Marco Rubio downplays VP speculation

Marco Rubio may be the most talked about potential vice presidential candidate for the GOP ticket in 2012, but he’s playing coy about it.

“I have no interest in serving as vice president for anyone who could possibly live all eight years of the presidency,” Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida, said to laughter Tuesday night.

He made the remarks during a speech at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. Rubio aides characterized the California speech as the second in a series of three major addresses by Rubio this year.

Rubio, in his speech, praised what former President Ronald Reagan did when he was in office and said “if defining the proper role of government was one of the central issues of the Reagan era, it remains that now.” (OPINION: Who’s scared of Marco Rubio?)

“We have the opportunity — within our lifetime — to actually craft a proper role for government in our nation that will allow us to come closer than any Americans have ever come to our collective vision of a nation where both prosperity and compassion exist side-by-side,” he said.

  • Pingback: Marco Rubio Says He Has ‘No Interest In Serving As Vice President’ | Politicons

  • Anonymous

    Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution states: “No Person except a
    natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
    Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained
    to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
    United States.” The clause itself confirms that there is a different “legal
    status” between a “natural born Citizen” and the grandfathered status of
    “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
    Constitution”. If you are a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
    Adoption of the U.S. Constitution, please raise your hand. Otherwise, please
    note that the liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley was not called a “Birther”
    when he wrote the February 28, 2008 article, “Does John McCain Have an Alexander
    Hamilton Problem? A Constitutional Challenge May Loom Over McCain’s Eligibility
    for President.” In that article, Jonathan Turley stated as follows:

    “Ted Olson has reportedly been retained to deal with the question. It raises
    the specter of a repeat appearance by Olson in front of the Supreme Court on
    the next president. This redux of Bush v. Gore is almost too painful to
    imagine. Again, the Republican appointees would be asked to adopt an
    uncharacteristically liberal interpretation to benefit a Republican candidate
    for the White House. The problem is that any effort to determine this question
    before the general election would be viewed as speculative and a request for an
    advisory opinion, which is disallowed. We would have to wait for the conclusion
    of the general election to determine if McCain could be sworn into office or
    his vice president elevated to the presidency (and then select a new vice
    president). If you come to these things to watch the cars crash, that would be
    a true constitutional pile up.”

    • Russ311

      The focus of eligibility on McCain in hindsight appears to have been an intentionally orchestrated effort among the left and it’s MSM allies to divert and diminish any similar efforts to raise the question in advance about Obama.  It worked.

      • Anonymous

        The Constitution doesn’t define the term, “natural born
        Citizen”. There is substantial historical documentation that indicates that the
        Framers were concerned that a mere Citizen might not be loyal enough if they
        had a parent that was not a Citizen by birth. At the time of the adoption of
        the Constitution, the husband was the identity of the married couple. The man
        was the head of the family. It is obvious the Obama father was not an American.
        Was his father actually an anti-American? If the liberal constitutional scholar
        Jonathan Turley is only concerned with the place of birth as the only issue to
        be considered in trying to constitutionally define the meaning of the term, it
        raises the question as to whether Turley is an honest person. Those who use the term,
        “Birthers” (to describe individuals that believe that the constitutional
        definition of the term needs to consider all of the concerns of the Framers),
        are people who don’t value truth.
        Jonathan Turley’s article, “Does John McCain Have an Alexander Hamilton Problem? A
        Constitutional Challenge May Loom Over McCain’s Eligibility for President.” Excerpts from liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley follow:

        A strong argument can be made that the Framers considered natural born
        to refer to a birth on U.S. soil.

        However, absent a constitutional amendment, the question remains whether
        McCain can claim natural-born status.

        People like GOP Senator Lindsey Graham have rightfully noted how gross
        it would be to deny such eligibility to someone who was born while his parents
        were stationed abroad during service to the country. However, no one would
        debate the inequity but that is entirely irrelevant to the legal question of
        what constitutes a natural born citizen.

        The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution and
        appears to have been initially suggested by John Jay — who wrote a letter to
        George Washington on the requirement. In his letter, Jay wrote:

        Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a
        strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our
        national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the
        American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born

        • Russ311

          Excellent info.  On a personal note, my youngest boy and I have discussed the very point that Graham makes, since my son was born in a British hospital while my wife and I were both assigned there for U.S. service.  I have high hopes for my son’s ambitions and am personally interested that this question of eligibility get resolved.

          • Anonymous

            Lawrence B. Solum, Commentary, Originalism and the
            Natural Born Citizen Clause, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 22 (2008),
            http://www.michiganlawreview. org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.pdf

            Excerpt follows:

            Existing scholarship does not reveal extensive usage of
            the phrase “natural born citizen” in the founding era, but it was derived from
            the related phrase “natural born subject,” which had a technical meaning in
            English law and constitutional theory. Those learned in the law in the framing
            era would have been familiar with Blackstone’s Commentaries, which James
            Madison described (in the Virginia ratifying convention) as “a book which is in
            every man’s hand.” Blackstone wrote as follows:

            And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general
            principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot
            owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of
            the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for
            as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to
            the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by
            a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance,
            represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce,
            it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad,
            provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the
            king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might
            inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in
            behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are
            still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance,
            whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects
            themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their
            said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were
            then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

  • Just Wondering

    I like this guy.  He has got a lot of great ideas.  Did you ever hear him debate against another candidate?  Wow!

  • Don

    Regrettably, Rubio faces no Constitutional constraints against becoming Vice President.  Anyone born in the United States who is 35 years of age or older is eligible to become President or VP.
    PERIOD.  End of discussion.

    • Russ311

      You must be the only person to not realize the primary role of VP is to be in the wings ready to assume the presidency at a moments notice.  If the requirement of “natural born citizen” to become president is applicable on the presidential candidate it is equally applicable to the VP candidate.  It is called simple logic.  And that is why there are individuals in each party responsible for verification and certification of eligibility of both.  Originally, the two opponents for the presidency would both be winners for one of the two roles going to each, the second place contender becoming VP, point being that both of the presidential candidates would be expected to meet the constitutional requirement.  The end of that process of choosing the VP in favor of a party convention selection of a VP candidate did not end the same constitutional eligibility expectation. 

      PERIOD.  End of discussion.

  • Patrick Henry

    Rubio is young, uber intelligent, good looking, charismatic, articulate and would bring the Hispanic vote with him. He knows he will be on everyones and I do mean EVERYONES short list for V.P. so he’s just biding his time until he gets a call. Smart move at this point, keep the MSM glare off until he is ready.

  • enchanted

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Even though born in Miami his parents were Cuban citizens. If you think Barry is going to let that fly you are mistaken AND regardless Republicans can’t call foul that Barry disregarded the Constitution and then have Rubio run.

    • mj

      You then misunderstand the 14th ammendment.  With Obama it is a question of his birth certificate. Rubio was born in the United States. Naturally. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
      the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
      wherein they reside.”
      — Amendment XIV, Section 1

      • Russ311

        And you merely wish to ignore the question of “natural born citizen” being a different category than mere “citizen.”  The 14th Amendment has nothing at all to do with your apparent presumption of its abrogating the “natural born citizen” requirement of eligibility for president. 

        The question of Obama’s original birth certificate was about whether one actually exists to prove he was born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. and whether the entry of Father was blank or if it did indeed identify his father as being a non-American from Kenya, who was never a naturalized citizen of the U.S. at the time of Barry’s birth, and thereby making Barry ineligible to be president because of the question whether or not both parents being U.S. citizens is also a correctly understood requirement.

  • http://www.colony14.net Colony14

    Once again… Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Having been born in Florida, Rubio is a native born citizen. A natural born citizen requires birth on U.S. soil AND two U.S. citizen parents. Rubio’s parents were still Cuban citizens at the time of his birth.

    In 1866, Congressman John A. Bingham, the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated, “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” 

    In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens”

    I admire and respect Rubio, but he cannot legally serve as vice president or as president. That Obama is illegally serving (his father was of course not a U.S. citizen and had no intention of ever becoming one) does mean we should repeat the violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    I suggest we remove Obama from office, deport him to Indonesia (where he remains a citizen), and then – if people insists on having Rubio serve – legally amend the Constitution.  If not, drop Rubio’s name from the GOP’s VP list. All of us who have fought against Obama since day one will be fighting against Rubio and filing lawsuits – even if we agree with his political ideology.

    Read The Obama Timeline for the facts. Don’t follow MSNBC.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think Rubio wants to join the executive branch at all.  He’s been a legislator his entire life, I feel like he’ll probably end up spending his whole career there.

    Running for president (or even Vice President) is a risky proposition for Rubio personally.  If he loses his career is set way back.  There is a large opportunity cost for that kind of effort.