Posted on 03/22/2012 8:24:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
MY Republican party? What is YOUR party? My party right now is Independent and my vote will be ABO!!!! If you seriously think all the Republicans since Reagan were “progressives” you are delusional. Granted, they are NOT the conservatives we want, but they are not progressives.
Not only looking. They're committed to voting for Mr. or Ms. Perfect in November, regardless of who's on the ballot. Something about refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore when, this time, the greater promises to be more evil than anything we've ever seen.
I can't pretend to understand where they're coming from. But, if taking that stand will help bring about a brokered convention, I'm all for it. Count me in. "If the GOP doesn't nominate a conservative, I'm voting third-party!" There. I did it.
I won't dispute that most people you know think that. It may be. But that's not a valid definition. If parentage matters like Birthers think (it doesn't, but for the sake of argument...) then the parents have to be citizens. The alternative is that parentage doesn't matter at all. If you are born in the country then you are a NBC.
The notion that the parents must be legal residents comes from a misunderstanding of the "under the jurisdiction" clause. That clause means someone who is subject to our law, and illegal residents are just as subject to the law as legal ones. Diplomats and invading soldiers are not under the jurisdiction of our law, because diplomats have diplomatic immunity from the law, and invading armies are subject to the laws of war, not of civil law.
I don't hate Rubio. He seems an affable fellow. I just don't think he is a solid conservative or impressive leader, particularly on immigration. Susana Martinez is more reliable and impressive, IMHO.
I can buy that, but when you say you can’t stand someone, I interpret that as hatred.
Is Rubio an NBC?
Haven’t you heard, we don’t interpret natural born citizen to be anything other than someone not born by Caesarean Section...the meaning of the founders is so vague and ambiguous, and if we had to do the Constitution over again today, we would never write it like that...even our Justices of the supreme court would not write it like it is. They tell us that every time they say it says something other than what a sixth grader would say it says.
And a convention to change it is so passe, and we would argue too much, so we are going to ignore the Constitution from now on, and Congress’s oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution really is just an acknowledgement that they have the job, and it is really to defend the general idea of a Constitution as it would look if it were written today...need I go on?
so gee whiz, I don’t think anybody cares if Rubio is NBS.
When it says, “Congress shall make no law” it really doesn’t mean “no” law, it means you can make laws but only a little at a time. You can abridge free speech, as when Rush speaks out, or religion, to make Catholics pay for rubbers, or taking without compensation, as when they take land from an property owner for a developer to put up a mall, or bearing arms, except that you can’t bear arms in many places because they don’t want to...like Illinois.
What possible difference does it make if Rubio is NBC if we are looking to international authority for wars...and we borrow money from China to pay to lazy slugs who won’t work in this country, so that we can tax the crap out of the workers to spread the wealth...
Would a foreign born president wreck our laws any worse than the entire government is wrecking them now?
We can’t even force people to prove who they are to vote...and Rubio has to be NBC? IF the voters need not prove citizenship to vote, why should a candidate have to prove citizenship to run?
This whole election is a sham and no one is going to change the direction in which this country is headed, least of all Mitt Romney. The social fabric of our nation has been irreversibly rent, and we are never going back to the freedom that we once had. We can pretend that we still have a choice, but when you see no Congressmen or Senators complaining at all about the usurpation of their power, who will defend the Republic?
What exactly is his or any candidate’s vision for the future? Where are going? What will we look like in 40 years? Without a common vision, there is no common effort.
We can’t even demand that the candidates are NBC.
I don’t care who the VP is. If Romney is the nominee, the ticket doesn’t get my vote.
I won’t sit in the back of the bus any more. Either the Tea Party drives it, or I find another ride.
I want to add, back in 2010 FR loved Rubio, he was the tea party candidate, we had to get ole establishment Charlie out. I donated several times, I campaigned for Rubio, from day one, when the Miami Herald said he had zero chance of beating Crist. I called him for bumper stickers and signs before they even had any. I was in from day one. He won, now he’s not good enough either. I guess we can pray for the ghost of Ronald Reagan to run.
LLS
I have no party... the republican party left me. I have donated over 100K to the republicans... went to Florida when gore tried to steal the election... manned phone banks... walked neighborhoods canvassing... never again.
LLS
Point well taken.
Let me be more explicit then:
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Well that settles it then. So I'll just ping him and let him know I think he is incorrect.
Me too, I've been complaining about the circular firing squad for a while now.
Sometimes I think we're our own worst enemy.
Hey, on this forum I’ve seen arguments made that Santorum, Romney, Rubio, Jindal, and McCain are ALL not qualified to be President. That sums up the sad state of conservatism these days.
Rubio is not qualified to be president. He’s a pretty face and nothing else. No experience whatsover to make anyone believe he could lead the country. The Cuban version of Obama if you ask me.
There is a raging controversy among constitutional scholars and others on this point, with many smart people on both sides.
My opinion is that we should not get into this by having a disputed VP candidate. It will sow doubt in the ranks of voters and undermine those on one side of the issue, who may be in the right.
We don’t need more controversial baggage in this fight. It will just provide more distraction from the real issues.
That may be......but he was not "Natural Born". The Constitution implies both parents must be Citizens of the Country at the time of the birth of the proposed Presidential contender. That's why the qualification factors for Presidents are different from Senators and Representatives. Here's what the Constitution says:
[Article II Section I] 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.
The qualifying factor being....what I have underlined. The reason it says....Natural born citizen "OR" a citizen is simply because there is a great difference.
When the Constitution was adopted many qualified men who were being considered for the Presidency had been born of parents who were not citizens of the Country.....because the country had not existed yet. The framers knew this would eventually be sun setted (as time went on) because future presidential candidates would have no reason not to be children of citizens of this nation at the time of their birth. And.....that was the qualifier for the presidency (and not the House, the Senate nor the Supreme Court). You were not required to be a child of U.S. citizens at the time of your birth to hold these other offices. But to be called a "Natural Born Citizen" your parents must have been citizens as well.....at the time of your birth. The other elected (and appointed) offices of the Federal Government had no such requirement to be "Natural Born".
Now.....during the eighteenth century.....what did this term imply? What was its understanding among the populace? Here is what was written in 1758 by a Frenchmen, Emmerich de Vattel in his great work called "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Laws". This work was read throughout the world and understood to be the common explanation for the term "Natural Born Citizen". Here is the defining paragraph:
[Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 "Citizens and Natives"]
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
For this very reason both Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are neither one....."Natural Born Citizen". Their parents were not citizens at the time of their births.
This is also the reason the current occupant of the White House is not a "Natural Born Citizen". His father was a British subject at the time of his birth......and this is also the reason why his birth certificate controversy is such a waste of time. It makes no difference if he was born in Hawaii; Bozeman, Montana; Shangrila or the lobby of "Independance Hall in Philadelphia on the fourth of July with the Marine Corps band playing the National Anthem outside on the lawn. His father was not a citizen of this country and as such........he should have been vetted and disqualified. Unfortunately, no Republican had the cojones!
Now...........one more time for those in Rio Linda. You can be born in this country and be born a "Citizen"......but you are not considered a "Natural Born Citizen" unless both parents are citizens as well....at the time of your birth.
Sometimes I think we’re our own worst enemy.
__________________________
We are. The DNC should just keep all their campaign donations, go on more lavish vacations, build new homes, etc. they needn’t worry. Republicans will do all of the work for them. Sometimes on FR I have to check and make sure I’m not on DU.
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.