Donald Trump is not sure Marco Rubio is eligible to run for President
Donald Trump is now running a scorched earth campaign against his Republican rivals. After playing the birther card against Ted Cruz to some apparent success he is now claiming he is not sure if Marco Rubio is eligible to run for President. This all revolves around a retweet from the billionaire businessman which questioned Marco Rubio.
Here is the video:
When pressed on why he would retweet something he was not sure about he said it was because he was not sure about it, and then went on to claim he was not familiar with Marco Rubio’s situation. However not all that long ago Donald Trump said there was no question Marco Rubio was eligible to run for President because he was “born on the land” and here is that video:
Once again the Etch-A-Sketch candidate of 2016 has shaken the drawing board and come up with a new picture.
H/T The Right Scoop
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Again also according to our founders Marco Rubio is not eligible to run neither is Ted Cruz neither was Barack Obama.
LikeLike
But you are ignoring Trump’s inconsistency and this is a problem he has in many places.
LikeLike
incorrect. “natural born citizen” comes from the british law “natural born subject”, which all the founders were very familiar with…having been considered “natural born subjects” themselves, even though most of them never set foot in england.
a “natural born subject” could be born anywhere on the planet, so long as one of their parents were british subjects, they were a british subject from birth.
geography is irrelevant. the citizenship of the parent(s) is the only part of the equation that is relevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Allen, meaning no disrespect, but your argument is specious at best. both For starters only, may I kindly suggest your consulting puzo1@blogspot.com. He’s among the leading authorities on this subject. His site also provides an opportunity for readers to rebut his scholarly arguments. BTW, the nbc definition is a peculiarly American common law–not British common law–creation, and is predicated on Vatel’s Law of Nations treatise with which our Framers were intimately familiar. No sense arguing about here. Tedious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is an interesting take on it Allen and one I had not heard before. I honestly do not know what the answer is.
Jdelany3, the link you provided was an email address. Do you have a website link I can check out?
LikeLike
http://volokh.com/2013/08/27/natural-born-subjects-natural-born-citizens/
“eighteenth-century English practice established the rule that parliament could expand the category of “natural born” by statute…. [I]n any event “natural born” had come to mean those children parliament made subjects at birth, whoever they were. Translated to U.S. constitutional terms, that would mean whomever Congress chooses (from time to time) to make citizens at birth are natural born.”
since, by act of congress, cruz was a citizen at birth, cruz was and is a natrual born citizen.
this is backed by Eugene Volokh…
“Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.”
as well as the list of scholars from the Volokh Conspiracy
Dale Carpenter, University of Minnesota.
David Kopel, Independence Institute.
David Bernstein, George Mason University.
David Hyman, University of Illinois.
David Post, Temple University (ret.).
Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern University.
Eugene Volokh, UCLA.
Ilya Somin, George Mason University.
Jim Lindgren, Northwestern University.
John Elwood, Vinson & Elkins.
Jonathan Adler, Case Western Reserve University.
Ken Anderson, American University.
Nick Rosenkranz, Georgetown University.
Nita Farahany, Duke University.
Orin Kerr, George Washington University.
Paul Cassell, University of Utah.
Randy Barnett, Georgetown University.
Russell Korobkin, UCLA.
Sasha (Alexander) Volokh, Emory University.
Stewart Baker, Steptoe & Johnson.
Stuart Benjamin, Duke University.
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Allen & Steve: go to link below for a concise, scholarly opposing view regarding the origin of “natural born citizen”. I think you’ll agree that it makes sense.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
LikeLike
Thanks for that info Allen!
LikeLike
Trump is a loose cannon of the first order. OF COURSE, Rubio is constitutionally ineligible, as is Mr. Cruz. Trump’s ambiguity, double-talk and back-tracking on a host of positions and statements is extremely disturbing, suspect–and very annoying. Does anyone really know what this empty vessel is all about? I sure as hell don’t. Demagoguery is ever bit as sinister as are the progressives which dominate the establishment both on the left and right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is exactly the problem I have with him as well and I think he stands much farther to the left than people want to admit.
LikeLike
BTW, Steve, the proper link mentioned above if puzo1@blogspot.com.br/, or do a search for “Naural Born Citizen – A place to ask questions and get the right answers. As said, readers are welcome to comment and rebut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, thanks.
LikeLike
It’s kinda funny this Sr. Citizen is running circles around the young turks in the Republican Party. He is the one that is effectively using social media and bypassing the formal media process. Cruz and Rubio had 7 years to get their acts together and this is the best they can offer. I guess they thought Hillary was going to treat them kindly when they got to the main event.
The msm is clueless and their questions are pointless.
The political elite want a fight between HC and Trump for some reason. There is something evil in the wind.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Assuming Hillary makes it to the GOP-Dem presidential debate (and given the lawlessness these days she probably will), my lingering fear is that, despite her obvious character flaws and grotesque history of corruption, she is a crafty lawyer and wordsmith who can adroitly befuddle, misinform and spin. As such, she might very well wipe the floor with Trump who is clearly less a wordsmith than is Hillary. On the otherhand, since they are both unpopular, suspect and full of themselves it could be reduced to a crass battle royale between egos alone–not policy–and Donald might actually dominate in the end. In any event, if either is elected I would be as worried then as I am now. A perfect opportunity to restore constitutional order yet again squandered by a populace which appears incapable of seeing beyond their anger. Misdirected, such anger might well lead us to deeper uncharted waters.
I keep checking Trump’s platform (such as it is) and there is still precious little meat. So what does he stand for? Would he be a heavy-handed executive orders type or a constitutionalist and statesman? I know she would be a disastrous self-serving Progressive who would happily destroy all remants of decency and constitutional order. One helluva choice, huh?
I harken back to Barry Goldwater’s assertion that ‘extremsim in defense of liberty is no vice.” And on that justification alone, I am supporting Cruz, this despite the very real possibility that he is constitutionally ineligible. He is obviously patriotic, very smart, anti-establishment (aka anti-Progressive) whose platform clearly details a plan to restore constitutional order. That’s indisputable and, for me, an asset which cannot be ignored.
WSe’re living in extraordinarily dangerous times. My trust level is near zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Trump will be exposed when he begins one on one debates, the more candidates on stage the less he has to talk and that is beneficial to him. If he ever has to start talking about candid policy positions I think he will be exposed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to admit Trump is using social media much better than the other two! Cruz is running a horrible campaign and now he is being branded as a cheat and it is going to be hard for him to overcome that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My expectation is that the under Hillary’s withering, vicious fire during a debate, Trump will be reduced to a pile of whimpering ashes. Let’s hope it doesn’t get that far. A GOP one-on-one or a three-man GOP debate may properly do him in before any further damage can be done. Right now, and unless either Rubio or Cruz kick him in the balls, Trump will be nominated and the nation will be forever lost to Progressives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is pretty much the way I see it as well. I think either Rubio or Cruz has to drop out of the race or else the vote will continue to be split but I think both of them are getting too much support to do that so I think our fate has already been determined.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He does seem to mirror Bi-Polar America. Isn’t that part of the game, ‘disqualify’ – presenting questionings about candidates / fair competition – all’s fair in war.
If we consider what and whom this society (media mindset) sets up as Idols for people’s attention, why not use another media form to counteract it? Enlarging the playing field, in a sense and making new rules for that increase! Separatism, mirroring the reality of the day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is exactly what this was Zip. He had to grounds on which to make this accusation but he did it anyway in order to sow the seed of doubt in people’s minds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, like a lawyer – using and twisting words for the upper hand. I can tell you don’t like him Steve, but could Marco stand up against Hilly? even if there were no poll rigging going on?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t like him because I think he is part of the Hegelian Dialectic, I think he is working for the Democrats! But no, I don’t think Rubio will do any better against Hillary. Rubio has had many good debate performances but with the MSM being in the bag for Hillary it will be tough for any candidate in the general election.
LikeLiked by 1 person