Is Bobby Jindal Eligible To Become President If He Was Born Before Parents Were Naturalized?

[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.

[WOSG]

“A Natural Born Citizen in born of Citizen Parents.”

That’s not correct.
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” That definition does not require citizens to be parents. ‘natural-born citizen’ means you are born into your status as citizen.

Again ... “The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”

[WOSG]

The common understanding and meaning of natural-born citizen and the law dictionaries are consistent on the definition with what was understood in the time of John Jay.

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
- James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
- St. George Tucker,1803, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Jay’s friend and founding father Madison put it this way:
“James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

David Shephard Garland et al, THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW, 2d Ed. Vol. 6 (1898)
[Citizenship Chapter - How Citizenship Acquired] [17]
“2. By Birth in Jurisdiction. — Natural citizenship is created by birth within the jurisdiction of the United States.1 To be a citizen of the United States [18] by reason of birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but must also be born subject to its jurisdiction; that is, in its power and obedience.”

Finally, the meaning is derived from Blackstone:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,”

you can trace a direct line from Blackstone through the 14th amendment - ‘born within the dominions’ was changed to ‘under the jurisdiction’ and you have your birthright citizenship clause.

[patlin]

Blackstone’s Commentaries...

What part of “Gray used English jurisprudence” to make his opinion do you not understand?

Black defines “natural born” as “In English law”

again, you are citing English law, not American law

(1708) naturalized foreign born protestants of natural-born subjects by providing they shall be “deemed” natural born subjects, 4 George II Cap XXI (1731) repeats the Act of 1708 In 7 Anne; and again in 13 George III Cap 21 (1773) repeats the same naturalization act. All of these statutes of naturalization demonstrated that the citizen by birth was the genuine “natural born citizen.”

again, British law and also it would be nice if you showed us a dictionary or law book that states naturalization is an act of nature.

In Dicey’s Conflicts of Law (1896)

Again, Dicey was a Brit: Albert Venn Dicey (4 February 1835 – 7 April 1922) was a British jurist

What an IGNORANT HYPOCRIT you truly are! You blast me for studying English history & citing from English scholars & English history taught in England, then you quote from English jurisprudence. Yes, stymies the mind it does.

[curiosity]

BUT JINDAL CAN BE VICE PRESIDENT RIGHT?

The eligibility requirements for vice president are the same as for president.

[Red Steel]

Cut and paste...we can cut and paste all day Obot.

Justice Gray wrongly decided the case when he went into judicial activism mode when the court distance themselves and refused to take into account the words of Congress who penned the 14th Amendment and cited all your jus soli king allegiance nonsense.

Justice Gray in WKA -

“Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

Gray didn't give a hoot behind the meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment that all the state legislatures and Congress agreed about it.

BUT Justice Gray, unlike you, and your Obot palace guard silliness in an attempt to protect Obama, Gray did NOT even try to claim that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. Your cut and pasting of feudal law of being born anywhere in the "Kingdom" that NBS = NBC went away 234 years ago when the Kingdom was renounced as persona non grata by the United States.

So go find yourself a H.G. Wells time machine so you can perform prostration in front of King George.

[patlin]

Let's clarify something. You said you cited Congress, but that is not exactly true. You cited an opinion essay written by a hand picked judge by a Democrat that wanted to keep George Romney off the ballot. Rep. Dowdy of TX:

Yes the work cites WKA, but from WKA, the judge 1st cites the US definition familiar to the founders found in Minor v Happersett which states:

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.

[Plummz]

If there was no difference between "born citizen" and "natural born citizen," John Jay would not have suggested the text be changed. There is obviously a difference. The natural difference is found in natural law.

The quote you attribute to James Madison is from a man named Zephaniah Swift. Please stop lying.

[patlin]

From the same book, pg 166-67 http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=Albert+Orville+Wright,+AN+EXPOSITION+ON+THE+CONSTITUTION+OF+THE+UNITED+STATES&ei=AJDlTIn6DIOjnQflh-SGDQ&ct=book-preview-link&pg=PA167&id=P1wUAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I. Citizenship. — The President must be a naturalborn citizen of the United States. The President must be a citizen by inheritance, not by adoption. He cannot be a naturalized citizen; but it is possible that a person born out of the United States might be President. The child of American parents born in foreign lands, would be a natural-born American citizen, but not a nativeborn citizen

That kinda refutes you native - natural now doesn't it. Natural pertains to parentage & native pertains to soil and if memory recollects properly, A2S1 states:

No person except a natural-born citizen

thus confirming that parentage is the key, not soil. Don't feel bad though, you did earn a merit badge to wear from this little lesson...

[patlin]

But let's not let WOSG get away with posting some obscure snippet pertaining to Indians, what did Wright really say A@ qualifications were on page 87 of that great treatise WOSG so proudly quotes from:

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=Albert+Orville+Wright,+AN+EXPOSITION+ON+THE+CONSTITUTION+OF+THE+UNITED+STATES&ei=AJDlTIn6DIOjnQflh-SGDQ&ct=book-preview-link&pg=PA166&id=P1wUAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Lower55]

““A Natural Born Citizen is born of Citizen Parents.”

“That’s not correct.”

Well that’s all I need to know about you. What is born of citizen parents??

You claim illegal alien parents make a Natural Born Citizen? I say no way in hell. We’ll just have to disagree.

[patlin]

EMBARRASSED YET?

[edge919]

That’s not the point ... THE POINT IS THAT FULLER RECOGNIZED THAT WONG KIM ARK COURT MAJORITY RULING WOULD NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT WONG KIM ARK WAS A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.

People can imply a lot of things; it doesn't make anything so. This part of the argument was not dissent from the majority opinion.

The court majority never said it explicitly, but Fuller did, and also later court rulings subsequent to Wong Kim Ark have made that explicit connection.

The first part of your statement agrees with what I've been saying and it simply points out the error made by any court that would make the conclusion you want to make, such as in the two cases you cited.

In Liacakos v. Kennedy, the defendendant argued that the plaintiff was not born in the United States. The plaintiff declared himself to be a natural-born citizen and the defendant evidently did not challenge on the basis of parentage. I've found nothing in the decision showing whether this court reviewed or established a definition for natural-born citizenship. It certainly doesn't appear to be citing WKA.

I haven't found the full decision on Nyman v. Erickson. Nothing you post supports your claim that the decision was made on the basis of WKA or its dissent. I've never argued that a court can misunderstand the term natural born citizen. Ankeny proved that already.

[STARWISE]

BUMP!

[patlin]

I think we've effectively shut them down for the time being. That is until they come up with a way to dispute their own opinions & evidence as Gray did to his holding in Elk by issuing that erroneous ruling in WKA

[STARWISE]

And in NONE of the cites is the subject individual
a candidate for/or IS the POTUS. As we all know,
there has never been such an adjudication for POTUS
in our history.

The truth will come out .. it always does.
I pray it’s soon.

FYI reminder —

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010.

To read the Petition see this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/atty-apuzzo-cdr-kerchner-will-be-on.html

[editor-surveyor]

You’re completely transparent.

Your misuse of irrelevant court utterances is deliberate, and treasonous.

[patlin]

I have to set the record straight. I had not as of yet read this particular treatise and so I must THANK YOU for bringing to us the one piece of clear cut evidence that totally refutes your case & supports ours. It has been faxed to Puzo1.

Again, THANK YOU WOSG. We can't express our appreciation loudly enough for your cooperation in our efforts to remove the usurper.

[edge919]

And in NONE of the cites is the subject individual a candidate for/or IS the POTUS. As we all know, there has never been such an adjudication for POTUS in our history.

It doesn't actually matter. The definition of NBC used by Justice Waite in Minor was a specific explanation of the language in Art II Sec I. That definition therefore applies to the Constitutional requirements for POTUS: born in the country to parents who are citizens.

[STARWISE]

Okay. My belief is still that, were any of them for
POTUS or a POTUS candidate, the proceedings likely
would have proceeded in a much different manner, since
it’s such a uniquely organic Constitutional intent issue
so directly from the Founders.

[convertedtoreason]

Whatever!

Jindal is More American and More Eligible and Loves America as much as we do. He’s more presidentiable than Jimmy Carter and Obama!