Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Were Bobby Jindal’s parents born in the U.S.?
Don’t know, but if he were to run for POTUS, I’d find out real quick. Again, all my posts were rhetorical for my specific points.
Andrew Jackson was the son of two parents who were not born on U.S. soil. Five other presidents (Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover) each had one parent not born on U.S. soil. Obama would be the sixth president to have one parent not born on U.S. soil.
This natural born = both parents born on U.S. soil argument is completely bogus and fabricated and exists nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.
(The post above was posted by Drew68: Is this accurate, and besides your statement about Arthur, and I believe someone else posted that Wilson’s mother was English, that would make at least 2 presidents who got passed the Natural Born clause. Are the others that Drew68 posted also correct examples)?
BUMP
Maybe posted elsewhere, but World Net Daily has posted a petition and is taking orders for letters to SCOTUS to consider hearing case till 12:00 Eastern Time.
Perhaps someone should approach Rush’s program today with the fact that if Jindal’s parents are not born in the U.S. then Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen so therefore he would not qualify for Potus. This is one way to talk about and introduce the issue of Natural Born. The Democrats would make sure that this Natural Born clause would disqualify Jindal.
However it would be required that Obama be born to Stanley Dunham (his mother) on U.S. soil as his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was not old enough to automatically convey “natural born” status upon her son; if he were in fact born in a foreign nation.
Please get at least the basics correct or someone might think you have no idea what you are posting about.
Thanks, LucyT
Save the Constitution Ping.
As is required with almost all media reports, one has to read between the lines. In this article, there is actually some very significant information. In effect, the constitutional expert, who just happened to clerk for a very liberal judge on the 9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (most liberal district) and then at the USSC for RUTH BADER GINSBERG (most liberal Justice) before becoming a professor at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (most liberal law school, which is really saying something) saying that:
1. Thomas' actions were "once in a decade";
2. Inconsistent with Court custom since they usually don't question another Justice's denial out of their own circuit; and
3. Only cases that were of an "extraordinary nature got this type of treatment.
He then asserts this weird analysis about Thomas accepting the case so it could be killed before the entire conference?!? Huh? Why not just deny it and be done with it. There is no reason to kill it in conference... this guy is really grasping at straws to explain the Court's behavior. But, on the other hand, if one DID see this as "a case of extraordinary nature", then these actions would be understandable. But that would mean that AFRO magazine would have to acknowledge that this isn't as screwball as the media wants us to believe.
This is a good sign, IMO.
It's not their birth but their citizenship that is important here.
That would apply to my son. He is 'native born' because he was born in the US, but not "natural born" because his dad is Canadian. He is not eligible for President. I am "natural born" citizen because both of my parents were born on American soil, as was I.
Maybe I'll run next time. :-)
Here is the low down on Chester Arthur:
The Naturalization Act, passed by Congress on June 18, 1798, increased the amount of time necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from five to fourteen years.
Although it was passed under the guide of protecting national security, most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of voters who disagreed with the Federalist political party.
At the time, most immigrants (namely Irish and French) supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists. This act was repealed in 1802.
THE ACT OF 1798 WAS REPEALED IN 1802.
HE MARRIED A US CITIZEN IN 1821 AND WAS A US CITIZEN BY THE TIME CHESTER WAS BORN IN 1829.
A President’s parents do not have to be ‘natural born’ citizens. They just have to be US citizens before the child is born. Meaning they renounced any allegiance to a foreign nation BEFORE the child was born.
If two Germans came here, went through naturalization, and had a child born in California, that child could serve as President.
If the parents were here on vacation and were still loyal to Germany, the child could only be considered a US citizen by birth.
This means they could hold a position in the Senate or House (only required to be a citizen) but they could not serve as President.
This is correct.
He is a ‘citizen’ by virtue of being born in the United States but he is not a natural born citizen because his parents had loyalty to another nation upon his birth.
It doesn’t matter if his parents were born in the United States.
If they were US citizens (via naturalization) and he was born on US soil, he could serve as President.
The parents do not have to be natural born citizens. They just have to be US citizens. This means they have denounced allegiance to another nation and there would be no other nation that could claim jurisdiction over them at the time of their child’s birth.
The Constitution does not define "natural born". The Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
SO, there IS a difference between "Citizenship by Statute" and "Natural Born Citizen"...
And the Constitution specifically and explicitly prohibits "ex post facto" in the 9th Amendment ("No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.")
Hmmmm.....
Thanks for the excellent history lesson and documentation.
I notice than none of Move One bsers have challenged your reply. They are waiting for Zer0’s lawyers to come up with some lawyerese bs.
Okay, now it’s gettin’ interesting again. :’) Thanks LucyT.
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.