Jindal steps up battle against Obama's 6-month deepwater drilling moratorium

“I thought the fact that you were born on US SOIL regardless of the citizenship status of your parents makes you a CITIZEN.”

It might, however, mere citizenship does not meet the Constitutional Requirement for the Offfice of the President.

See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

“If this is the case, Bobby Jindal meets the above requirement. In which case he is ELIGIBLE.”

Uh..... I seem to miss the part where the USSC declared him a Natural Born Citizen..... the Constitutinal requirement for the Presidency.....could you please show me the relevant part of the decision that declares Wong a Natural Born Citizen?

“Unless you’re willing to overturn the entire immigration system of the USA and what they have been doing for many decades, these kids are DE FACTO US CITIZENS regardless of what we think. Otherwise why issue US passports to them ?”

You apparently are intentionally confusing the terms “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”. They are not one in the same as you seem to be promoting.

Although a Natural Born Citizen is of course a citizen, a citizen is not necessarily a Natural Born Citizen.

Mere citizenship does not not the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency.

By your argument, I take it that you think a naturalized US Citizen, who now travels under a US passport, can now run for, and be eligible for the Office of President? I beg to differ.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.

His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.

In 1890 Wong’s parents returned to live in China. Later that year Wong himself traveled to China and, when he returned to the U.S., authorities granted him entry “upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.”

Four years later, however, the circumstances had changed, as Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook, sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country — arguing that Wong, “although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China.”

In 1882, the Congress of the United States had enacted a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. were allowed to stay, but were ineligible for naturalization; and if they left the U.S., they generally could not return.

However, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, states the following concerning citizenship: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, was called upon to decide whether an American-born person of Chinese ancestry could constitutionally be denied U.S. citizenship and excluded from the country.

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

HENCE, The result of the case was this -— Wong Kim Ark’s U.S. citizenship was CONFIRMED by the Supreme Court, three of his four sons were subsequently recognized as U.S. citizens and allowed to come to the United States.

“I think he’s a tremendously talented guy, but I’m not sure whether he qualifies as a Natural Boarn Citizen.”

“All the more reason he should run. Start a fund that can hire a legal team to SEAL ALL HIS RECORDS. No one dare ask someone of Indian descent about his birth - IT IS RACIST.”

LOLOLOLOLOL You forgot the sarcasm tag! LOLOLOLOLOL

You apparently are intentionally confusing the terms “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”.

Let's review:

1) A natural born citizen is a citizen,

2) a Citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.

3) A Natural born citizen meets the following requirements :

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution, if that person is:

* Born in the United States (BOBBY JINDAL MEETS THIS REQUIREMENT)

* Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power (BOBBY JINDAL'S PARENTS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT)

* Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States ( I BELIEVE HIS PARENTS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AT THE TIME HE WAS BORN. IF NOT, THEN THIS WILL BE THE STICKING POINT ).

NBC = Born in country, to 2 citizen parents

1) Where in the constitution does it say that ?

2) Which court precedent rules that to be so ?

Yes, stipulated. The decision declared Wong Kim Arc to be a citizen.....we all agree with that....

However, although a citizen, WKA is not a Natural Born Citizen. Citizen? Yes. Natural Born Citizen? NO.

No matter how you try to parse the words of WKA, or spin that simple decision, neither Obama or Jindahl, meet the definition of NBC or the Requirements to be eligible for the Office of the President. Are they citizens? Yes (though there may be legitimate doubts about Obama)! Natural Born Citizen? No, neither of them.

RE: However, although a citizen, WKA is not a Natural Born Citizen. Citizen? Yes. Natural Born Citizen? NO.

Not merely a citizen, but citizen BY BIRTH.

If you are declared a CITIZEN OF THE USA BY BIRTH (as Wong was), how does that not make you a natural born citizen ?

See here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

WONG WAS DECLARED A CITIZEN OF THE USA *AT THE TIME OF BIRTH* BY THE SUPREME COURT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA :

a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who,

* at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but

* who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and

* are carrying on business in the United States, and

* are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and

* are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory

RE: No matter how you try to parse the words of WKA, or spin that simple decision, neither Obama or Jindahl, meet the definition of NBC or the Requirements to be eligible for the Office of the President.

OK, let’s dispense with the word — CITIZEN as this is not an issue in the case of Jindal. Let’s focus on the constitutional and lawful meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Could you kindly answer the questions I posted in post #67 above ?

As my basis of argument, I cited the case of US vs Wong Kim Ark. Wong was declared a citizen BY BIRTH ( which to me, means Natural Born ) by virtue of clearly enumerated criteria.

You insist on the other hand, that a natural born citizen must have BOTH PARENTS as citizen when he/she is born. I am not saying you are wrong, I just want you to tell me where in the constitution it says that and what court made that decision.

“1) Where in the constitution does it say that ?

1) The term “Natural Born Citizen” was not coined by the Founders, and they did not feel the need to define this common political term for posterity. This phrase has a long usage in political writtings from Roman times, and was understood by the Founders because of their knowledge of contempory political writtings. It is well documentated that the Founders, in writting the Constitution, used Vittal’s Law of Nations as a referance. There is ample referance in various USSC decisions to NBC as defined by Vittal. Because you are ignorant of this does not make your contention that mere citizenship is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Constitution true.

Question.... if mere citizenship is what the what the Founders had in mind, as you contend, why did they even bother to write the term “Natural Born Citizen” into the requirements for the presidency, when they could have just
written “Citizen” as they did for the House and Senate?

“2) Which court precedent rules that to be so ?”

Although there are other USSC decisions that at least obliquely refer to the term NBC, perhaps you should read Perkin v Elg where the Court held that Elisabeth Elg, who, upon reaching her majority, was attempting to re-enter the US from Sweden, where her US naturalized citizen parents had taken her. The Court ruled that Ms Elg was not only a citizen because of her birth in the US, but met the higher standard of Natural Born Citizen because her parents were both US citizens at the time of her birth in the US. So according to the USSC, Birth in the US to 2 US citizen parents = Natural Born Citizen.....

You can continue to ask what “is” is, but to the rest of us you just seem as silly as Billy.

Thank you for the concise & complete explanation.

if mere citizenship is what the what the Founders had in mind, as you contend,

Where did I contend on "mere citizenship" ? In every single post my issue is and has always been the issue of what the term --- NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means ( as recently as Post #68 above). So, let's dispense with this red herring.

Let me study the issue of Perkin vs Elg before I respond further.

Regarding what the founders meant however, there is NO CONSENSUS among scholars.

A consensus on the correct definition of "natural born citizen" has eluded lawyers and scholars for more than 200 years. The Constitution's failure to offer any definition of the phrase whatsoever, and a wide array of opinions through the centuries have only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.

The first Congress began clouding the issue only two years after the Constitution was ratified.

In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress passed a law that disregarded the idea of being born on U.S. soil, and referred only to parentage:

"The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act 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."

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the Act and never again drafted a legally binding definition of "natural born citizen."

Herb Titus, a one-time vice presidential candidate considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution, says it was probably the responsibility of the electors from the 50 states or members of Congress to make the determination whether President Obama is a "natural born" U.S. citizen. Congress does have the option of challenging the results of the election, but it was not used in the 2008 contest.

Titus also said, however, the likely most important factor in the argument should be the president's loyalties.

"The reason for the concept of natural born citizens is so a country can't just throw you out willy-nilly," Your citizenship is in God's sovereign decision-making. You were born of certain parents.

A commentary on the Federalist Blog wrote that an early definition of "natural born" citizen was never produced because one of the framers of the Constitution, James Wilson, wrote that a citizen of a state was a citizen of the union, "thus, no act of Congress was required …"

That would mean only states can determine "natural born" status.

The same commentary pointed out that if being born on U.S. soil alone was enough, there would have been no need to reference "natural born." Instead, the "native born" reference would have been sufficient.

Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University, also warned the question is "not so simple." She told the Washington Post the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.

"The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin told the Washington Post when interviewed. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue."

I believe the only satisfactory resolution to this would be for either Present Congress or our Supreme Court to finally clarify the issue once and for all.

All other back and forth on this issue, including the one we have on this thread citing this early case or that early case are simply theoretical.

All I can say is this -- if Obama with his dubious background is ACCEPTED as President of the USA today, Acceptance of Jindal later if he were to run should be a no brainer.

“As my basis of argument, I cited the case of US vs Wong Kim Ark. Wong was declared a citizen BY BIRTH ( which to me, means Natural Born ) by virtue of clearly enumerated criteria.”

Here is the crux of the problem..”......was declared a citizen BY BIRTH ( which to me, means Natural Born )” You have no standing in re-defining the term Natural Born Citizen.....”(which to me means Natural Born.)”

I am pretty sure that WAK was declared a citizen because of the 14th amendment..... that is.... a citizen by action of Law.....WAK was a citizen because of the 14th amendment.

All this begs the question of the requirements for NBC as an eligibility requirement for the Presidency. Mere citizenship is not the requirement, otherwise the Founders would have just written “Citizen” or “ Born on US soil” instead of the historical political term NBC.

You may want to think of NBC being “a person whose citizenship flows naturally from the citizenship of his two citizen parents.” That is the historical definition / understanding of NBC.

Why are you trying to re-define the term NBC from the intent of the Founders, and the historical usage of the term to what you feel it should be.....mere citizenship by virtue of jus soli....birth on the soil only....?

Here’s a question for you, I’ve posed it to many before....none have answered....

Lets pretend.....

You are one of the Founding Fathers and attending the Constitutional Convention. The question has arisen as to what should be the requirements for the Office of President.
Your and others have the following concerns:

You wish that the President have reached a level of maturity.....no Boy Rulers here.

You are concerned that, like some European rulers, the presidents heritage and upbringing could be in a country other than the one he presides over. You wish that the president be “home grown.”

You wish that the President was well versed in the Laws, customs, morals, mores, attitudes, history, and patriotic spirit of the Country. That is, that he have unfetered understanding and loyality to his country/countrymen.

You have a copy of Vittals “Law of Nations” and Blackstones Comentaries on English Common Law as refrences.......

What criteria do you use for Presidential eligibility? Why? How does your requirements address your concerns?

“Where did I contend on “mere citizenship” ? In every single post my issue is and has always been the issue of what the term -— NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means ( as recently as Post #68 above). So, let’s dispense with this red herring.

WAK was not declared a Natural Born Citizen.....he was declared a citizen...... you are the one throwing out that citizen means Natural Born Citizen......”mere” is my re-inforcing to you that there is, or may be, a huge difference between the two. ( I say “may” because a NBC is certaintly a citizen, but a citizen may not be a NBC). I will continue to attach that descriptor where there it is not clear there are other quailities assigned to the term Citizen.....especially when you constantly use the two terms interchangeably.

“Regarding what the founders meant however, there is NO CONSENSUS among scholars.”

Oh, I see, we are waiting for modern 21st century Liberal “scholars” to tell us what the Founders meant some 220 odd years ago....I see...?

The proper place to determine the Founders intent in their usage of Natural Born Citizen is in the Supreme Court rather than in the political arena of the Congress, or in the ivy covered halls of academia. Once Obama leaves office I believe they will, if for no other reason to prevent a reocurrance of this direct violation of the Constitution....it appears there are none with the brass to do what is right while Obama reigns and while everyone is watching.

“A consensus on the correct definition of “natural born citizen” has eluded lawyers and scholars for more than 200 years. The Constitution’s failure to offer any definition of the phrase whatsoever, and a wide array of opinions through the centuries have only further confused the question of what “natural born” actually means.”

Poppycock!

Still I like it!..... Constitutional law by concensus of 21st century scholars and lawyers... maybe they should consult the laws of other nations when making decisions on Constitutional law...whooppee! Welcome to modern times!/s

The term NBC is only used in US Law in regards to the eligibility requirements for Office of the President. As such there has been little to litigate on because no where else in our society is the the definition of NBC a relevant issue. Still there are numerious cases that obliquely address the courts understanding of the term.

It is more than clear that the Founders did not coin the term NBC, that is, they did not create it out of thin air,....it is clear where they found the term ‘Natural Born Citizen,” and therefore why they did not feel compelled to define it (again)....all you had to do is look it up in Law of Nations...... Had they coined the term, I would think that they would have expanded upon their meaning. Something they did not do, nor felt compelled to do because of it’s well known definition in the late 1700s, both in the US and in Europe.

“In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress passed a law that disregarded the idea of being born on U.S. soil, and referred only to parentage:

“The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” the Act states, “shall be considered as natural born citizens....”

Again, knowing that this Act had a short lifespan, was passed to define “ Naturalized citizen,” and not NBC, and therefore is not really relevant, or on point. I question the phrase...”shall be considered as natural born citizens....”

The construction of that phrase leads me to believe that they were trying define overseas birth to citizen parents as citizen because of Jus Sanguinis only... Again I don’t see where they say birth overseas is actually being NBC rather than “as (if)....” (elsewise they would have simply written “..shall be considered a NBC.”)

NBC requires both Jus Solis and Jus Sanguinis.....one or the other may make you a citizen, but both are required for NBC....You have just made my point for me by posting this and not really understanding it’s meaning/impact........ Still it appears that you are again confusing Citizen with NBC.....sigh

“A commentary on the Federalist Blog wrote that an early definition of “natural born” citizen was never produced because one of the framers of the Constitution, James Wilson, wrote that a citizen of a state was a citizen of the union, “thus, no act of Congress was required …”

You are quoting a “blog” that quotes FounderJames Wilson on the definition of citizen “.....a citizen of a state is therefore a citizen of the Union of the States”.......he was not talking about a Natural Born Citizen. Apparently you fail to see the difference between the two, and equate the one...”citizen” as being the same as Natural Born Citizen.....

The rest of your post is mostly the citing of a Washington Post Article.....now there’s an unbiased and credible source, that has no interest in covering for Obama. Excuse me if I don’t respond in detail to their nonsence. /s

“All I can say is this — if Obama with his dubious background is ACCEPTED as President of the USA today, Acceptance of Jindal later if he were to run should be a no brainer.”

Two wrongs make one right? /s (by the way I don’t accept Obama as being the legitimate POTUS, nor do many others, as high as 56% in opinion polls of the US population.)

The US is a Nation of Laws, not personalities.....setting legal precedents such as this (in either instance) is dangerous to the body of laws that define us, and to the continued vitality of our Republic. I am surprized that someone on a Conservative Forum would suggest something like this.....you may want to re-examine the logic and validity of that statement.

RE: WAK was not declared a Natural Born Citizen.....he was declared a citizen...... you are the one throwing out that citizen means Natural Born Citizen......”mere” is my re-inforcing to you that there is, or may be, a huge difference between the two. ( I say “may” because a NBC is certaintly a citizen, but a citizen may not be a NBC). I will continue to attach that descriptor where there it is not clear there are other quailities assigned to the term Citizen.....especially when you constantly use the two terms interchangeably.

SEE HERE : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Read the Section with the TITLE : OPINION

According to Wikipedia -— “In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”

Now, what does CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF BIRTH mean ? If this is not a natural born citizen, I don’t know what is.

Oh, I see, we are waiting for modern 21st century Liberal “scholars” to tell us what the Founders meant some 220 odd years ago....I see...?

Oh, according to you, anyone who questions your interpretation of the term "natural born" must be a liberal huh ? Why is that ?

I'll tell you what will convince, show me a clear, unambigous, explication of what the founders mean by the term and maybe you'll have a point but not until. Go ahead --- quote someone. You might want to start with James Madison.

The proper place to determine the Founders intent in their usage of Natural Born Citizen is in the Supreme Court rather than in the political arena of the Congress, or in the ivy covered halls of academia.

Well, I presented one such case -- Wong Kim Ark and in his case, the Supreme Court declared him to be a CITIZEN BY BIRTH ( AKA A citizen at the time of birth ). Now, explain to my in what way that is not in effect, a natural born citizen?

You did mention Perkin vs Elg before. well, I did look it up.

Well, according to Wikipedia ( see here ), Chief Justice Hughes wrote for the Court:

* Elg became a citizen of the United States upon her birth in New York; the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had specifically addressed the issue of a child born in the United States to alien parents;

* When a citizen of the United States who is a minor has parents who renounce their American citizenship, the minor does not lose his American citizenship as a result, "provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties";

* Some provisions of the Naturalization Convention and Protocol of 1869 between the U.S. and Sweden, which provided for the loss of U.S. citizenship by any United States citizen who chose to "expatriate" — to become a naturalized citizen of another country, live there, and lose their United States citizenship — did not apply to minors, as the minor's move out of the United States was not to be considered a voluntary act;

* The acquisition of "derivative Swedish citizenship" by a minor likewise does not force the minor to lose his American citizenship.

The Court's first holding, that Elg was a citizen upon birth within the United States, was a reaffirmation of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Note that Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the Brooklyn section of New York City in 1907 to two Swedish parents who had arrived in the United States some time prior to 1906; her father was naturalized in 1906.

In both the above court cases, we see that the judgment is ALWAYS GENEROUSLY IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON BORN IN THE USA.

In regards to this statement of yours ...

The US is a Nation of Laws, not personalities.....setting legal precedents such as this (in either instance) is dangerous to the body of laws that define us, and to the continued vitality of our Republic. I am surprized that someone on a Conservative Forum would suggest something like this.....you may want to re-examine the logic and validity of that statement.

In my arguments I have cited TWO CASES in the past where the Supreme Court of the United States decided that a person born on the USA regardless of parental status at the time of birth IS A CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

You ask me to examine the logical validity of my statements -- well I have and here I am presenting them to you. My question to you is this -- IN WHAT WAY AM I PUTTING PERSONALITY ABOVE LAW ?

I have in fact asked you to produced UNAMBIGOUS WRITINGS of any of the original drafters of the constitution explicating clearly what he meant by the term -- natural born citizen and thus far, I am still waiting...

Now, please explain to me how Wong Kim Ark's and Marie Elg's cases, both Supreme Court decisions, DISPROVES MY POINT.... If any, it proves my point --- The courts have decided that a person BORN IN THE USA is a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

Now, the onus is on you to show me that CITIZEN BY BIRTH DOES NOT EQUAL NATURAL BORN.

Finally, I cite MODERN EXAMPLES. I live in New York, one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the USA. My wife's sister is a legal resident ( green card holder ) of the USA and also a resident of South Africa ( where her husband lives ). When she got pregnant with her daughter, she chose to come to the USA to give birth.

Guess what ? Her daughter got a US PASSPORT soon after her birth after my sister in law applied for it on her newborn baby's behalf! All she had to do was produce the BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROVING SHE WAS BORN IN THE USA !

Her daughter ( who was just a few months old ) could not apply for naturalization on her own, she ( a new born babe) could not by volition apply of US citizenship, yet she was given a US PASSPORT -- which of course means the Immigration Department BY VIRTUE OF HER BIRTH on US soil deems her a US Citizen BY BIRTH. In what way is my niece not a natural born US Citizen ?

Cases like hers happen thousands of times here in the USA. How do you propose to overturn this understanding, which in any case, IS IN HARMONY with legal precedents in the past ?

Lets pretend.....

OK, LET’s.

You are one of the Founding Fathers and attending the Constitutional Convention. The question has arisen as to what should be the requirements for the Office of President.

OK, FAIR QUESTION.

You wish that the President have reached a level of maturity.....no Boy Rulers here.

GOOD, IF A PERSON IS ABOVE 35, I WOULD ASSUME THAT HE QUALIFIES AS ONE WHO REACHED A LEVEL OF MATURITY.

You are concerned that, like some European rulers, the presidents heritage and upbringing could be in a country other than the one he presides over. You wish that the president be “home grown.”

NOPE, THAT IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME. HOME GROWN DOES NOT IN ITSELF IPSO FACTO PROVE THAT YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY OR THAT YOU HAVE THE COUNTRY’s INTEREST AT HEART. ADAM GADANH ( THE DE FACTO SPEAKER FOR AL QAEDA ) WAS HOME GROWN. WHAT DOES THAT PROVE TO ME ? I’D RATHER TAKE SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT HOMEGROWN WHO PROVES THROUGH ACTIONS THAT HE LOVES HIS COUNTRY OVER SOMEONE WHO IS HOME GROWN WHO SYMPATHIZES WITH THE ENEMY.

You wish that the President was well versed in the Laws, customs, morals, mores, attitudes, history, and patriotic spirit of the Country. That is, that he have unfetered understanding and loyality to his country/countrymen.

AND BEING HOME-GROWN DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT. JUST AS NOT BEING HOME GROWN DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PERSON CANNOT BE WELL VERSED IN SUCH THINGS. BTW, IF A PERSON IS BORN IN THE USA ( REGARDLESS OF PARENTAL CITIZENSHIP AT TIME OF BIRTH ), AND LIVES AND GREW UP HERE ( AS IS THE CASE OF BOBBY JINDAL ), THAT FOR ME IS HOME GROWN. WHY ? BECAUSE THE MAN KNOWS NO OTHER HOME AND HAS HIS ROOTS HERE.

You have a copy of Vittals “Law of Nations” and Blackstones Comentaries on English Common Law as refrences.......

YES, AND REMEMBER THIS — ALTHOUGH THEY ARE REFERENCES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM BY THE LETTER. REMEMBER, MY PURPOSE IS TO FORM A NEW NATION SEPARATE FROM ENGLAND. THEIR LAWS ARE USEFUL GUIDE BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESARILY MEAN WE ADOPT EVERY SINGLE BRITISH UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR LAW. WE HAVE TO DRAFT A LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NOT ENGLAND.

WE ALREADY HAVE LIBERAL JUDES AND JUSTICES IN THE SUPREME COURT CITING INTERNATIONAL CASES AS PRECEDENTS. NOT GOOD AT ALL.

What criteria do you use for Presidential eligibility?

ANS: YOU JUST CITED A LOT OF THINGS WHICH I AGREED UPON ABOVE. I WOULD ADD ONE THING -— LOYALTY AND FEALTY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NOT TO ENGLAND.

ACCIDENT OF BIRTH, WHILE IMPORTANT, IS *NOT* THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA.

“Now, what does CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF BIRTH mean ? If this is not a natural born citizen, I don’t know what is.”

Reduced to quoting Wiki now?????? LOLOLOLOL

You obviously “....don’t know what is.” and continue to define NBC to meet the parameters your uninformed opinion.

“.....becomes a “citizen at birth” is not the same as being a Natural Born Citizen, or else the Court would have simply stated that WAK was an NBC.....which they didn’t. Your protestations that “Hey it means the same thing!” carries no weight in any rational discussion.

Citizen by birth (in the US) is merely the definition of Jus Solis, nothing more. WAK was declared a citizen by action of the 14th amendment which is clearly stated in the decision. This is something you choose to ignore because it destroys the basis of your argument.

A person that obtains his citizenship by action of law or act of Congress cannot, by definition, be a Natural Born Citizen. No amount of wishing it different on your part, for God knows what reason, will make that simple fact change.

That kernel of truth, establishing citizenship by birth via Jus Solis (the 14th amendment), has been blown out of all sense and reason by people who are either willfully ignortant, or unable to comprehend the simple fact that “citizen” does not always equal Natural Born Citizen. Something that you have continued to insist on.

WAK was never declared a NBC by anyone except you and your misbegotten, (re) definition of a NBC......( yes, I realize that there are many more lemmings out there)

I am reminded of a sign I saw in the Building and Safety Department of my local City Hall, which said......”Arguing with an Inspector is like wrestling with a pig in the mud.....sooner or later you’ll come to realize he likes mud!

That said, I’ll take my leave, and leave you to your delusions and little white powders...

See ya Sonny! Don’t get any sand in your PB&J.

You’re shouting....cool off!

“NOPE, THAT IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME. HOME GROWN DOES NOT IN ITSELF IPSO FACTO PROVE THAT YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY OR THAT YOU HAVE THE COUNTRY’s INTEREST AT HEART. ADAM GADANH ( THE DE FACTO SPEAKER FOR AL QAEDA ) WAS HOME GROWN. WHAT DOES PROOVE TO ME?”

Alan Gadanh is the exception to the rule that often go to prove the rule....note that as an ex-patriates, Gadanh, is disqualified from being President by the written Requirements for Presidential eligibility. (Not that anyone would vote for that %#@!! well, maybe a few Dems might!) He hasn’t lived in the US for many years, and doesn’t meet residency requirements. People like Alan can’t help take themselves out of the running, because of their traitorous behavior.

Obama is only partially “home grown” having spent his early years in Indonesia learning both Indonesian and Muslim traditions, customs, morals, mores, etc. His “Dreams of my Father” and actions in visiting Kenya (2006) and working in their political elections give one pause to wonder exactly where his loyalities lie. The MSM, the vaulted Fourth Estate, was seeming unconcerned/disinterested about Obama’s foreign roots/sensibilities/leanings, and were more interested in touting his race and flowery rhetoric read off a telepromptor.

You’ll note that Obama is NOT a NBC, a fact that is continuing to be denied/hidden/covered up. Strict observance of the Constitution would have made Obama a non starter. Lesson Learned? Or do you still want to make exceptions to the Constitution vis a vis Bobby Jindahl??
(I’m not equating Bobby to Obama, just asking rhetorically about where you will draw the line once you start making exceptions to the written requirements of the Constitution.)

Obama certainly fooled the electorate about his love of nation, in addition to getting the watchdogs to ignore his lack of eligibility to be POTUS, didn’t he? Does the phrase “Domestic Enemy” have any meaning to you? I suggest it fits Obama to a tee! His disasterious Administration is the direct result of our being lax on the explicit requirements of the Constitution. is that something you want to continue? Not me.

HOME GROWN DOES NOT IN ITSELF IPSO FACTO PROVE THAT YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY OR THAT YOU HAVE THE COUNTRY’s INTEREST AT HEART.

No it doesn’t, but how can you really know what’s in the heart of a man? You can’t....and neither could the Founding Fathers....the Founders obviously felt that home bred and grown was important as a starting point...and trusted the Fourth Estate to help the electorate make informed decisions in their choice of President from eligible candidates. Read the letter John Jay wrote to George Washington, while they were considering the requirements for President, to see his concerns/rational in this area.....

IF A PERSON IS BORN IN THE USA ( REGARDLESS OF PARENTAL CITIZENSHIP AT TIME OF BIRTH ), AND LIVES AND GREW UP HERE ( AS IS THE CASE OF BOBBY JINDAL ), THAT FOR ME IS HOME GROWN. WHY ? BECAUSE THE MAN KNOWS NO OTHER HOME AND HAS HIS ROOTS HERE.

While my heart agrees with you regarding Jindahl, (You are sure that Bobby’s parents did not teach him the ins and outs of Indian society, their laws, customs, morals, mores, etc, and that Indian thoughts/influences never enter his mind? Oh yeah? How sure?), and I sincerely trust Bobby is genuinely patriotic, my head tells me that we can’t willy nilly make “exceptions” to the Constitution for one person or another.

To do so would reinforce a prescedent that Obama is in the process of setting, which leads to more and more exceptions, and worse, and worse prescedents....”Oh he really, really loves his Country...he just Hopes he can Change it into a Socialist country like those in Europe!” uhhhh NO WAY!

Nope, not gonna go there, and neither should you! You can be sure that if Bobby truely loves his country, he won’t either. (Ironically the Dems would be sure to raise the spectre of the lack of Bobby’s eligibility were he to run) Now Bobby’s children are another story! They, of course, are NBCs being both born in the US, and having two Us citizen parents. If anything like their father Bobby, I would be proud to support in any presidential aspirations! Unfortunatly I’ll most certainly be dead of old age by then.

There is no “right” to be President, nor is there only one person that could/should be President at any one time. That some people like Bobby are excluded from being president due to eligibility requirements is too bad, but it is neither an insurmountable loss, nor a national tragedy. There are many other eligibe and desireable Presidential hopefulls.

YES, AND REMEMBER THIS — ALTHOUGH THEY ARE REFERENCES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM BY THE LETTER. REMEMBER, MY PURPOSE IS TO FORM A NEW NATION SEPARATE FROM ENGLAND. THEIR LAWS ARE USEFUL GUIDE BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESARILY MEAN WE ADOPT EVERY SINGLE BRITISH UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR LAW. WE HAVE TO DRAFT A LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NOT ENGLAND.

Don’t worry on that score...Founder George Mason wrote that “The Common Law of England is not the Common Law (sic) of these United States.”

It appears that Blackstone’s (which is a commentary only, not English Law itself) was used in order to understand the rationals behind English Common Law which is a blend of Royal Decrees, Acts of Parliment, and traditions/customs of English society, and not of written and codified law/statuates like the US uses.*

Do you really think that when they wrote the words “Natural Born Citizen” they didn’t have Vittal’s definition of it in mind? Really? Be truthfull now! Vittals Law of Nations was was used as a text in law courses in the US until the late 1880s. That should tell you of it’s influence on the Founders, and it’s use as a basis for our Republic and some of our earliest laws.

ANS: YOU JUST CITED A LOT OF THINGS WHICH I AGREED UPON ABOVE.
I am disappointed that you did not write out your own version of Requirements for the Presidency and provide a rational for your eligibility requirements, which is what I requested. Instead you mearly commented upon my imagined (or real) Founders “concerns.” I, for some reason, expected more thought and explaination of your listed requirements. I, of course, realize that it would be a very difficult and almost impossible task.

I WOULD ADD ONE THING -— LOYALTY AND FEALTY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NOT TO ENGLAND.

You mean the country they just successfully rebelled against, because of what they regarded as unjust taxes/laws? Yeah me too!

It should be noted that colonial US had inhabitants with roots in countries from all over Europe.... The fabled Revolutionary War “Swamp Fox” was a French Protestant, who had sought refuge from persecution in Catholic France. Martin Van Buren, the last of the Presidents that were grandfathered in around the NBC requirement, could understand, but barely speak English, he was, however, fluent in low German (Dutch). It is unlikely that the various states would agree to anything similiar to English Common Law.

While copying English Law was probably the last thing on their minds when they wrote out the words of the Constitution, using Vittals Law of Nations, a well respected, and in his day, modern and forward thinking jurist, as a basis for their thinking seems a likely scenario.

*Note: I have been informed by one of the Law Dogs on these threads that during the early years of our nation, and because of many “grey areas” in the Law, some judges used English Comman Law as prescedent when truely stumped, until the body of decisions became sufficient enough in number and scope, to assist them in making their rulings with a truely American flavor.