I don't know about you but it is my firm belief that when the GOP puts another non-qualified candidate up even if it is for VP there is going to be a revolt in their voting bloc that they are not counting on. I know many are saying Anybody But Obama, but I think we are in danger of losing the election even before it gets started because many will not accept another person that does not qualify under the Constitution. This is my letter to Rubio addressing this issue. I hope he considers going public with his lack of qualification under Article II, Section I, Clause V of the U.S. Constitution.
April 20, 2012
FL Senator Marco Rubio
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Rubio,
Something has been bothering me for awhile and when I heard you flub the answer to the VP question I decided to write you. No, I am not one of your constituents. I am unfortunately cursed with the representation of Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Representative Waxman. As with any elected official it is anticipated that they would represent all of us, however I have found very deaf ears.
Are you aware of the objective of the MSM as aligned with the DNC and possibly the GOP to use you to destroy this great country, I have heard you say, you love? Or is it on purpose that you allow them to speculate on your candidacy for VP? Jeb Bush, today, offered you up as Mitt Romney’s running mate. Many of us love our country as you do but are without voice to stop the progressives from stealing one of the greatest gifts God gave us beyond his son Jesus Christ. Also it seems the Tea Party phenomenon has not been as successful as we had hoped.
You may ask, how are you being used? From the point of view of many, there is an ineligible office holder in the White House. Constitutionally it can be confirmed, it takes two citizen parents when one is born to be a “natural born citizen” the main qualification. It is my understanding that your parents were not American citizens when you were born. All the obfuscation and ignoring this will not change the fact that either you or Obama is not qualified for the office of POTUS. Your name is constantly brought up as the VP candidate for whoever is chosen for the GOP. You seem, to many, to be extremely articulate and well educated which makes you really likable to the masses. What I find disturbing is that you do not address the issue of eligibility head on. The more your name is brought up or thrown into the ring the less anyone pays attention to what the Constitution says, just like 2008. A simple statement from you of “I’m not qualified under Article II, Section I, Clause V to be President or Vice President” would change the discourse and put an end to the candidacy of Barak Obama as he has yet to present any evidence that isn’t forged of his citizenship.
You will be used to destroy this country if you succumb to the pressure or the attraction of the fame & fortune of the office of Vice President by accepting the nomination. Twenty percent of the conservative voting bloc, in my estimation, will abstain from voting for another unqualified candidate. Do you think a Romney/Rubio ticket can win without that 20% of the vote? That 20% Sir will definitely insure the re-election of the current office holder, an unacceptable outcome for the 2012 election.
You Sir will have been used because you and others like you refuse to address the eligibility issue against the best interests of America. My hope for you and our country is that you stay in the Senate and become a force for change that takes that institution back to the stature it once had, one that truly honors the Constitution as written. We need people like you to bring the freedoms we have lost in my lifetime back for future generations to enjoy.
Westlake Village, CA
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Thanks Bru. I could only hope and I am thankful for Twana keeping everyone on topic. I pray that those who have responded will go the extra step and email, mail Senator Rubio, their Senators, Representative, and the RNC. With the kind of energy I have seen on this post maybe, just maybe we all can make a difference.
If everyone who is ineligible is denied being on the ballot -- BO will GO !
Don't want to make waves here, but seriously, I thought that if he was born in the US, regardless of parents citizenship, that it makes him a citizen, therefor eligibile. No court, including the Supreme Court in our history has ever determined otherwise, right? Help me out folks!
Sorry, Jack, but you missed this question.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
Pete.......Here's pretty good and concise descriptions of various U.S. birth situations.....it addresses Rubio...remember the VP/President must be a "natural born citizen".......This was posted on Sam Sewell's site...
Rubio does not meet the constitutional requirment......only a bunch of foolish republicans would take a chance on selecting and nominating an illegal candidate......democrats already have the title
Stingray, I would add that we need to repeal the law giving these anchor babies citizenship. The only reason the anchor baby law was passed was to prevent blacks from being deported back to Africa after the War Between The States.
There is no law granting citizenship to "anchor babies"; they have been declared to be citizens by a few judges citing the Fourteenth Amendment. This Amendment, however, includes the clause "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." regarding the parent(s). No less authority than the Mexican government has declared that the United States cannot execute illegal alien prisoners because Mexicans in the United States illegally are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, they have declared that "anchor babies" are not U.S.citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
There is no need to repeal anything; all we need is for OUR courts to stop "interpreting" OUR Constitution -- it is, after all, written in English -- and issue rulings based upon the plain meaning of the words. If there is any sort of ambiguity, the clarification should come solely from consulting the writings of those who framed The Constitution (original intent).
You're wrong, under Black's law dictionary definition, a "precedent" was established by the judiciary when the "anchor babies" ruling was made by the courts: "a rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases." PRECEDENT that must be followed by judiciary is known as "binding precedent". Under the doctrine of "stare decisis", a LOWER court must honor findings of law made by a higher court and in the case of the Supreme Court, any decision or questions regarding federal law including the Constitution, statutes and regulations, Supreme Court PRECEDENT must be followed. So just as much as it is the COURTS should be FORCED to follow the Chief Justice ruling in Minor vs. Happersett: "natural born citizen" is required to be born of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS, until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the citizenship of "anchor babies", it is a judicial precedent LAW that ALL lower courts will follow.
Until we have leaders in DC who advocate return to Constitutional principles and apply Constitutional law, the Courts will proceed on "established precedents", I can't change that, you can't change that, that's just the way it is. Electing more Constitutional candidates that will listen to the people and PASS legislation to address these issues will be the only way to change it short of Supreme Court rulings overriding previous rulings. It doesn't matter what we THINK, it's what we DO in upcoming elections and future elections that COUNT, taking over local, state precincts is a beginning with focus on changing leadership in GOP--forget about the DemocRAT party--after 35+ years of being a registered democrat voter I tell you that this party is OWNED by communist, marxist agitators. CHANGE the GOP from the inside-out starting at local levels working to the TOP--people like Dick Lugar, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski are ESTABLISHMENT (RINO) HACKS--removing them for PRO-Constitutional, PRO-Conservative candidates is the route to go first. It will take several election cycles to accomplish IF it can be accomplished with the prevailing mentality the American public seems to exhibit--everything comes from govt. and not INDIVIDUAL hard work and success.
Citizen -- Citizen by Birth -- and "Natural Born Citizen" are 3 different things.
"Natural Born Citizen" Requires TWO Citizen Parents and born in US (or one of the US holdings).
Sorry, I am still stuck, I thought the 14th amendment said that anyone born in the US is a "natural born" citizen regardless of parents status. Where does the 2 citizen parents language appear in the constitution? Does the constitution actually define natural born, if so, where? Thanks, just trying to get my facts straight so I can understand!