Replies

I think you are misunderstanding what Donofrio is contending in his case.

Under the interpretation used in Donofrio’s case a person not only has to be born in the United States, but they also must not have any foreign allegence at birth.

Jindal’s parents were citizens of India, not citizens of the United States at the time Bobby Jindal was born. Based on Donofrio’s interpretation of the constitution he would not be qualified because all though he was born in the United States, his parents would have passed on to him Indian citizenship at the time of his birth.

Donofrio contends that in order to be natural born a person can not have divided loyalties at the time of their birth. Jindal’s loyalties would have been divided between India and the United States at the time of his birth and therefore would be ineligible to be President. Jindal is a citizen of the U.S., but not a natural born citizen of the United states based on Donofrio’s interpretation of the Constitution.

Donofrio in one of his radio broadcasts specifically mentioned that the 14th amendment concerns who is a citizen of the United States, not who is a natural born citizen.

Any person who was born in the United States to parents that were also born in the United States and had no other citizenship at the time of the child’s birth would be natural born citizens under the interpretation used in Donofrio’s case.

I hope this clarifies how Donofrio is interpreting the Constitution in his case. I do not remeber Donofrio mentioning Blackstone, so I don’t know if he has taken that into consideration or not.