Posted on 07/30/2010 2:16:08 AM PDT by Scanian
You are correct. And this is why birthers will continue to fail in their efforts to remove Obama, succeeding only at muddying and obfuscating the conservative message at a time when conservatives need to be clear and focused.
Exactly!
I was recently at the steps of the Supreme Court while visiting DC recently, and noticed a teacher speaking outside to her elementary school class about SCOTUS. I sat next to the group, and watched and listened in amazement while she rambled and spewed this kind of PC crap to her elementary school class. 15 solid minutes of "first woman this, first black that, first hispanic something else, blah, blah blah." She even asked if any of the students knew how many "gay" justices were on the court! Not a peep about anything of substance.
You'd think SCOTUS was some kind of social engineering program or something.
When you see this kind of BS being force-fed to our kids, you can't help but think, "this country is SO SCREWED."
No he is not. Jindal is not a natural born citizen and is therefore not eligible to be POTUS. Being born in the US does not make you a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen inherits their citizenship from nature. Nature means that they inherit it from their parents as a natural heir through a process of nature. One who is only born in the country without having inherited their citizenship from their parents does not inherit their citizenship by nature, they inherit it by law stating that people born in a territory are citizens. That citizens naturally pass on citizenship to their children is is a principle of Natural Law. The founders used the phrasing NBC for a reason, and it was to prevent people like Jindal and Obama from being President.
In order to be natural born you CANNOT be a first generation US citizen which Jindal is since his parents weren't US Citizens at the time of his birth. You have to be born to parents who are already US citizens at the time of your birth in order to be natural born. This is a mechanism to keep foreign interests and influences from controlling the government.
Anybody know if the SEIU thugs that beat up his aides in New Orleans were ever caught?
The 14th amendment does not override Article II of the US Constitution which specifically chooses to make a distinction of what kind of citizen is eligible to president. The 14th amendment does not make the people to whom it grants citizenship at birth natural born citizens, it makes them born naturalized. A born citizen is not the same thing as a natural born citizen, otherwise the Framers wouldn't have used the adjective "natural" in front of the word "born" in the Constitution, they would have just said that the president must be a born citizen. They however chose only a specific type of citizen to be eligible for the president and is one who receives their citizenship under the conditions of "Natural Law". The word natural is a reference to citizenship which is passed on through Natural Law...not place of birth.
Natural born status can only be inherited through the Natural Law which means that NBC status has to be inherited through the laws of nature....In other words, NBC status can only be inherited from parents who are already citizens, and if you really want to be technical, at the time it was written the term explicitly meant that your citizenship could only be inherited from your father. If you want to change that then the constitution needs to be amended. Of course, all of the politically correct types out there will just ignore that and interpret it to be more in fashion with what they want it to mean.
How would his father have Mexican citizenship?
Both his parents are Indian. His mother was on a student visa and his father was on a student’s spouse Visa. They came over pregnant, and Piyush-Bobby was their anchor baby.
Piyush is a natural born British subject/Commonwealth citizen.
Wong Kim Ark was declared a “NATIVE” born citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. The court DID NOT declare him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Natural Born Citizenship requires FULL AND COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE OF THE PARENTS hence they must both be U.S. citizens at the time of birth of the Natural born citizen. Jindal could claim that since obama (native born ?) was allowed to be President , he should be allowed to also.
Show me a law that says that.
Article II does not bother to define "natural born." Nothing in the Constitution does that. The only distinction in the entire Constitution between types of citizens, is between those born here, and those who are "naturalized."
If one is a citizen without being naturalized, one must have started out "natural" to begin with.
It's simple. But then, I'm not trying to find a lame-assed word trick to get rid of Obama.
Nothing in the Constitution defines “II” either. How do you know what it means?
It is crystal clear that most of the horrible, hateful both hidden and not hidden and self-realized and not self-realized racism is in the Democrat(progressively marxist) party.
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” To to be born a citizen (natural) both parents had to be “true and Faithful”(full and complete). While we have lowered the standards for some citizenships (naturalized). The standard for being Natural Born has always been that both parents had to be in American citizens at the time of birth. This has been upheld for over two hundred years, why are we changing it now? To change it would require a constitutional amendment.
Hey, 2ndDivVet! — these Jindal-liestas or JinBots just won’t accept Constitudional Law. I have seen several of
these proJindal threads on FR with the same ignorant take on Presidental Eligibility requirments.
There is not one Constitutional Law for Democrats and a different one for Republicans.
If Obama is eligible, so is Jindal.
And maybe by pushing Jindal into the fore, it will trigger an ACTUAL discussion of this issue.
WHERE is the definition of "natural-born" that you are espousing? It is not in the Constitution itself. Natural born would seem to indicate citizenship by virtue of the place or parentage of the person in question, rather than by court action. Is it your position that Jindal had to be naturalized by a court proceeding? If so, then he is not a citizen at all and is right now an alien and should be deported. Is that what you are saying?
I think we sneed to genetically engineer a conservative superstar.
I propose combining Jindal's race and intelligence, combined with Palin's sex, Newt's government experience and Chris Christie's guts, passion and integrity.
However, if I can't do that and have to settle for just one, I'll take governor Christie.
The problem is that birtherism (constitutionalism?) would become cool again if Bobby Jindal were to become the Republican candidate. Jindal would be hounded from office by the same sycophant media protecting Obama today. The only reason they laid off McCain was because Obama had the same vulnerability and once Obama won it was best not to continue to raise the subject.
Rep = Citizen
Prez = NBCitizen
hmmmm..... what DID the founding fathers mean..??..aww just a misprint i guess. , BWAHAHAHA...sorry crookcounty we've had enuf of your kind the past 18 mos.
Annnndd..... are you suggesting that Mr. Jindal (the "citizen" in question here) is anything less than "true and faithful?"
You'll note that this report says nothing about parents.
In fact, it was undoubtedly written in the context of post-Civil War reconstruction, and was concerned with re-admitting as citizens the people whose states who had seceded. As such, it has little to do with Mr. Jindal.
The standard for being Natural Born has always been.... undefined, except for the common-sense "born here" definition used by the Supreme Court, 112 years ago.
It means, for example, that the late Tom Lantos, born in Hungary and a naturalized citizen of the US, could be elected to the US House of Representatives. But he was not eligible for the presidency.
Please, just STOP grasping at straws, folks. You're looking sillier by the post.
What law would that be? The stuff you guys keep making up, or actual Supreme Court decisions?
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.