Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Exactly right': Jindal backs Trump over travel ban
Washington Examiner ^ | 1/29/17 | Al Weaver

Posted on 01/29/2017 6:18:55 PM PST by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: mumblypeg

`I did not adress YOU about race`

No, but I was included in your accusation as your comment was directed at all who criticised Jindal on this thread. I have a right to set the record straight in such cases.

`All of the vitriol directed at Bobby Jindal . . . has been blatantly racist`.

Having said that, I`m glad you`re bored with me. Since you`re bored with me, I will hopefully not be getting any more messages from you on this topic.


61 posted on 01/30/2017 9:53:07 PM PST by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg

You and the rest of the quislings that seek to legitimize Obama and his usurpations are the traitors.


62 posted on 01/31/2017 12:59:21 AM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg
"For you to suggest that Mr. Jindal should be targeted for violence—in this climate and context, when there are unhinged lunatics eager to do exactly that, to hurt any or all of us (you, me, Republicans, Trump) is SO appalling I can’t even wrap my head around it."

Advocating for the death penalty for those legally convicted of the crime of treason is hardly a leftist position. I would suggest the exact opposite. In fact, the language you have used in this context is exactly the tactic of the far left to silence their opposition. The proof of which is the fact that your hysterical verbal tantrum to the moderators had my reply removed. Alinsky would be proud of you.

63 posted on 01/31/2017 1:11:57 AM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

You are insisting that a person born here and having even one LEGAL immigrant parent, is automatically ineligible for the office; you further insist that a CITIZEN with a legal immigrant parent running for POTUS automatically is guilty of treason by virtue of that fact alone.
That is simply wrong.
The precedent is Charles Francis Adams, Sr, son of John Quincy Adams and Louisa Adams; and grandson of founding father John Adams !

C.F Adams ran for Vice President on Van Buren’s ticket. He had to be eligible for POTUS should Van Buren die. Charles’ mother Louisa Adams was born in England and raised in France.
IDK if she was ever “naturalized” ceremonially as we do today; she became a full citizen by marriage to J.Q. Adams.
The ticket lost. But the go-to precedent relating to the constitutional wording stands. You, OTOH, would have had him shot for having suspect parentage!

Furthermore, YOUR hysterical tantrums conflating treason with having a LEGAL immigrant parent would apply to 4 of Trump’s children IF you were correct in your interpretation. But you are not. See precedent above. But I hear, loud and clear, what you are suggesting, and the whole point, here, is that the left would love an excuse to act on it.

Furthermore, nowhere have I defended Obama, and I am utterly mystified as to what basis you suddenly conflate defense of former Governor Jindal with defense of Obama.
I can only guess you base your vitriol on Jindal’s slight physical similarities to Obama -—he is, after all, skinny, has big ears and brown skin—so he’s pretty much the same guy, huh?
So in your mind, anyone who defends Jindal’s character and RECORD as an American citizen, 2 term congressman, 2 term Governor who was SUED by, and COUNTERSUED Obama over issues involving EPA, PP, etc——i must be defending Obama’s character and record, too, huh?
What a joke.
The bottom line, here, is that YOU are the one who is attacking, sowing divisions, and advocating violence against people who are ON OUR SIDE.


64 posted on 01/31/2017 11:34:23 AM PST by mumblypeg (Make America Macho Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. - Thomas Jefferson

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

65 posted on 01/31/2017 4:18:58 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Really foolish reply.

One for the record book.

Ted Cruz was not naturalized; he was born a US citizen.

This fact was a finding by a court comprised of judges that had lived through the revolution.

And you think that they didn’t know what they were talking about.

That is some really hard headed ignorance.
.


66 posted on 01/31/2017 4:24:53 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Born in the country to Citizen parents. Anything less than that is NOT a natural born Citizen.
67 posted on 01/31/2017 4:30:05 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen” as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it, are the “supreme law of the land.” And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.


68 posted on 01/31/2017 4:32:58 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

.
That’snot even close to what the court said.

Born anywhere to a citizen father was the case that court decided.

I guarantee you that a current court would see the exact thing for the mother too.

Keep on thrashing, you’re amusing anyway.
.


69 posted on 01/31/2017 5:04:03 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
70 posted on 01/31/2017 5:13:09 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

.
Minor didn’t decide natural born; that question was not before the court, thus could not have been litigated.

SCOTUS has only appellate jurisdicrion.

Anyway it had already been decided long before.


71 posted on 01/31/2017 5:23:35 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

Checkmate.

72 posted on 01/31/2017 5:27:46 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

.
Nice try, but no, they did not define it.

They accepted their citizenship as effective upon her birth, but natural born citizenship was not before the court. It had already been decided.

Dicta can often be useful to influence a court, but it is not binding on anything.
.
.


73 posted on 01/31/2017 5:37:33 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Dictum vs. Holding

In recent decades, many courts have shifted toward treating dicta like binding law. This raises the question of the difference between a dictum and a holding. The most basic distinction between the two concepts is that courts are bound to follow the holding of a previous, higher court’s decision. They are not, however, bound by a court’s dicta.

A holding expresses the reasoning necessary to reach the decision. Some legal scholars consider a holding to be a prediction of what courts will do in the future. This is oftentimes self-fulfilling, as the court’s own ruling sets the actions of future courts by creating binding precedent.

If you want to debate legalities with me I shouldn't have to instruct you in basic law.

74 posted on 01/31/2017 5:39:37 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

You sound very confused.


75 posted on 01/31/2017 5:43:10 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I’ll take that as an admission of defeat.


76 posted on 01/31/2017 5:46:45 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

“Advocating for the death penalty for those legally convicted of the crime of treason is hardly a leftist position. I would suggest the exact opposite.”

Ummm, Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Ho Chi Minh. Kim. The wannabes in today’s America: BLM, RCP, the Gaystapo. Lots of firing squads on the left.
The “treasonous” (Enemies of the state) being defined as EVERYbody charged by a kangaroo court with pissing off the jackbooted tyrant in charge and his tiny cadre of close friends, who sleep with one eye open.
You want to be in that number?

But the issue here is NOT whether or not anyone should ever face the death penalty for treason. I never said no one ever should be charged. (Bradley Manning. Bowe Berghdahl.)
The issue is that YOU have incorrectly defined TREASON vis a vis POTUS candidates, based on a hard-line interpretation of citizenship in the constitution which does not even pertain directly to the candidate himself, but to the PARENTS of the candidate.
It says “of citizen parents” but does NOT say both PARENTS must also be “born on American soil.”
Your interpretation re: citizenship status has already been overruled by precedent, but moreover, and HERE IS THE CRUX, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that having naturalized citizens as parents in and of itself constitutes grounds for TREASON. You gotta do a lot more than running for POTUS while having the wrong parents to be guilty of treason.

I am 100% certain that the majority of the American people will agree with me when I say, we will not be ruled by jackbooted thugs, regardless which side of the political spectrum they represent.
People who salivate over the idea of firing squads on the slightest pretext-—especially firing squads turned at PEOPLE WHO ARE ON OUR SIDE-—are truly the enemy within.

As I have already pointed out, your fanatical definition of treason
would, if it were correct—which it’s not— apply to 4 of the 5 Trump children, should any decide in future to run.

Yet somehow, in bizarro world where you live, wanting to protect patriots like Jindal and Trump and his family from jackboots like you and your twins on the left, constitutes “Alinsky tactics” and “treason.”
Smh.


77 posted on 01/31/2017 5:56:02 PM PST by mumblypeg (Make America Macho Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg
"As I have already pointed out, your fanatical definition of treason would, if it were correct—which it’s not— apply to 4 of the 5 Trump children, should any decide in future to run."

You are correct. Only Tiffany Trump is a natural born Citizen.

Any attempt to usurp the presidency is treason against the United States and it's people.

78 posted on 01/31/2017 6:31:05 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg
"HERE IS THE CRUX, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that having naturalized citizens as parents in and of itself constitutes grounds for TREASON. "

You are confused. Neither of Piyush "Bobby" Jindal's parents were naturalized U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth. Both of his parents were foreign nationals of India at the time of birth. A natural born Citizen is born in the country to Citizen parents.

BTW.... The same is true for Marco Rubio, both of his parents were Cuban foreign nationals at the time of his birth; and Nimrata "Nikki" Haley, Indian foreign national parents.

79 posted on 01/31/2017 7:20:55 PM PST by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

I am correct, but again, you are NOT correct in your definition of “natural born citizen.” It does NOT require two parents born on US soil.
The definition has been debated repeatedly and in fact expands to even include American children NOT born on American soil in some circumstances, provided one or both parents are themselves American citizens and subject to American jurisdiction.
But in every instance, when the candidate himself was born on American soil, that person is a “natural born citizen” irrespective of birthplace of his parents.
Furthermore, I erred in stating one set precedent in Adams; in fact there have been SIX PRESIDENTS who were natural born citizens, themselves born on American soil, but WITH A PARENT WHO WAS AN IMMIGRANT.
Look them up, pal.

The cases you cite in fact contradict your assertions; case law experts on the subject of “natural born citizens” actually cite those same examples to conclude the opposite of your assertions!
You are trying to present yourself as some kind of legal scholar when you clearly do not even comprehend what you are reading.

And once again, fool, a POTUS candidate’s having an immigrant parent does NOT constitute grounds for a charge of treason.
For you to continue making such assertions, however, certainly raises questions about you.

Now I am tired of repeating myself. Done.


80 posted on 01/31/2017 8:24:20 PM PST by mumblypeg (Make America Macho Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson