I will expect that our frequent commentor, Historian Dude, will state that Senator Marco Rubio meets the Constitutional eligibility requirements to serve this great Nation as a Vice President , and ultimately, as the Nation’s first President of Hispanic heritage. After all, the Historian Dude has argued that Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a British subject, and thus having dual-citizenship, is entitled to be POTUS.
But from American Thinker, the Rubio eligibility is a bit muddied:
Marco Rubio is on most short lists for the Republican vice presidential nomination. The principal objection many conservatives have is whether Rubio is constitutionally eligible. How should we view this issue? At the outset, we need to dispose of the idea that the Constitution contemplates political parties nominating candidates to run for president or vice president. It does not.
for full article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_presidential_qualification_issue.html
In a discussion with the smarter part of the JAMES family, despite our support of Sen. Rubio, it was argued that though he was born here, his parents were not yet citizens (same applies to Gov. Jindal), and thus Rubio is not eligible to be President based on prior interpretations, and the application of Vittal’s Law of Nations. As a underscoring point to this, it was stated to JAMES that the Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was born here in the United States to Yemeni parents attending school here. Do we want to say that he is eligible to be the POTUS?
So, as we clarify the Constitution for a balanced-budget amendment, and put the election of the Senators back into the hands of the State, should we also clarify the exact wording needed to fulfill the intent of our forefathers in prescribing that the POTUS be a natural-born citizen of this great country?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 16, 2011 at 8:16 am
slcraignbc
In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma
#109 808
S.L.C. Vs the State of Oklahoma
State of Oklahoma The Honorable Mary Fallin Governor, Oklahoma State Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Secretary of State V. Glenn Coffee, Oklahoma Election Board/Senate Secretary Paul Ziriax, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, Oklahoma Republican State Committee Chairman Matt Pinnell, Democratic National Committe Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Oklahoma Democratic State Committe Chairman Wallace Collins,Respondents
APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
MOTION OF MANDAMUS
MOTION
CERTIFICATION OF U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[excerpt];
Petitioner offers the following points as subjects suitable to be considered as Adjudicative Facts, revised and extended from previous versions of Motions filed which exposes the lack of “legal” action on the subject matter;
[a] As of this date (1) there is no acknowledged legal definition of the Constitutional idiom (2) of natural born Citizen (3) that satisfies the needs of the Constitutional Rule of Law insofar as the various Departments and Courts of the Federal Government is concerned.
[b] Only the Supreme Court of the United States has the Constitutional authority to interpret, for legal purposes, the definition, (as well as the meaning and intent), of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.(4) Further, the Political Question Doctrine does not apply to the interpreting and defining the definition, meaning and intent as there is no “discretionary language” that would defer to any other branch of the Government within the Clause. (5)
[snip];
Any argument that asserts the State Election Laws concerning the National General Election of the Executive Officers is not unconstitutional is to argue that the subject Clause of the Constitution is meant to be without effect and that “nothing more needs to be done” by the Federal Government, the State, the Election Board or Political Parties in order to satisfy the needs of Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the State Constitution acknowledging the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and the Guarantee of the State to provide a Republican Form of Government under the Constitutional Rule of Law to its Citizens, as well as the admonition found in Marbury v Madison, each makes such an argument untenable.(6)
[Update]
On August 30th the Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice ordered the Court Clerk to enter an Order directing the Respondents to respond no later than September 19th, 2011
Read action at;
Application; http://www.scribd.com/doc/63660276/pdf-Application-Form-13-8-25
Order http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/63679871?access_key=key-cguh0p1vr1b13q56r6k
Follow progress at Forum site; http://www.nbcfund.com/chatforum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=1073
September 17, 2011 at 11:26 am
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
Marco Rubio is a GREAT Senator for Florida, but sadly is NOT eligible to be President because he is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”.
Same for Jindal.
Both are NATIVE BORN CITZENS, but fail the requirement of having TWO US Citizen parents.
I will refuse to vote for EITHER of these men IF they run for President.
I like BOTH of these men’s political ideology, but can NOT support someone I believe is INeligible to hold the Office of President.
September 17, 2011 at 2:37 pm
JAMES
OK IB, you aren’t helping me win this round with Mrs. JAMES.
If Rubio is selected as a VP choice, as most pundits have already surmised, do the Dems, the loons on the Left, have what it will take to challenge it, leaving themselves wide open on that Empty Suit they elected in 2008, completely ignoring any thought of ineligibility.
September 19, 2011 at 8:07 am
Sal Manila
There is ideology, then there is practical politics. I’ll vote for a goat if they are conservative. It is the values we need to set things straight. A democrat is a dipper into the well of identity politics, knee jerk protectionism, gives succour to the mafia-like principles of public sector unions and wishes someone else to pay for their racist, self-worth crippling ideology.