The Marco Rubio Cube of Ambition, Principle, Politics, Duty, Constitution & Moral Relativism
Many decent Americans are beginning to find themselves facing something that if it happens must culminate with a vital but troubling individual action in 2012. One American in particular, who clearly loves his country, ought to be tied in knots inside by that something. That particular American is Senator Marco Rubio and that something is the possibility that he might be selected as the running mate for the Republican nominee for President of the United States.
Unless one has been living under a rock or getting their news only from the mainstream media, everyone should be aware of the problem Sen. Rubio, through no fault of his, has. Unfortunately, Sen. Rubio is probably not a Natural Born Citizen as is required by the Constitution to be President or Vice-President.
If I were Sen. Rubio, I would certainly be tied up inside. If he’s not, then that’s a problem. Had Sen. Rubio never gone to law school, never studied the Constitution, never served as an intern in Congress, or had never taken an Oath to support and defend the Constitution then maybe he could be excused if he’s not conflicted. However, he has done all of those things and should hold himself to a higher standard. So if he’s not conflicted, that speaks volumes about his ethics, morals, ambitions and respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law. Personally, I believe he is conflicted – but has managed to compartmentalize and assuage his doubts and concerns by craftily working the Rubio (Rubik) Cube to arrange and rationalize most of the parts of his world and outward appearances to suit him. I’m sure the power players will be telling him that everything looks fine; it’s no big deal.
However, one group of cubes that support Senator Rubio cannot be lined up so neatly is that of the millions of Americans who understand that the Constitution has a requirement that the President be a Natural Born Citizen and that there are legitimate questions and issues about what that means. They understand that the media and both Parties would be satisfied if the Natural Born Citizen requirement would just go away. It’s clear that the players are pulling out all the stops to equate ordinary citizenship to natural born citizenship without going through the Amendment process. However, most know that to be a natural born citizen requires that both of a candidates’ parents must have been American citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth in the U.S. But even if the good Senator can manage to make the outward appearance his world look acceptable he should be left with a hodgepodge of internal doubts, conflicts and betrayals lingering to tarnish his possible service. However, there is a solution to Senator Rubio’s cube.
Given that the term Natural Born Citizen was not defined in the Constitution and courts have recognized that jurists must look outside the document to gleam the meaning and intent, there exists legal arguments that can be made urging the Supreme Court to refine the common historical definition of who is a Natural Born Citizen to incorporate situations the Founders may not have considered and that would not undermine the Founders’ concern that the President must have his or her sole allegiance directed to the United States. Thus the Court would not be changing the definition but merely clarifying it. It wouldn’t help Gov. Jindal but might help Senator Rubio.
The situation is the special case of the United States’ involvement and responsibilities to the people of Cuba in the early 20th century.
Lame Cherry argues on her blog:
…Marco Rubio’s parents … Mario was born in 1927 and Oria born in 1931 were fully under the US protectorate status as much as Barack Hussein Obama sr. was under British Mandate status making him British.
This was further cemented in President Fulgencio Batista joining the allies in World War II in declaring war on Japan and Germany in December 1941 with Cubans fighting in concert with Americans in that global conflict.
The Rubios are not some post Castro globalists. The Rubios willingly came to America when afforded the opportunity…
Whether or not the Supreme Court would chose to interpret the term Natural Born Citizen to include the special situation of parents born under United States protection and clearly having no loyalty to the current dictatorship of Cuba is not the issue for Sen. Rubio. The real issue is will Sen. Rubio respect the concerns of millions of Americans who are concerned that the Constitution is being treated as an impediment to the ambitions of politicians? Will he seek a declaratory judgment from a federal court that indicates that Sen. Marco Rubio is indeed a Natural Born Citizen?
We understand that the Democratic candidate, Mr. Obama, will and has used every resource available to him remain in the Oval Office. He has been described as a moral relativist; and as such, can justify or rationalize just about anything he does. One could justify everything from drone attacks, targeted assassination, infidelity, hiding school records and even Larry Sinclair’s allegations.
We understand that about Obama; but we do not want our candidate to be one whose life is based on lies, deception, and rationalizations. We want someone we can be proud of. Sen. Rubio can be that person if he squares his shoulders and faces the problem and doesn’t rely on Obama’s groundwork of deception. He might just find a court in a mood to dispense justice and clearly define the term.
Not only does Sen. Rubio have this personal ethical problem to deal with, he is creating a serious ethical/moral conflict in each and every one who believes in their duty to honor the Constitution, especially when they go into the voting booth. And it is not fair for the Senator to put his problem upon each of us.
If he does, then each one of us will have to examine our own ethics (always advisable), look at the consequences of another Obama term to further degrade America, consider the consequences to the Constitution of another 4 years of constant undermining, consider the lessons we are teaching our children and then try to rationalize our way into pulling the voting lever. Many of us want to pull the lever for Senator Rubio but it would be nice not to need a shower afterwards.
Moral relativism is basically the idea that there’s no ‘real’ right and wrong; it’s culturally taught behavior; it’s situational ethics; it’s the context of ethical decisions; it’s outcome focused; it’s okay if I say it’s okay. It’s relative. It’s BS. If one knows something is wrong and they need to rationalize their action because they really want to do it, it degrades their principles and society in general. It’s the mores that give rise to unsustainable entitlements and dependency. It’s desensitization to ethical and unethical conduct. It’s the rioting mobs in Great Britain – it’s Donald Young’s murder – it’s the Jihad mentality and those obvious to it, and in the extreme it’s the fertile ground that gave rise to the holocaust and Rwanda. It leads to decay of both persons and societies.
Rationalization and consideration of the relative badness of outcomes may be necessary sometimes in situations such as war to protect others and their freedoms, in defense of one’s life, etc. but it should make one upset. It’s supposed to do that. Unfortunately, many today treat morality and ethics as a game – the ME game. It may be a game but it is not without real victims. Ask the spouse of an unfaithful partner or someone wrongfully imprisoned or the Chinese mother who finds out she’s pregnant with her second child.
Former Candidate Alan Keyes summed it up nicely in a recent article:
…I imagine such relativism works out pretty well for some folks. It always has. After all, moral relativism is simply the self-righteousness of the wicked masquerading as profound intellectual insight…
I don’t want to be forced to be working on ethics Rubik cube in the voting booth. I for one do not want to vote for someone who would intentionally cause me to have to rationalize my vote, twisting my principles upside down, compromising my ethics, undermining the Constitution, degrading my vote.
But given what’s at stake should Obama win – I probably will.
I will then take a shower and hope someone has the resources to file suit in an effort to defend the Constitution.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.