Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Marco Rubio Nears Presidential Announcement

Marco Rubio Nears Presidential Announcement

Miami’s Freedom Tower could serve as location.

It looks as though senator Marco Rubio is preparing to announce a 2016 run for president in two weeks and his choice of venue may hold some symbolism.

Alex Isenstadt and Marc Caputo of Politico:

Marco Rubio looks to April 13 Miami launch

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is strongly considering launching his presidential campaign April 13 at the Freedom Tower, a historic Miami landmark known as the “Ellis Island of the South,” according to Republicans familiar with his thinking.

From its name to its history – it once served as a U.S. clearinghouse for Cuban exiles fleeing Fidel Castro – Miami’s Mediterranean-style Freedom Tower underscores the themes of Rubio’s political career and his likely campaign. He’s a first-generation son of immigrants who has sought to make the American Dream synonymous with his biography.

Rubio’s possible April 13 launch date was first reported by The Tampa Bay Times. However, the Miami Heat plays against the Orlando Magic that evening at the American Airlines Arena, which sits right across Biscayne Boulevard — raising the prospect of a traffic nightmare. And the Freedom Tower hasn’t yet been secured by Rubio’s Washington-based team, which will inspect it this week to see if it’s the right venue.

Rubio faces the same challenge as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Will America get behind another first term senator?

Tim Alberta of National Journal suggests Rubio has a strategy for that:

Marco Rubio Has Made This Bet Before—and Won

Are Americans willing to elect another fresh-faced, first-term senator as president? Marco Rubio thinks so.

The Florida Republican is planning to announce on April 13 that he is running for president, Bloomberg and the Tampa Bay Times report. Rubio has reserved the Freedom Tower in downtown Miami, and multiple sources confirmed the booking is for a planned presidential announcement.

For Rubio, whose Senate seat is up in 2016, a White House run marks a major gamble. It means foregoing a run for Senate reelection to enter a crowded primary race where he—despite enormous political talent and unrivaled rhetorical abilities—has consistently polled in single digits in both national and early-state surveys.

But Rubio, as his advisers often note, has been in this position before. This time six years ago, Rubio was an afterthought in a U.S. Senate race that appeared destined to belong to Gov. Charlie Crist and the GOP establishment. It didn’t take long for Rubio to turn the race upside down, using his family’s immigrant story and his exceptional oratory skills to become a favorite of the conservative base—in Florida and nationally.

Featured image via Wikimedia Commons.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Subotai Bahadur | March 29, 2015 at 2:37 pm

Rubio faces the same challenge as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Will America get behind another first term senator?

No, he faces an entirely different challenge. He ran with the support of the TEA Party and specifically promised to fight Amnesty and Permanent Open Borders. His first act once in office was to join with Chuckie Schumer [Harry Reid’s replacement as the face of the enemy] and push . . . . Amnesty and Permanent Open Borders.

Granting there is a precedent for a first term Senator lying his tuchus off as a Senator and ending up in the White House. But it is not a good precedent.

If he lied on one key subject, openly, publicly, and repeatedly and then betrayed conservatives with no qualms; he will do it again and again. Anything he says has to be considered a lie to get elected.

The appropriate string of epithets would not pass muster on this site. Insert your own.

    pesanteur in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 29, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    Correct. If he lied about an issue so central to his campaign, what wouldn’t he lie about? The question will always be — what pressure or enticement will cause him to lie or betray again?

    Another problem is unself-awareness — he’s stupidly confident of his ability to spin his lie, even though his attempts in the case of the amnesty affair were transparent and pathetic.

    He comes off as a glib, callow pretender — the embodiment of what some accuse of Cruz of being.

How is he more qualified than Obama was? What has he ever administered? Just askin’

His only qualification apparent is a vowel-ending name.

The Senate is not experience for leadership. It’s sinecure in a body that is the essence of deal-making and compromising of principles — a Club against the will people is its sin qua non. Nothing wrong with that Constitutionally moderating-purpose, but not a ground to develop leadership.

Name a member of the Senate that became a great President?

He’s pro-amnesty, so may he rot in hell.

    MTED in reply to walls. | March 29, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    That’s a little extreme, don’t you think?

      Anchovy in reply to MTED. | March 29, 2015 at 4:50 pm

      Not only extreme but inaccurate also. The intense heat in hell would prevent any of the microbes that cause rot.

      Kind of like an autoclave for amnesty supporters.

    Exiliado in reply to walls. | March 29, 2015 at 4:23 pm

    Let’s pretend it’s Election Day.

    The choice is Rubio or Billary.

    Whatcha-gonna-do?

      Barry in reply to Exiliado. | March 29, 2015 at 4:31 pm

      Same as I did on presidential election day last time – no vote for president.

      If the R’s want my vote they will have to nominate someone other than Obama light.

        MTED in reply to Barry. | March 29, 2015 at 4:43 pm

        Then Billary.

          Barry in reply to MTED. | March 29, 2015 at 4:59 pm

          Then don’t nominate Rubio.

          Not much difference. Billary lies, Rubio lies.

          MTED in reply to MTED. | March 29, 2015 at 8:54 pm

          Barry: You can’t possibly believe that there’s no difference between Clinton and Rubio. He’s not my choice, but if he’s nominated, I’ll vote for him. All republicans/conservatives/libertarians/non-progressives should.

          Fight hard for your guy in the primaries, vote R in the general.

          Barry in reply to MTED. | March 29, 2015 at 9:44 pm

          The number one issue for me is illegal immigration. Having 15 million new socialist voters guarantee’s two things:

          1. The wages of the American worker are going down
          2. The taxes we pay will go up to fund the welfare state

          On this issue there is no difference. No matter what Rubio says at the moment. He lied about it. Why on earth would you trust him again?

          Name a big, game changing difference between Rubio and Hillary.

This guy is a weasel — the last person in the world I’d support. His betrayal of his promises in the amnesty fiasco was only part of it. He then tried to bulldoze through his broken promises as if no one was noticing — an in-your-face insult to the intelligence and memory of voters. Then, finally called out and cornered, he slithered away from the subject and went silent, hoping we’d all forget. I haven’t, and never will.

A weasel at 20 has a chance to change. A weasel at 40 is a weasel forever. It was about amnesty once, it will be about something else very important to you but which expedience will compel him to betray again. No way, Rubio.

This post is very similar to the comment I just posted under Prof Jacobson’s March 27th post “Iran nuke deal and Ted Cruz eligibility have something in common”

The reason is that both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (and for that matter Bobby Jidal) are NOT Natural Born Citizens.

Before you call me a nutcase and birther, please read this post and consider the content with an open mind rather than rely on tortured logic to convince you that just about anyone should be allowed to be Commander in Chief and have their finger on the nuclear button (w/sarcasm)

Pay attention to the part about the Law of Nations and the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Some would have you believe that in 1787 there must have been hundreds of(sarcasm again) definitions for Natural Born Citizen it couldn’t possibly be the same definition from a book all the Founders were familiar with. But I digress, Post follows

The insistence that the debate is over and Marco Rubio is eligible to run and/or be President of the United States is much like the climate change crowd claiming the debate is over and anyone who does not agree needs to just shut up. Just as climate change zealots call those who do not believe their science and ideology “climate deniers”, those of us who can read and reason the distinction placed upon the qualification for POTUS and other federal elected officials are called “birthers”. I find it comical and quite instructive that anytime a mob has a reason to shut down debate they come up with a cute little moniker to make the sane people feel stupid. I’m sorry to disappoint but, I’ll wear that birther tag with pride, just as I wear my climate denier moniker high on my chest.

I find it distressing that so many people feel that limiting the Commander in Chief to a strict, defined group most likely to hold sole allegiance to the United States is crazy talk. For it is not only the country of his birth but the country of those he hold most dear, his closest ancestors and those who have brought him up to love his country.

I’m being told by many people that legal scholars have looked into this and they believe that Marco Rubio is eligible. Well, I have two things to say about that, ask these legal scholars’ wives if they are always right and with every legal argument before the courts, 50% of the legal scholars are wrong.

You only need to consider that since 1975 Congress has tried 10 times to put forward a Constitutional Amendment or legislation to define or change the Natural Born Citizen clause.

H.J.R 33 (1975)
H.J.R 38 (1975)
H.J.R 59 (2003)
H.J.R 67 (2003)
S.2128 (2004)
H.J.R 104 (2004)
H.J.R 2 (2005)
H.J.R 15 (2005)
H.J.R 42 (2005)
S.2678 (2008)

source http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm

All have died. Why?

Because:

1) As stated by Rep Issa (CA) in an October 5, 2004 Senate Judiciary Hearing on “The Natural Born Citizen Act” – he states, “However, to Senator Nickles, in contrasting the two major differences between his legislation and your constitutional legislation, I disagree with the Senator’s theory that we can take care of this by legislation. We live in an era–it was mentioned perhaps slightly a minute ago–in which anything can be challenged and taken to nine men and women on the Supreme Court. Any law that we pass here is open to challenge at the Supreme Court. So we could pass a law today allowing someone to be President that previously was in doubt. That would include, obviously, those born abroad of U.S. citizens, such as Senator McCain, who was born in an area that is no longer the United States. It was the United States when he was born, the Panama Canal District; today it is not.

That doubt certainly could be challenged after an election, challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court would not have the ability to say: Do we go with the will of the people? They would have to say: What is the Constitution and what does it say?

So I think that as much as we could envelop for feel-good purposes more and more people into the system of being defined as natural born, I do not believe that it would exempt a Presidential candidate, if elected, from being open to that challenge. And the possibility certainly exists that someone could be elected President and their Vice President could be sworn in because the men and women of the Supreme Court would have to interpret the Constitution as unamended rather than
amended by simple legislation or statute. And I think that is the most important reason that this constitutional amendment is necessary.”

According to Mr. Issa, any legislation changing the original intent of Natural Born Citizen would be contested in the Supreme Court, and apparently Congress is not confident they could win that battle.

2) As stated by Senator Craig (Idaho) in an October 5, 2004 Senate Judiciary Hearing on “The Natural Born Citizen Act” – he states, “I have traveled to 40 States with a single amendment in mind and visited with those legislatures. It is a near impossible task. It is a hurdle so high that it is near impossible. And it must be an issue that is overwhelmingly popular and obvious on its face to the American people, or it will not happen.”

Apparently, politicians fear a Supreme Court battle if changed legislatively and fear voters and the states will not allow it to be changed by constitutional amendment. Therefore, I contend that there are political constituencies at work to change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen out of the sight and reach of the “common rubes” who vote. Using tortured legal analysis and feigned ignorance that the Founders intentionally put a heavy emphasis on the Office Of President to be born with no dual allegiances or undue foreign influence with citizen parents where the child’s citizenship and allegiance “naturally” follows the parents, politicians would rather quietly usurp the Constitution with “scholarly” legal help. In my investigation I kept seeing from politicians and witnesses that the current definition of natural born citizen is, un-American, an artifact from another time, outdated, unfair barrier, we are a Democracy, the Constitution is archaic, and we don’t have to worry about undue foreign influence anymore. THESE ARE THE EXACT PEOPLE we need to protect the Constitution from!

In short,
1) The meaning of Natural Born Citizen is controlled by the definition at the time of its writing, not at later interpretations 200+ years after the term was penned.

2) The Founders were well aware of Vattel’s Law of Nations and his treatise is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause #10 describing Congress’ power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”

3) Vattel’s definition of a Natural Born Citizen from Book 1, Chapter 19 – Law of Nations “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.” ……. “I say, that, 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.” (How’s that Barack Obama Presidency workin’ out for ya’?)

4) There can really be no coincidence that the Founders used the term Natural Born Citizen outside and/or separate from Vattel’s definition. There is no evidence that Natural Born Citizen existed at the time anywhere other than in Vattel’s treatise Law of Nations. The reason there are no writings or disputes about the definition of Natural Born Citizen between the authors of the Constitution can only mean that the circle of men addressing the issue in the Constitution all had the same definition. We have no arguments today about what pizza is because everybody knows what pizza is, there is no dispute.

5) The 14th Amendment does not address or change the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. It addresses who are Citizens by Birth, to which I agree includes Marco Rubio. Natural Born Citizen is a unique subset of Citizen by Birth. Conversation with those on the other side that state Marco Rubio is eligible because he was born on United States soil is ludicrous. If that makes you eligible, that means if a terrorist and his wife sneak across the Canadian born and bears a son or daughter on U.S. soil, whether in a terrorist camp or hospital, the son or daughter is eligible to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. WTF? You cannot possibly believe that the Founders left that barn door open.

6) The only legislation to address Natural Born Citizen was the Naturalization Act of 1790 that addressed children born to citizens serving abroad (as opposed to living abroad of one’s own volition). This may be unconstitutional on its face, but this legislation was enacted before the Supreme Court took on the power of Judicial Review in 1801 in Marbury v. Madison. It appears this legislation only extended to military and political citizens serving abroad at the pleasure of the United States and who either had no control over their serving abroad or wished to serve their country a various locations outside the border of the United States and thus retaining their sole allegiance to their home country through their service.

In summary, the Constitution sets the requirements for President and Natural Born Citizen is defined by Vattel’s in Law of Nations. Any change to the Constitution cannot be made by legislation alone but only by a constitutional amendment.

No constitutional amendment has been proposed and ratified by the States. Since no constitutional amendment has been ratified to change the definition of Natural Born Citizen, the definition remains as it was penned in 1787. The definition is found in the commonly referenced Law of Nations, a treatise written by Emer de Vattel.

Marco Rubio was born on March 28, 1971 in Miami, Florida of parents Oria Garcia and Mario Rubio, Cuban citizens who immigrated to the United States in 1956. Rubio’s parents did not become U.S. Citizens until 1975, 4 years after Marco’s birth.

At Marco Rubio’s birth,

1) His father was NOT a U.S. Citizen (nor his mother)
2) His birthplace was within the boundaries of the United States

Therefore Marco Rubio meets only one of the core requirements of a Natural Born Citizen as it was defined at the time the Constitution was written and ratified and that definition still holds for there has been no legal change to its meaning.

Thus, Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

    Barry in reply to nerkbuckeye. | March 29, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    You waste a lot of space on nothing. Cruz is a natural born citizen. His mother was an American citizen. That’s it. Done. Nothing you can cite or write will change that one simple fact. See this for more explanation:

    Naturalization Act of 1790

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

      nerkbuckeye in reply to Barry. | March 30, 2015 at 10:31 am

      You can mock and cackle all you want. All you need to do is look at Barack Obama’s policies, his disdain for the the Constitution and his attempt (and successful) “fundamental” change of the United States to understand why the Founders’ insisted on a strict definition of Natural Born Citizen to ensure sole allegience to this country. Barack Obama is the poster boy for Natural Born Citizen.

      Apparently, you didn’t even read Darrel Issa’ comments. He stated that if legislation was passed, it would be challenged in the Supreme Court and he was pretty sure the Supreme Court would go to original intent and that would not be good.

      “So we could pass a law today allowing someone to be President that previously was in doubt. That would include, obviously, those born abroad of U.S. citizens, such as Senator McCain, who was born in an area that is no longer the United States. It was the United States when he was born, the Panama Canal District; today it is not.

      That doubt certainly could be challenged after an election, challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court would not have the ability to say: Do we go with the will of the people? They would have to say: What is the Constitution and what does it say?”

        Henry Hawkins in reply to nerkbuckeye. | March 30, 2015 at 12:40 pm

        Mock, mock, cackle, mock, cackle, mock, cackle, cackle, mock, mock. AND a cackle.

        OK. I’m done. Thanks!

        Barry in reply to nerkbuckeye. | March 30, 2015 at 8:04 pm

        Issa does not get to determine what a natural born citizen is or is not. Got That?

        The constitution did not, anywhere, define “natural born citizen”. Got that?

        The closest we have is the link I gave you, which is actual law, and you chose to ignore.

    pesanteur in reply to nerkbuckeye. | March 29, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    Give it a rest.

Rubio is the RINO establishments attempt to thwart Ted Cruz.He lied to those who got him elected and became a RINO establishment guy from the minute he reached DC. His job is to split the vote and confuse the primary. Then his GOP buddies inside the Beltway will take care of him with an administration position (If Jeb Bush wins). The big flaw in their plan is, if Jeb Bush is the nominee Bush will lose.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend