Thursday, November 26, 2015

Can MARCO RUBIO serve as President or Vice President. REad and tell me what you think!

As much as one may like a Candidate... you must love the Constitution  MORE.

The question must be addressed. Can Marco Rubio legally serve as President or Vice President of America. Is it allowed by the Constitution as it is written.. TODAY!

Rubio is, quite simply, not a "natural-born citizen" by the accepted legal, English-language standard as it has been known throughout American history. He was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents. 

I know this question is not a popular notion among Republicans who support either Rubio or Ted Cruz.

Remember it wasn't popular among Democrats when we challenged Obama's eligibility.

Shouldn't the Constitution always trump political expediency ?

You cannot be a Consistent Conservative with principles to Restore America .... IF you apply on standard of Obama and another standard for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

If we don't adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as Presidential eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document for guiding our nation. 

If not then, it becomes the kind of living document that many liberals have claimed it should be - ever changing to new circumstances. Who knows when someone can then challenge the 2nd amendment and change that too?

Here are the facts:

Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975, four years after Marco Rubio was born.

That's really all you have to know. That simple fact — one not in dispute — disqualifies him legally, barring an amendment to the Constitution or a complete and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution, from being president or vice president. 

Those are the only two offices in the U.S. that have such a requirement.

The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S. Congress can be seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The law, specifying that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: "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."

While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless, represented the will of the Congress that someone with dual loyalties not lead the U.S.

Rep.John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the 14th Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is "born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." 

"The Law of Nations," a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father's citizenship was a loyalty issue: "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. ... 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."

Significantly, when the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural-born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens.

The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama, stated that McCain — born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, "is a 'natural-born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Slick don't you think? It made sure that McCain would not challenge Obama's Status! Two peas in an illegal pod scheme!

Of course, this raises a question: What about Obama? It's a good question — and goes right to heart of all the controversy about Obama's eligibility for the last four years. He is not eligible. He never was. It doesn't matter where he was born. It never did. What mattered — and still matters — is who his parents were. According to Obama and the limited and questionable documentation he has provided to date, his father was a Kenyan student who never became a U.S. citizen. 

Therefore, he NEVER met the test of eligibility. The fact that he has reluctantly provided highly questionable documentation to establish his birth in Hawaii is irrelevant, except that it suggests he is trying to obscure the real facts and the real substance of his eligibility. I guess if his father was Frank Marshall Davis we might have another discussion. A DNA test could help to set the record straight once and for all!!

But now... back to the issue of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. It would by hypocritical and wrong and set a dangerous precedent for all section in our Constitution if we accept the Leftis notion that the Constitution is not ABSOLUTE!!

America permited an ineligible Obama to serve as president by a de facto changing of the constitutional standard through neglect and ignorance for the future. Now if we look the other way for our Candidates we have lost our moral high ground with regards to the Constitution and we open the door for interpretation of every ammendment!

Sure if America wants to have a national debate about the meaning of this requirement, let's have it in ways allowed by the Constitution. If not dissolve the Constitution and start anew ( that would be Revolution). But let's not allow conventional expedient wisdom on this matter to become so corrupted that we accept this on our side blithely as though it does NOT MATTER because it affects our Candidate's eligibility. If we do we have become political bastards just like them. We have no standing in the future!

And let's not stumble into nominating a president or vice president who tests the boundaries of eligibility in such a monumentally important election in 2016.


1 comment:

  1. I agree 100% that Cruz and Rubio are not eligible. It is as plain as anyone's nose on face. Further, I am furious that these men would even have the gall run for president. They have to know they are ineligible and if they don't know they do not deserve to be presidents being so ignorant of our Constitution. I have to question their motives to run as I am dubious of their brazenness to run not being eligible. We must stop them and make sure they are informed and violating our constitution. The only other answer is that our Constitution is suspended and we are living under martiel law or the US is a really corporation and NOT A Republic. WHO determined this, who told them to run??
    Rosemary, Norwalk Ct usa