Posted on 01/27/2012 11:03:12 AM PST by Danae
The man of the night at the Jan. 26 University of North Florida Republican debate wasn’t Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul – in fact, he wasn’t even on stage.
Some might say it was Sen. Marco Rubio.
Rubio was favored by three of the four candidates as a Hispanic pick for their administrations – with frontrunner Gingrich hinting that he might pick Rubio as his vice president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The fact that Newt - the "historian" would offer an unconstitutional choice in a trial balloon is almost enough to make me rescind my support.
(Flame proof undies, engaged)
You think Rubio would accept? He just told Newt to pull one of his ads in Florida, didn’t he?
Hopefully this is just a trial balloon by the campaign, and not Newt himself.
Besides, Rubio came out for Willard, did he not?
I personally dislike Rubio on some visceral level and always have, as he strikes me as a weak and suggestible person.
—You think Rubio would accept? He just told Newt to pull one of his ads in Florida, didn’t he?—
I actually wondered if maybe a VP position was being considered when that happened. I saw it as a “Look Newt, if were gonna be running mates...” sort of thing.
Gingrich/West 2012
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but there are no provisions in the Constitution that would prevent Rubio from being Vice-President, as there are no NBC requirements for VPOTUS. However, he would never be allowed to be President, thus the position would be entirely meaningless.
The only reason to oppose Rubio as VP is because it would take a valuable conservative Senator out of a useful position and make him a figurehead.
The Supreme Court has said that a citizen is either
1. Born a citizen
or
2. Becomes a citizen through naturalization
There is no magical third way to be a citizen.
Marco Rubio was (1. Born a citizen). He is a “Natural Born Citizen” as the Supreme Court has stated that there are only two ways to be a citizen.
I would offer you the excerpts that state such, but most people who want to believe in the magical third form of citizen refuse to look at facts and evidence.
Newt’s just trolling for the Florida native son vote.
(Still it would be amusing to see Team Obama challenge Rubio)...
I think Marco Rubio is the best choice for VP. Let the eligibility debate start now. I’m all in with a Newt/Rubio ticket. It will get great for America.
Perhaps Newt is floating Rubio so that Newt can say, “upon further review. even though I like and respect Rubio, I cannot have him as my running mate because he does not meet the NBC qualifications for office.”
( I agree with Danae.)
Kettle, Pot.
Newt understands the Constitution. Rubio is only ineligible to birthers.
Here we go again...
Obama has already set the presedece that the new law is "you are an American citizen until proven otherwise."
Let me see Obama packing and Pelosi going to prison before Nov 2012 and then I'll start listening.
A Vice President must meet the same qualifications as President (Amendment XII [... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.]).
But since you are talking about the mythical “Natural Born Citizen” third way to be a citizen, maybe the rules are different in that fantasy world.
He criticized an ad run by the Gingrich campaign for calling Romney anti-immigration.
He has been silent on the ad the Romney ran falsely saying Newt said Spanish is the ghetto language.
Unless Rubio says something on Newt's behalf, we are left to draw our own conclusions.
Obama has already set the precedence that the new law is "you are an American citizen until proven otherwise."
Let me see Obama packing and Pelosi going to prison before Nov 2012 and then I'll start listening.
You must know more than this guy...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2838849/posts
From the above link:
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.
If it’s all the same, why did they use more specific language in article 2?
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.