[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Nicotine and Fish Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix This Can Create Endless Green Energy WITHOUT Electricity Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It Pam Bondi Ordered Prosecution of Dr. Kirk Moore After Refusing to Dismiss Case California woman bombarded with Amazon packages for over a year CVS ordered to pay $949 MILLION in Medicaid fraud case. Starmer has signed up to the UNs agreement to raise taxes in the UK Magic mushrooms may hold the secret to longevity: Psilocybin extends lifespan by 57% in groundbreaking study Cops favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used Leftist Anti ICE Extremist OPENS FIRE On Cops, $50,000 REWARD For Shooter With great power comes no accountability. Auto loan debt hits $1.63T. 20% of buyers now pay $1,000+ monthly. Texas delinquency hits 7.92%. Quotable Quotes from the Chosenites Tokara Islands NOW crashing into the Ocean ! Mysterious Swarm continues with OVER 1700 Quakes ! Why Austria Is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration Rep. Greene Wants To Remove $500 Million in Military Aid for Nuclear-Armed Israel From NDAA Netanyahu Lays Groundwork for Additional Strikes on Iran: 'We Didn't Deal With The Enriched Uranium' Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans - Will U.S. Follow Suit? Joe Rogan CALLS OUT Israel's Media CONTROL Communist Billionaire Accused Of Funding Anti-ICE Riots Mysteriously Vanishes 6 Factors That Describe China's Current State Trump Thteatens to Bomb Moscow and Beijing Little Bitty Vertiv Drops After Amazon Unveils In-House Liquid Cooling System, Marking Pivot To Liquid 17 Out-Of-Place Artifacts That Suggest High-Tech Civilizations Existed Thousands (Or Millions) Of Years Ago Hamas Still Killing IDF Soldiers After 642 Days Copper underpins every part of the economy. If you want to destroy the U.S. economy this is how you would do it. Egyptian Pres. Gamal Abdel Nassers Chilling Decades-Old Prediction About Israel-Palstine Conflict. Debt jumps $366B in one day.

(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: 'Ineligible' Rubio top GOP choice for VP Will Republicans put possibly unqualified candidate on ballot?
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ineligible-rubio-top-gop-choice-for-vp/
Published: Feb 21, 2012
Author: Joe Kovacs
Post Date: 2012-02-21 12:24:30 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 594
Comments: 34

JUPITER ISLAND, Fla. – Despite his avowed non-interest and the fact he may not even be constitutionally eligible to hold the office, Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is the top choice of Republicans and independents for the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket this year, according to a brand-new poll.

The national survey of 800 registered voters by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind shows Rubio receiving 66 mentions, more than 8 percent of the time, followed by former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

“Anytime you place ahead of Sarah Palin, call yourself a winner,” said poll director Peter Woolley, “Her name recognition and presence are formidable.”

Learn the difference between a regular citizen and a “natural-born citizen.” Get Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

The question given to respondents was open-ended, asking: “No matter who is the Republican nominee for president, if you could pick the vice presidential nominee, who would it be?”

After Palin, the top respondents were Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and surprisingly, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

While Rubio himself has expressed numerous times that he is not interested in running for vice president, the public’s interest in him has not waned.

But his presence on the ticket could cause a backlash among some voters who believe he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus ineligible for president or vice president.

Though Rubio was born in Miami, Fla., in 1971, his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time, and they did not become American citizens until Nov. 5, 1975, four years after Marco was born.

Many say that a natural-born citizen must be someone born to parents who are both already U.S. citizens.

“Rubio’s not eligible,” WND Editor Joseph Farah told Sean Hannity during an appearance on the Fox News Channel last month.

“You’re going to lose 10 percent of the Republican vote because he’s not a natural-born citizen. We’ve been through this with Obama now for four years. You want to open that can of worms again?”

Poster Comment:

"This country has gotten ludicrous....I at least want our slime-ball, ass-hole tyrants to be Americans." <---My husband.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#1. To: christine (#0) (Edited)

Rubio was born inside the US, both parents were legally admitted to this country, so he's a natural-born citizen, notwithstanding that neither parent was a US citizen at the time. He meets the basic constitutional criteria for a Presidential candidate. The people who say otherwise are simply wrong.

Shoonra  posted on  2012-02-21   12:27:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

by the power of numbskull you are she-ra!

IRTorqued  posted on  2012-02-21   22:42:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I'll wait until one of you birthers knows as much about the Constitution as the Chief Justice.

Shoonra  posted on  2012-02-22   7:53:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You at #9: I've gotten bored with citing the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur (a Republican), as a precedent. So I'll cite Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who was born in NY to two British subjects, yet ran for and was nominated by the Republicans for President in 1916 (lost to Woodrow Wilson). I figure if a Chief Justice says that two foreign parents is not disqualifying, who am I to argue.

You again at #11 here: I'll wait until one of you birthers knows as much about the Constitution as the Chief Justice.

Arthur wasn't a "precedent" and he wasn't a valid President. Even valid Presidents don't have the power to nullify the Constitution, silly, much less invalid ones like him by mistake. What kind of persons, though, want to alter and manipulate our government by error? Persons with no allegiance to our Constitution or our Republic. I tend to think that's the case with you, rather than mere confusion due to a word-slurring speech impediment among your group: birther as "birfer", precedent as "President". Now you've no arguable excuse anymore to not distinguish the difference unless you want to plead Dyslexia or something.

But let's talk about "Chief Justice" Hughes, born of two British subjects, who similarly tried to pull the same Arthurian stunt in contempt of our Constititon's POTUS requirements in his own sleazy attempt to run illegitimately for that office. Undoubtedly, Hughes had some agenda bias on issues of natural born citizenship status or not but you can be sure that he knew he wasn't eligible on those grounds. The matter was brought to public attention by Atty. Long who was former Secreatary of State and Ambassador to Italy.

So, which Hughes case are you refering to? As for Wong Kim Ark, which didn't redefine natural born citizenship status as you've persistently misinterpreted, you might as well stop citing that case at all because one of the presiding Justices, Gray, was appointed by...Arthur who was not qualified to make that appointment as a valid President. His own SCOTUS position being subject to nullification on those grounds, he undoubtedly had some agenda bias to cover for his benefactor, Arthur, by obfuscating issues of natural born citizenship status or not. Capiche?

GreyLmist  posted on  2012-02-22   20:15:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't believe I ever confused President with precedent.

Your reference to Breckenridge Long is sort of amusing. Long was in private legal practice in St. Louis, Mo., until AFTER he published an essay doubting Charles Evans Hughes's eligibility for the Presidency, which, incidentally, was not published until AFTER the 1916 election was well over. His essay appeared in the Chicago Legal News on December 7, 1916 (pages 146-148), a full month after Election Day - by which time it was such a cold issue that nobody seemed to care enough to write up a rebuttal. And it wasn't until after that that Long got a job in the Wilson Administration ... as Third Assistant Secretary of State, until he quit three years to run (and lose) for the US Senate. His real accomplishments came more than a dozen years later when he was in FDR's Administration.

Nobody else seemed to doubt that Hughes was eligible for President, and considering that he was a candidate in both 1912 and 1916 (being the GOP nominee in 1916) that is very significant. And, despite all your rejection of Chester A. Arthur, it turns out that his Presidency, his executive actions, his signing of laws, etc., were NEVER doubted by either Congress or the Courts.

Obama's eligibility has been challenged in dozens of court cases, sometimes with real lawyers bringing the suits, and the challengers have always lost. In the case of Ankeny v. Governor (Indiana App., Nov. 12, 2009) 916 N.E.2d 676, the court explicitly held that Obama was a "natural born citizen".

Shoonra  posted on  2012-02-23   8:25:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The point is that both SCOTUS "Justices", Hughes and Gray, are compromised on the issue of natural born citizenship due to their surrounding circumstances and probable motives to vindicate and validate themselves retroactively.

Your arguments about Atty. Long (a "real attorney", as you say - yes?) are spurious. The point there is that Hughes knew that he was ineligible to be POTUS and Gray was subject to removal from the bench at the time if Congress and the Courts did the right thing then and nullified Arthur's administrations. No rebuttal to Long's argument against Hughes doesn't mean that noboby cared about the Constitutional issue as one of serious importance. The default reading would be that there were no rebuttable counterpoints to be made. His political career and Senate bid doesn't make his arguments on the Article II matter more valid or less so. If the issue was as trivial or derisively "amusing" as you suggest, suffice it to say that it is remarkable he had a lengthy and accomplished political career (as you yourself noted). What forces were arrayed by press blockades to suppress his challenge of Huges as ineligible, by Courts to muddle the Constitution, and by election-rigging to keep him out of the Senate where he might have moved authoritatively to repeal Arthur's paperwork is questionable. And that brings us back to my question of:

What kind of people want to alter and manipulate our government by error, Shoonra?

Edited for capitalization and 2nd sentence of paragraph 2 for clarity.

GreyLmist  posted on  2012-02-23   15:21:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 20.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]