What Fresh Hell Is This?

April 14, 2015

More On Joey Farah And His Birthers' Hypocrisy (Marco Rubio Edition)

Hey, remember this?

That's the blogpost where I assert that if the birthers' invalid criteria for Barack Obama's presidential ineligibility were valid, then they'd also have to question the presidential eligibility of the Republican (and Canadian-born) Senator Cruz as well.

For the record I was not questioning Cruz eligibility, just pointing out the birthers' hypocrisy for not protesting the Republican as much as the Democrat.

Well, now that Senator Marco Rubio has announced his presidential campaign, he has exactly the same problem with the birthers as neither of his parents were US citizens when he was born.  And the birthers will show exactly the same hypocrisy if they don't protest the Miami-born Senator's eligibility as loudly as they've protested the Hawaii-born Obama for half a decade.

But let's go to birther central for a ruling:
Moments after Mitt Romney’s landslide victory in the Florida Republican Primary, WND Editor Joseph Farah declared on national television that Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio would not be a good selection for vice president because he’s not a natural-born citizen of the U.S., and therefore is not legally qualified to hold the office.

“Rubio’s not eligible … because he’s not a natural-born citizen,” Farah told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel.
For the record, since Rubio was born in Miami he's eligible to be president.

But we're not talking about facts here, we're talking what the birthers have said.  And according to them since Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is constitutionally no eligibile:
A consensus on the correct definition of “natural-born citizen” has eluded lawyers and scholars for more than 200 years. The Constitution’s silence, the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions through the centuries have only further confused the question of what “natural born” actually means.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner who has filed a legal challenge against Obama’s eligibility, is among those critical of Jindal’s legal qualification.

“Governor Jindal is a ‘citizen of the United States’ since he was born in the USA, but he is not a ‘natural-born citizen of the United States’ since his parents were not citizens of the United States when Governor Jindal was born,” said Kerchner, who runs the ProtectOurLiberty website.

“As a citizen of the United States, he is, of course, eligible to a governor, senator, or U.S. representative, but he is not constitutionally eligible to be the president and commander in chief of our military (per Article II, Section 1) nor is he eligible to be the vice president (per the 12th Amendment) since he is not a “natural-born citizen of the United States.” [Links and emphasis in original]
 They have to feel the same way about Rubio.

Where are the Cruz and/or Rubio birther protests?  Will Fox "News" be covering them, too?


Heir to the Throne said...

"Where are the Cruz and/or Rubio birther protests?"
Wait until either get the nomination.
The DNC will have extreme progressive wing do the same things as WND.

Ol' Froth said...

A current birther I've known from my childhood asserts that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Canada, and that Obama is ineligible because his father wasn't a citizen (never mind that Obama's been president for lo, these last few years). Not sure how he feels about Rubio or McCain, but at least he's been consistent with Cruz.

Zeus0209 said...

To consider the timeframe and spirit in which a law was written, such as that with amendment 2, is a valid consideration. In kind, the spirit with respect to article 2 ought also be visited for its degree of suitability in the 21st century. Obama shall forever wear the stripes given to him by the birthers. Perhaps those same imbeciles, now that the shoe indeed appears to be flipping to the other foot, will right this "in dire need of overhaul" snippet of law. Hopefully it wouldn't be at a price of having "President Cruz"

Heir to the Throne said...

"To consider the timeframe and spirit in which a law was written, such as that with amendment 2, is a valid consideration"
So the 1st Amendment does not apply to the Internet Radio and TV?
So the 4th and 5th Admendments does not apply to police departments created after 1800?

Zeus0209 said...

I think the framers of the constitution were humble and wise. Its reasonable to think, that they knew they could not forecast the future and that all laws may need to be revisited as time goes on and circumstances change.

In this particular instance, however, I've cherry picked germane legislation to one particular scenario so that I could trick the world into upsetting the apple cart in the spirit of anarchy.

Heir to the Throne said...

"all laws may need to be revisited as time goes on and circumstances change."
There is a Constitutional amendment process.

How about the 4th and 5th Amendments does not apply to any Law enforcement agencies ATF, CIA, FBI, DEA and NSA that were created after 1800?

Ol' Froth said...

Hmmmm...if Rubio is ineligible because his parents weren't citizens, wouldn't that make Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, among others, ineligible as well?