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 ...
No, the truth.
12th Ammendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States
Thanks.
What textbook is this? Author and edition. Should be easy to check the next time your daughter brings it home with her.
You are just wrong. There is no legal basis for the birthers unique inerpretation of the Constitution. That’s why no court in America will give you the time of day.
Consider {natural born citizen} a unique and special subset of the set {citizen}. It is this special subset specified in the Constitution.
I am gonna try to be gentle here....
Article 2 Section 1 begins with the following:
“Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
That means POTUS candidates as well as Veep’s must meet the same requirements. The Veep who is not constitutional cannot fill the role of POTUS if he should become disabled or removed from office, and THAT is the point of having a Vp to begin with. To take the role of POTUS upon need.
What about the possibility that naming Rubio is an attempt to get the RAT leadership to complain that he is not eliglible, bringing attention to the matter for the follow up that Obama is not and never was eligble?
I would CHEER for DAYS if that happened!!! He would LOCK UP my vote if he did that! but he won’t because he KNOWS that if he does, then the discussion will IMMEDIATELY turn to Obama! Newt KNOWS Obama isn’t eligible. He, like the rest of the establishment is covering the cretins ass. Forgive the vernacular...
He was born a citizen not born a natural born citizen. Show me where it states natural born citizen rather than born a citizen or is a citizen etc.
You won’t find it! They will only claim that the said person is in fact a citizen of the U.S. (period) Never going over the threshold to actually state thus this person is a natural born citizen.
Ok, this PISSES ME OFF.
This is NOT a birther issue. It is a LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL issue. Take your alynski BS and fold it into sharp corners and stick it....
“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”
Why then did the Framers of the Constitution reject Alexander Hamiliton's proposed presidential eligibility language of "born a Citizen" for John Jay's stricter "natural born Citizen"?
One of the Founders, David Ramsay, defined natural born Citizen in 1789:
The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.
I think it’s time we put the mute button on these obots! They are here to stir and anger and unfortunately I was in the mind today to let them.
I’ve changed my mind and decided they are not worth the effort. Breathe easy and hope that one day this distinction can finally be put to rest. We want a ruling - they are afraid of a ruling! Simple logic! Both sides should insist on a ruling once and for all. The side that doesn’t want this to get to the Supreme court actually is the side that is afraid. Again, simple logic!
Thanks for being gentle, but I admitted fault 4 posts before yours.
The 12th Ammendment couldn’t be more clear:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States
If I found it, would you read it?
“If the writers of the Constitution wanted to use Vattel as the basis for who was eligible to be President, they would have spelled it out, or at least the early courts would have supported it. They didn’t. They supported English Common Law.”
Oh no no no they did not! The framers DELIBERATELY rejected English Common law, because English common law is based in divine sources, and bestowed by God. The framers wanted to keep religion OUT of our constitution, so as to free the nation from a religious government which would dictate the national religion. Otherwise we would be SUBJECTS, not CITIZENS. The English form of government derived their authority from GOD, not MAN. We derive OURs from MAN.
English Common law has similarities to what is referred to as US Common law, but in reality, there IS NO US Common law. Our laws were created with the Constitution, which in many areas deliberately rejected English Common Law. You are using a Straw Man argument.
Vattel wasn’t writing law, he was describing the common denominators that exist for ALL nations as a consequence of the existence of Nations! Universally, the WORLD in Vattel’s day referred to these common denominators the Laws of Nations, because they ALL have the same basis. It is a consequence.
Except the Supreme Court has rejected the idea of a unique subset.
Yeah, tell it to Newt Gingrich. He's the one weighing Rubio as a potential running mate, not me.
Maybe you could write Speaker Gingrich a strongly-worded letter as he clearly does not understand the Constitution, --unlike blogger, part-time musician and amateur poker player Leo "Burnweed" Donofrio.
What is the title of that text book! I want that on in MY kids school!!!
Here's what I get:
It is not specifically stated anywhere what the POTUS requirements are AND what the terms mean. You have to collect the data from multiple sources.
If you are interested in intent, you have to consider Vattel, the extra loophole they added(...or a citizen at the adoption of this constitution...),etc.
But,
I believe it is a Separation of Powers issue. The SCOTUS, as a co-equal power, does not feel they have the power to remove POTUS. If they rule on the definition, POTUS might tell them to go pound sand. If he does, a bunch of men and women in our military have to decide who they are following. Some will say they are sworn to protect the constitution. Some will say they are sworn to follow orders. This could not be good for the US. We would be instantly vulnerable.
I believe all of those in power know this. That is why this stuff goes nowhere.
Furthermore, the Constitution has a protocol for removing a president: elections or impeachment. Scotus isn't in there. They will never take the case.
Thomas intimated all of this in private talks. He knows it, Obama knows it and so do I.
They were afraid to take it up during the election because everyone was afraid of being called racist.
They are afraid to take it up now because it might destroy the country.
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.