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 ...
No. It is ‘you’ who needs to educate yourself.
You make a statement that Rubio is not a “Natural Born” citizen, so you need to prove it!
Send me the link of the U.S. Government regulation that affirms your conclusion.
You, and like-minded individuals rely on nothing but mindless, speculative conjecture and “OPINION” on what a “Natural Born” citizen SHOULD BE.
I will make is simple for you, and anyone else who thinks like you...
There are only two types of legal status for U.S. Citizenship:
1. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
and
2. NATURALIZED CITIZEN
You are either ONE or the OTHER. Anything else, is mindless conjecture that carries no weight of legal status!
You people can bark all you want, and it won’t mean a damn thing to any of the 50 Attys General who would be in a position to decline Candidate Applications for Presidency in their respective states!
Now… does there exist an example of where Arthur was challenged BECAUSE his father was not a citizen? In fact, all we have seen is that he was challenged on his PLACE OF BIRTH. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
His opponents were already sensitive to the potential of having him disqualified on “natural born citizen” status… but do not appeared to have ever considered his father’s citizenship as relevant.
Zay ah killing ze gull tonight old man. You can save huh. Just sign zee papah.
The same can be said of your reply.
Arthur’s mother was born in Vermont but moved to Quebec as a child with her family. Arthur’s father was born in County Antrim, Ireland, but moved to Quebec as a young man, where he met and married Arthur’s mother. Apparently Arthur’s father lived in the US continuously from the year before Arthur was born, and died in the US—but obviously he could not have been a citizen of the US at the time of Arthur’s birth.
As I understand Natural Born citizen, BOTH parents must be citizens of the USA when the child is born.
I am pretty sure his parents were Cuban refugees, and were not yet citizens when Marco was born.
Just being born in the USA isn’t enough. There is a ‘part 2’ which is the citizenship of the parents.
That ‘part 2’ was enough to eliminate Barry the Imposter.
The DNC didn’t do it’s due dilligence. Daddy was NOT a USA citizen. Daddy was a student from Kenya here on a scholarship.
This requirement does NOT exist in law. If so, then there have been two Presidents in our nation's history who would have failed this requirement. Chester A. Arthur, and B. H. Obama. There is nothing in the Constitution, nor the 14th Amendment which speaks to a requirement of both parents having been born U.S. citizens. There is no case law either. There are opinions of scholars.
I did find informtation relating to a requirment that the parents of the person born in the U.S. having allegiance only to their adoptive country (the U.S.) while not having any allegiance to their home country or any other country. I also found mention that once the parents of a person born in the U.S. have become naturalized citizens, then their offspring automatically have NBC status. Rubio's parents were in the U.S. 19 years when he was born, and became U.S. citizens within a few years after Rubio's birth. Thus, Rubio would, by Constitutional law, be eligible to run for POTUS.
Years of residence or any time in the USA is no absolute guarantee at all of allegiance to the USA. One only needs to review the history of certain people from WWII to today to show such residence should not be taken/used as a sound qualifier for POTUSA and as without doubt intended by the Founding Fathers by expression and writings. Rubio appears to be the type of person we should be looking for as a POTUSA but as for me I want no more stretching of eligibility to allow more Obamas to be put forth as Obama’s enablers have managed.
I concur. The issue of eligibility is too clouded and open to interpretation by whomsoever is in power at any given time. There should be a definitive definition. In my opinion that definition SHOULD be that the person born in the U.S. have parents who were citizens of the U.S., and that their citizenship is continuous for a specified period of time prior to that person’s birth (let’s say minimum 14 years). The Founding Fathers clearly were concerned that no person with allegiance to another country or state gain access to the highest councils of our government. I wonder, therefore, why this was not more clearly spelled out.
And? I’ve reviewed those cases, and they are NOT on point to the question of POTUS eligibility. The fact that two Presidents of the U.S. have held office while having parents who were NOT citizens of the U.S. begs to differ with the OPINION of some.
All four cases define natural born Citizen.
Explain how these four Supreme Court decisions are not "on point" regarding the definition of natural born Citizenship as required by Article II of the United Sates Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
After doing significant research into the issue of eligibility as per the U.S. Constitution, I have found NO case law or legislative reference which defines NBC as per eligibility for POTUS. The most that I’ve been able to find are references to nebulous requirements relating to allegiance of the parents to other countries or states other than the U.S. at the time of the birth of the person in question. I also found reference to a person, born in the U.S., becoming a NBC at the time their parents become a naturalized citizen - this would be after the birth of the person in question. Since Rubio’s parents became naturalized citizens shortly after his birth, the question of Rubio being a NBC is settled. Those SCOTUS cases involved issues not related to the topic at hand. Since there are two precedents of Presidents having held the office of POTUS without having parents who were citizens at the time of that person’s birth (President Arthur, President Obama), I’d say these four SCOTUS cases are meaningless in answering this question. SCOTUS has not issued a ruling for any case as of this time regarding this issue. Until they do, there is NO case law which makes Rubio ineligible. Nor is there any legislative law.
Ok, that settles it then. (....backing away slowly....)
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.