Posted on 03/25/2012 4:24:33 PM PDT by no dems
Another FReeper, on another thread, made a great observation regarding a possibility of Marco Rubio being on the GOP Ticket in 2012. And, I quote:
“Public speculation about his potential for Veep consideration would, in a sane world, bring attention to Obummer’s lack of natural-born citizenship. And if he was not qualified four years ago...”
Wow....that is a great observation. If Rubio is on the Ticket, and his “Natural Born Citizenship” status is questioned, that would open up a demand for a show of proof that Obama is a N-B-C. His fake “record of live birth” that he produced is not sufficient. Talk about a “catch-22” situation for Obama and Co. Oh yeah; that’s what I’m talking about. And, I know that this will not set well with the “birthers” but as for me, I want to see Rubio get the VP nod, now, more than ever. Not to mention the fact that he could help the GOP with their Hispanic vote deficit, he’d also carry Florida; and whoever carries Florida, wins the White House.
Questions in 2008 about McCain’s eligibility produced no such compulsions to expose Obama as you suggest.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but that’s the precedent you’re suggesting.
Almost a Dream Ticket
I think it’s an interesing thesis and I’d be fascinated to see what happened.
Makes me want to chant, Rubio for President!
Neither of the Rubio parents was a citizen at the time of the blessed event. This is a shabby attempt to use the Mombasa MF as a precedent ... for himself and for whomsoever the GOP establishment cares to select to lose to him.
Say, I too have a crazy idea! Why doesn't the SCOTUS get its lazy black-robed bottom off its high horse and agree to hear the next case on eligibility that comes before it.
You want to know all there is to know about Constitutional eligibility? Read Donofrio's Amicus Brief to the "Disappointment in Georgia."
None of them are in the same boat. Obama is the only one who hates America and everything she stands for.
You are entitled to you incorrect opinion, but please....answer this......
Why do the qualification requirements for the Presidency include the term "Natural Born Citizen"...... and the other elective offices do not?
I'll give you a clue. It's because the terms "Natural Born Citizen" and "Citizen" are different. If you recall....at the signing of the documents (1787) there were no Naturalized Citizens in residence yet. So right here.....reading the Constitution....we are informed there will be at least a minimum of three types of Citizenship.
Shortly after the ratification of the document.... people from abroad began applying for citizenship. They were then called "Naturalized Citizens" after taking the oath. But folks who were born in this country to these new citizens (prior to them taking the oath) were called "Citizens" only..... as their parents were not citizens at the time of their birth.
[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.
[Article I section II] No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
[Article I Section III] No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum are not "Natural Born Citizens" because their parents were not Citizens at the time of their Births. George Romney (Mitt's father) was born abroad......but to U.S. Citizens living in Mexico who had not repudiated their citizenship.....so Mitt, according to the Naturalization Act of 1790.... is considered a "Natural Born Citizen" as was his father, George.
Here's the pertinent paragraph of the Act:
........And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
Here is another section of the Naturalization Acts of 1790:
.....And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
What does this mean? It means that children (born in this country) of alien parents are not "Natural Born Citizens".....they are just plain old citizens who cannot seek the office of the presidency. They can become Senators and Representatives.....and even Supreme Court Justices......but they gotta stay out of the White House!
Arpaio said he would be giving an update on March 31. Can’t remember where I heard it.
googled arpaio update march 31
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/second-arpaio-news-conference-planned-531
It would accomplish just what the commie Democrats want, what the commie RINOs want, and apparently what you want.
No amount of paper is going to "prove" that either Obama, Rubio, or Jindal are Natural Born Citizens, because neither of them are, and this fact is already known about all three.
None of the three were "born in the country to parents who were both themselves citizens at the time of birth".
Neither are anchor babies. Neither are the half-alien children of someone who took a foreign spouse, and who were born while one parent was not a US citizen. Neither are people who have dual citizenship with any other nation in the world.
Shred the US Constitution a little at a time, and it will mean less and less. Ignore this clause; usurp that one; twist this or that piece out of shape in the courts and public opinion; eventually you will have rendered it totally meaningless and useless as a blueprint for the structure of US government.
So here we are already. The US government, as a union of the several states, exists only as a contract between the states and between the people of those states. Destroy that contract, and the USA is only a figment of the imagination of the thugs who will insist on holding it together at the force of gunpoint.
As I understand it, we the people do not have the standing to get the Supreme Court to hear the case concerning Obama’s eligibility.
Question: If Rubio is chosen as the GOP nominee for VP, would he himself have standing to request a ruling in his case?
Thank you for that well-reasoned response.
“Would a Rubio VP run force Obama to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen?”
No. But it might prove that Rubio is not.
Beware of double-edged swords — swing it the wrong way, and.....
A Rubio run would bring out the Left/MSM in full cry about Rubio not being eligible with nary a word about the kenyan. Conservative Press and the talk show guys would comply with the ban on discussing the apparent hypocrisy and the kenyan’s blatant ineligibility.
“No. But it might prove that Rubio is not.
Beware of double-edged swords — swing it the wrong way, and.....”
But if it proved Rubio is not a natural born citizen, wouldn’t it also prove that Obama isn’t? This could be a way for the Supreme Court to indirectly take up the Obama natural born citizen issue.
As I said, one can ‘debate’ the issue all they want about what the “Natural Born” term could mean / might mean, but the laws of the country are clear as they stand now, and as they have stood since the “14th Amendment” was enacted.
There is NO ‘third class’ of LEGAL citizenship presently. There are only TWO!
You may not like it, others may not like it. It’s the way it is.
A Rubio run would make the issue completely bipartisan...and hopefully, for the DC RinoCracy, moot from henceforth. Any puppet could then be installed at will by the oligarchy.
All Rubio has to do is call him out and say he’ll present his original, hard copy PAPER birth certificate and obama should present his. No digitally created birth certificates allowed.
I don’t see where there’s an issue with your “State Dept” reference versus what I pointed out in my post.
The reference you state clearly refers to those born “abroad” , i.e. ‘outside the jurisdiction of the United States’, the issue I am referring to is with those BORN HERE IN THE USA!
You are confusing your ‘emotional’ issue of speculating and wanting for a ‘third’ citizenship status with the facts.
The debate should be whether there ‘SHOULD BE’ a #3 citizenship status, because currently there are only TWO that have legal standing. Just because you and others want a ‘third’, does not make it so.
#1 - “U.S. Citizen by Birth”
#2 - “U.S. Citizen by Naturalization”
to be added...
#3 - “U.S. Citizen by NATURAL BORN” (to be defined by court or legislature).
You are quite correct that the only way to establish that ‘third status’ of citizenship, is for the courts to rule there is one, or the legislature to enact one.
Exactly!
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.