposing all this.

Even here on FR there are people for whom the definition of “Natural Born” is a challenge. I would like to see their decision matrix on the possibilities that the Founding Fathers addressed in the language of the Constitution. In the end, we must deal with four classes of people:

1) those who immigrated and have become naturalized citizens;

2) those who were born here of parents who themselves were immigrants but who are were not citizens at the time of the birth;

3) those who were born here of parents who themselves were immigrants but who were naturalized citizens at the time of their birth;

4) those who were born here of parents who themselves were born here.

Barack Obama by his own admission in his autobiography is in class 2. His father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth in Hawaii. In the case of Marco Rubio, his parents were legal residents but not citizens at the time of his birth.

I contend that the plain text of the Constitution implies that in order to qualify as “natural born”, a person must be in class 4, or class 3.

This is supported by the detailed explanation found here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/

The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.

Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:

Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)

The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.

According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.

Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.

Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?

Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.

Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.

Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, ...

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.