Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
“So after almost 450 posts, is there are consensus of whether he qualifies or not?”
No.
It’s obvious that Jindal is not qualified to be president. He was not a Natural Born Citizen at birth. His parents were not legal citizens yet when he was born 3 months after they arrived and they didn’t meet the residency requirements yet as immigrants. Jindal is a citizen by statute and not a natural born citizen as required in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution.
“Jindal is a citizen by statute and not a natural born citizen as required in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution.”
What statute is that? The 14th amendment? And how is that part of the Constitution any less of a statute than Article 2, Section 1.
Sorry, I meant how is it any more of a statute.
“The founders dissolved ALL political bands.”
It occurs to me that there might be some confusion going around, and I don’t know if it’s intentional obfuscation, but I’d like to clear something up. The notion that English common law impacted American law after the revolution is not to say we continued under the British jurisdiction in any manner. No, it’s only to acknowledge the huge debt owed. Its coninued consequences on the development of American common law, the inspiration to be found in it for the revolution (many aspects of which are easily distinguishable in the Declaration of Independence) and post-revolutionary constitutional law (especially the Bill of Rights), and more.
By acknowledging the debt we do not intend to say every part of the tradition is at all times present at every level of American government to this day. However, we do reserve a bias in its favor for existing in some form, for obvious reasons. Centuries of tradition do not disappear, even in the 200 years we’ve been an independent nation.
As for the “law of nations,” it’s true that they actually still exist—now known as “international law”—in an enforceable form, unlike English law. However, it only covers the relations between nations, and then mostly by treaty. It has no say over domestic issues. Or, rather, no say but what we give it.
Much like English law, in that sense. Except, of course—and I’m not telling tales out of school—we know English law has the advantage. After all, how many countries abide by the law of the seas? How many recognize international law? Almost all of them. How many of them have the unique common law/parliamentery-congressional/constitutional system shared by the British and U.S.? A lot of them, now. But not back when. They converted by our example.
We don’t have courts very often checking international law to guide their decisions. We check Blackstone. We follow the basic outlines of their tort law, property law, contract law, labor law, family law, constitutional law. You can’t find that in the laws of nations, and you can’t find it in all those Frenchified countries.
But they were not citizens when Jindal was born. They were Indian citizens and, according to India Citizenship Act of 1955, Jindal was also a citizen of India by birth.
Are Arnold S. and Maria’s children eligible to be president?
Are Arnold S. and Maria’s children eligible to be president?
I didn’t realize his parents were still citizens of India. However, if your parents naturalized before your birth, I think you would be NBC.
If you believe that natural born citizenship status requires both parents also to be citizens then yes, the child of naturalized citizens born in the U.S. would be a natural born citizen under that definition.
That’s true but since Jindals parents weren’t naturalized yet when he was born that disqualified him from becoming a natural born citizen.
He became a citizen in 1983 and married Maria in 1986, so when his children were born, both of their parents were US citizens. So yes, his children, God help us, are eligible to be president.
Your point is nonsense. Like I posted, make your case in court. It won't fly. A legal scholarship is not required when a good nose can smell what you are preaching.
I rest my case.
If you read the question you will see that it was about his birth only.
Like I told your friend WOSG, make this stupid argument in court. Please.
Plus he would have been a dual citizen of the U.S. and India.
It’s funny how the terms of natural born citizen keep changing. First, it was if you were born in the U.S. or its territories. Then, it had to be if the parents were also citizens. Now, if the parents were immigrants, they had to be naturalized citizens at the time of the person’s birth. The rules keep changing. If that is the case, then why do we need BOs birth certificate? We know his dad was Kenyan and remained in Kenya, so what does it matter which form of BC Obama produces?
Boxist.
1. The courts will not rule on NBC because its only required of the President and the Constitution only allows it to be contested in the Electoral College and in Congress. This is why all of the court cases against Zero have been thrown out under the grounds “Plaintiff has no standing.”
2. The following posts provide, in detail, why he is not eligible:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2619619/posts#9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=362#362
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=435#435
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.