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.
Not once their draft number comes up. If they are residing in the USA when that happens, they have to muster like any other citizen, and failing to show up would land them in jail.
Of course, they could leave the country and give up their visa before their number came up, in which case, they would no longer be under US political jurisdiction. But that doesn't change the fact that all resident aliens are under US political jurisdiction so long as they remain on US soil.
Don't let my reply to the contrary slow you down, you're on a roll.
Throughout the early and mid 30's, SCOTUS continued to strike down (correctly, in my view) New Deal programs on the grounds that they did not fall under any of Congress's enumerated powers. This made the court very unpopular, since FDR's New Deal had a lot of strong political support. FDR threatened to pack the court with justices ideologically supportive of the New Deal.
The court got scared that court packing would threaten the independence of the judiciary, so they relented and agreed to uphold some of FDR's socialist schemes. To justify it, they had to twist the meaning of the commerce clause, and it is thanks to that our government gradually became the Leviathan of today.
I knew all that crap, but you did NOT mentioned the age limit, YOU just took it for granted that it includes ALL Resident Aliens until challenged!!!
That's the reason you are among the prime candidates to receive the honor of the FReeper's "Cod-fish" awards, but it's not equal to the Heisman trophy like O.J. got, LOL???
You offered no proof.
I knew all that crap, but you did NOT mentioned the age limit, YOU just took it for granted that it includes ALL Resident Aliens until challenged!!!
That's the reason you are among the prime candidates to receive the honor of the FReeper's "Cod-fish" awards, but it's not equal to the Heisman trophy like O.J. got, LOL???
Sorry. if posted twice!!!
You’re welcome to go dredging through the hundreds of five thousand or more reply threads to find when I first began posting on the eligibility issue. I can assure you I was prompted to do so because of the aforementioned faux-”expert” making ludicrous claims about graphic file formats, and claiming to have a masters degree in typewriters. That would place it around June of 2008 I believe, so at least it’s narrowed down a little.
Have at it.
“The court got scared that court packing would threaten the independence of the judiciary, so they relented and agreed to uphold some of FDR’s socialist schemes.”
They shouldn’t have been so scared, as no matter how popular FDR was nor how effective was his propaganda, he could convince neither Congress nor the public that the best way to deal with the cloistered old men in robes holding back the Future was to water them down. The court-packing scheme was destined to fail. In fact, was failing. FDR bit off more than he could chew, which we tend to forget, since we give him the roundabout victory.
SCOTUS, I think, knew this, yet simply tired of being unpopular. Which I’da thunk was one of the reasons we have (or had) an independent judiciary.
I did not mention the age limit because because I thought it was common knowledge.
Besides, how is the age limit relevant to our discussion? It is, after all, exactly the same for both alien residents and citizens.
“Actually, thats 1789”
You are correct.
I'm not so sure. What if the court continued to strike down popular programs over the course of the next 2-3 years? A a scenario in which the public and Congress becomes sympathetic to FDR's court-packing plot is not beyond the range of the plausible in my mind.
Unfortunately, unless one day someone figures out how to create and alternative universe in which the court held its ground, it's one of those things we'll never know.
“You do understand that Obama didnt produce a birth certificate until after Hillary conceded the nomination?? Most people werent too focused on him or his eligibility until it became clear he was hiding something.”
Oh PULEEEZE... it has nothing to do with hiding things - obama was open that his father was Kenyan, he wrote a book on it! we have people here claiming that if you have a foreign father, you are not a natural-born citizen NO MATTER WHERE YOU WERE BORN. Obama was a well-known Presidential candidate in 2007, and it was well-known that his father was Kenyan. DID ANYONE IN 2007 CLAIM OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN?
That's a crock. The 1898 Supreme Court concluded Won Ark was only "a citizen," and the 1939 Supreme Court conclude Elg was a "natural born citizen."
The Supreme Court did not willy-nilly make these two different holdings. SCOTUS didn't by accident leave out the adjective words "natural born" in describing Ark as 'a citizen'. There is a difference in the two cases and why they made two different conclusions for these two appellees.
“I doubt most laypersons and politicians were aware of the true definition of natural born citizen. “
Even today, birthers are unaware of the true definition of natural born citizen.
Once you do the research though, it’s obvious Obama does fit the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC.
Citizen at birth = natural-born citizen.
“Second, there were Democrat politicians who deliberately made an effort to endorse McCain’s eligibility on the basis of place of birth, glossing past the acknowledgment that he was born of citizen parents. It was a great way to deflect any attention on Obama to the unresolved place of birth issue, rather than his parentage.”
Please, take your meds. That’s beyond looney on so many levels its self-satire.
“If I mocked you, it was because he was irrelevant.”
Yes, their modus operandi is to quote great legal scholars, the constitution, historians, etc. in ways that do not support in any way what they claim, but take it out of context enough to attempt some connection.
The sources aren’t mocked, but their methods should be. The fallacy engaged in is the fallacy of authority, misused and mis-quoted.
“When you dont have facts or logic, repeated assertion will do the trick.”
A runner up birther technique is the ad hominem. Anyone who disagrees with their mis-representation of the constitution and our laws is an ‘obot’. Ad hominem = Lame!
Correct
Red Steel: "That's a crock. The 1898 Supreme Court concluded Won Ark was only "a citizen," "
Not correct, SCOTUS never used the word "only". There is nothing in WKA that said directly that WKA was not natural-born citizen. On the contrary, Elg and other subsequent rulings make it obvious that today's SCOTUS would declare someone with birthright citizenship under the 14thA to be a natural-born citizen.
At best, Dred Scott v Sanford SCOTUS decision could have ruled that owning slaves was unconstitutional. Former US slaves were not citizens. The United States had at least 4 million former slaves as a result of the civil war and Lincoln's executive order "Emancipation Proclamation" during the war. Former American slaves were to be naturalized by the 14th Amendment, an Act, to make them into citizens - and not natural born citizens.
Hey, I can spout nonsense too!
Your a world class leader in nonsense too.
“Thus, to say soil babies and NBCs are equal without both being able to be president is meaningless.”
Tortured. Equal citizens. NOT equally Natural Born Citizens.
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.