Well, he seems like a nice enough guy. But the U.S. Constitution, Article II, is more specific on the requirements for president than you have been led to believe. And after that conversation, I went looking for information to back up my claim. (I had heard the facts before, but wanted to verify my thinking.)
So here is the deal: Article II of the U.S. Constitution is not the same thing as the 14th Amendment which allows citizenship by birth on American soil. In fact, IF they were both saying the same thing, why would the 14th Amendment even exist? Article II was written 78 years before the 14th Amendment and applies only to the office of the Presidency. When I started looking into this again the past few days, all of sudden Obama's obfuscation on his documentation made even more sense. If, indeed, he were fully qualified and eligible to hold the office of the Presidency, why would his documentation not be opened and be perfectly vetted by the public at large? Instead, what we have is a (photoshop) fake birth certificate, a fraudulent social security number, and college records that are locked up somewhere for no public scrutiny. There is a reason for this. He doesn't have the required qualifications. We, who respect the U.S. Constitution, all know it. Some don't care. Some are too ignorant to know it.
You see, there are no ifs, ands, or buts. It isn't vague. It isn't subject to interpretation. There is no doubt of the meaning of Article II.
You can find the historical information of this at this Blog And this page And this page
The discussion at the blog cited above puts the definition into the context of the time and minds of the framers of the Constitution. The guiding thought of the day was from E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. This was the source for the Founders to use when writing Article II. There was no reason to further define "natural born citizen" beyond that, because everyone knew what that meant.
"The first thing that we have to understand about what Vattel wrote is that he made a distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” A citizen is simply a member of the civil society who is bound to the society by certain duties and subject to its authority. “Citizens” also participate equally in all the advantages the society has to offer. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” means much more than just “citizen.” Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural born citizen,” or what he called in French in his 1758 first edition of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, les naturels, ou indigenes (the “natives or indigines”-The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)), the child must be born in the country to both parents who are also citizens of the same country."
So maybe this is old hat by now to those who have been watching this issue. People have landed in three directions: #1. Don't care #2. He is legit. #3. The guy is a fraud, plain and simple. I am in the third camp.
Now back to Rubio. He was born in 1971 to parents who did not become U.S. citizens until 1975. That means he is not a "natural born citizen" as Article II requires.
Rubio's Not So Compelling Family History
What to do about all of this is the question. I have no answers except to say that I am really not happy that there are so many people in this country so quick and ready to just throw the United States Constitution into the trash bin of history. And that there are so many American people so ignorant of our Constitution that the politically ambitious are getting away with this travesty. Surely Marco Rubio knows very well he isn't eligible. But who will stand up to speak truth to power? Will Marco Rubio man up and own up?
So far no one has had the courage, or lived long enough, to nail Obama on his fraud. (Giving Sheriff Joe Arpaio for actually trying...and several others who have been on the case since day one, but never getting the job done.) Rubio has a test to take. Does he know Article II? And does he care?
What do you think?