Posted on 01/03/2012 8:14:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Since my New Year’s prediction that Obama would select Hillary Clinton for his running mate in 2012 (and Joe Biden would become Secretary of State), I’ve been swamped by requests for my GOP prediction. Here goes.
You can forget the caucuses and early primaries. Mitt Romney will be the nominee. Republicans may be stupid but the GOP isn’t about to commit suicide. The other candidates are all weighed down by enough baggage to keep a 747 on the tarmac indefinitely.
For his running mate, Romney will choose Marco Rubio, the junior senator from Florida. Why do I say this?
First, Romney will need a right-winger to calm and woo the Republican right. Tea Partiers are attracted to Rubio – an evangelical Christian committed to reducing taxes and shrinking government. Rubio’s meteoric rise in the Florida House before coming to Congress was based on a string of conservative stances on state issues.
Rubio is also a proven campaigner, handily winning four House elections starting in 2002, and then beating popular incumbent Republican governor Charlie Crist in the 2010 Republican primary — with the help of Tea Partiers.
Moreover, he’s only 40, thereby giving the GOP ticket some youthful vigor.
And he’s Hispanic – a Cuban-American – at a time when the GOP needs to court the Hispanic vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
And the NBC requirement isn't really paid much attention to right now anyway.
The fourteenth amendments section dealing with births applied only to the children of former slaves and no one else. This there for makes that section now what is called “dead letter law” as there are no more former slaves of this nation capable of bearing children nor of being alive for that matter.
How handy, a ‘Pocket Professor’.
I wonder if it would sell as well as the Cabbage Patch Doll did when it first came out.
To all those who have disagreed with me on this subject “natural born citizen” let me leave you this for when the supreme court again clarifies “natural born citizen” or some one develops a pair and arrests the fraud currently occupying the oval office,
I TOLD YOU SO!
What part of the English language are you having difficulty in understanding???....(I have put in UPPER CASE 'BOLD' and in RED so you can read better)
U.S. Constitution - 14th Amendment
. "ALL PERSONS BORN or naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES..."
One can go on and quack about parent's citizenship and such, but you are NOT going to get any court in the land to declare a candidate BORN IN THE UNITED STATES to be ineligible to run for President!
Yuck! And it won’t motivate Republicans and Conservatives to come out and vote “for” him!
First, which of those three cases, which I have read, went to the merits of eligibility for POTUS? Second, why would you suggest someone has changed anything related to these three cases in order to hide them? I found them, and the issues to which they addressed (none being related to eligibility for POTUS). If you and I can find these three cases, why would you think constititional law scholars or practicing attorneys would be unable to find them, if they indeed pertained to the issue of eligibility for POTUS? The unfortunate reality is that there is no existing case law which speaks directly to the issue of citizenship eligibility with respect to whether the person running for POTUS has parents who were born in another country, other than opinions by legal scholars, which hold no legal weight.
Made up birther bunk. Unfortunately, birthers have backed themselves into a corner with their nonsense and now in order to be consistently full of crap, they have to apply their nonsense to good conservatives like Marco Rubio.
Perhaps some further research into the 14th Amendment is needed? Based upon my research, the 14th is indeed alive and well, and was not soley interpreted as pertaining to slaves and/or their children. The 14th has been used by the courts as recently as 2003. That hardly makes this a “dead letter law”.
U.S. CONSTITUTION - Article 2 - Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
At the point in time when the SCOTUS “grows a pair” and fully defines NBC, or Obozo is arrested as you suggest, you may then retort, “I TOLD YOU SO”. Until then, you’re tilting at windmills.
I agree, with this caveat: If a person running for POTUS were to have parents born on foreign soil, and whose parents could be shown to have allegiance to a foreign government (especially one deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S.), that person could be deemed ineligible to run.
So he is free to run as VP, but not as P. Got it. The Speaker of the House would move up to next in line.
I can’t frame allegiance without a substantial reason for such. For example, would/could any communication with relatives or other persons in the ‘old’ country be construed as having ties of some kind or another with foreign interests? I know about this because once many years ago when I applied for a defense job the matter came up in a interview for security clearance. The interviewer after looking over my application asked me if I had relatives in Russia. I told him that I no doubt had relatives in Russia because my mother had been in contact with my deceased father’s brother who was in Russia. The interviewer slapped me in the rhetorical face by bluntly asking ‘Why should you be trusted to not talk about confidential information with your relatives in Russia?’ My response was a reference to my brother’s and my service records. Apparently this was a satisfactory response as I was hired. This brings the point that allegiance has to be established as firmly and validly as possible in some situations but ever so more important in the case for POTUSA. Our Founding Fathers were very wise in this respect.
Actually, the NBC issue does relate to the VP, as the VP could assume the position of POTUS. The NBC issue relates to any person who could be inline to assume the office of POTUS.
The constitution demands that a president be a “natural born citizen”. It is the supreme court that has defined “natural born citizen”. Three times no less. It is all in simple clear English offering no ambiguity. This leads one to suspect the motives of those who claim otherwise.
Your question is a good one. I wish there were a definitive answer provided for either within the Constitution, or through established case law. I can only surmise that “allegiance” could be interpreted either narrowly or broadly depending upon the situation and/or upon who the individuals who are interpreting the issue may be. The times we are living in today are decidedly different than at our founding. Those who “decide” the rules today are NOT our Founding Fathers.
Except that 1) None of the three cases you refer to deal with the issue of eligibility for POTUS, and 2) we have Obama as a sitting President. Thus, your argument is incorrect.
I can’t determine which it is? Denseness or sarcasm?
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.