Posted on 04/22/2012 12:17:21 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) didn't fully close the door on accepting the vice presidential slot if Mitt Romney asked him.
Rubio, who has repeatedly denied any interest in the slot, said that he wanted to "respect the process" Romney has put in place to make a selection and would no longer address it.
"I'm not going to even discuss the process anymore. I'm going to be respectful of the process he's put in place," said Rubio on CNN'S "State of the Union" on Sunday morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
LOL...you crack me up!
You write that the Constituiton doesn't define NBC but you make that lame comment???
Show me in the Constitution it says that!
You must go back to the Founders intent and the nomenclature (semantics for you idiots in Rio Linda) of the time, MORON TROLL!
The Constitution declared the required citizenship of the parents when it included the phrase “No Person except a natural born Citizen” in the Constitution. At the time this was written into the Constitution there were some states in which a child born on the soil of that state and thereby the United States was NOT eligible to the citizenship of that state or the United States of America. Only a child born to two parents having citizenship in the state/s and the United States was eligible to be born a citizen of that state and the United States, because under the customary and legal doctrine of natural law the citizenship was by nature unquestionable.
“I am really beginning to question the intelligence of the people on this site.”
“a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States”
The Framers excepted themselves or no one would be eligible (at least for many years) since most living Americans had been born British citizens.
Why would they use the phrase “natural born citizen” and not just say a “citizen”? You beg the question or argue in circles by simply stating, “Being born in the US makes one a natural born citizen.”
“Nough said” You put the new in noob and yer cruisin’ for a zot. `Nuff said.
Explain the differentiation between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen MORON!
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Get it or is it over your head, troll?
There would have been no reason to have included the natural born citizen clause is any native born citizen or native born national was supposed to be eligible. By including themselves born under the sovereignty of foreign sovereigns as the special exception to the rule, they thereby indicated the natural born citizen clause affected any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign whether by place of birth on foreign soil and/or by birth to any parent with allegiance to a foreign sovereign. This is confirmed by the original oaths of allegiance to the United States particularly in regard to King George III and others and by the recommendation of future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John jay that prompted the inclusion of the natural born citizen phrase in the Constitution.
Your unsupported denials and gainsaying of the eligibility issue does nothing to support your argument more refute the evidence we bring forth against it.
I guess we told him, huh?
The whole question is moot because anyone who would run with Romney is looser anyway.
Noobs: Can’t live with `em, can’t tie ‘em up in a sack and drop them off a bridge.
The phrase “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” indicates the Framers of the Constitution held that this class of persons were not natural born citizens of the United States, because they were indeed born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign before the United States of America came into existence or after it came into existence but before the adoption of the Constitution determining eligibility to the Office of the President and eligibility to the Office of the Vice President.
Then go back to DU moon.
The reason they did that was because the USA didn’t exist when they were born
Brilliant, you just defeated your own argument.
From that point on, as the Founders intended, you must be Natural Born, a different criteria then just being a Citizen as they were.
Ooops, moon = moron.
But you knew that...well maybe not.
So Noob, when did you or your family immigrate here?
For years students in this country have been taught that no foreigner/non citizen could come here and have a child that could become president.
Or perhaps you’re young and a product of the commie lib indoctrination centers that pass for schools today. If that is the case, my apologies. It’s not your fault. They would not have informed you of the meaning of Natural Born citizen because they were preparing you to accept the commie invasion we have today.
LOL! Are you really pushing Putin’s baby for president?
Gorbachev is living in the United States.
Cool it newbie...
Such as PRESIDENT Chester A. Arthur? Strange how Arthur's many enemies NEVER pointed out how his parents were British citizens.
The Democrats raised the claims against a number of other Republicans claiming they too were ineligible to the Office of the President all the way from Wilson's election to the defeat of McCain. So, Democrats claiming a candidate was not a natural born citizen is quite common, including Hillary Clinton and her supporters’ claims that Obama was ineligible due to his not being a natural born citizen.
The Democrats raised the claims against a number of other Republicans claiming they too were ineligible to the Office of the President all the way from Wilson's election to the defeat of McCain. So, Democrats claiming a candidate was not a natural born citizen is quite common, including Hillary Clinton and her supporters’ claims that Obama was ineligible due to his not being a natural born citizen.
Read the pamphlet by the Democrat attorney who erroneously claimed Chester Arthur was born in Canad, and missed the fact that Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject when Cheater Arthur was born with his father’s British citizenship in the United States and/or U.S. Native born U.S. Citizenship.
Hinman, A. P. How a British subject became president of the United States. New York; 1884.
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6978891M/How_a_British_subject_became_president_of_the_United_States.
My Fathers dise of the family came from England in 1721, My mothers side came from Ireland in 1760. I can trace bothsides back to the late 1500’s.
I didn’t realize the mental capacity of a lot of peole on this site. I just asked one simple question and I get resarch and diatribes.....and yet NO ONE has shown me anything written in the Constitution that contradicts what I said. regardles of what anyone says, if it is not in the Constitution, IT DOESN’T COUNT.
So, now you argue that the Constitutions eligibility clause about a natural born citizen, Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, state constitutions, colonial charters, and American common-law “DO NOT COUNT.” You wikll understand why the rest of us must perforce dismiss your statements as those of another willfully ignorant and dishonest crank.
Ah yes,.....latecomers.
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.