Posted on 05/06/2011 9:32:12 PM PDT by machogirl
Gov. Bobby Jindal arrived in the United States in utero, his mother about three months pregnant. jindal-birth-certificate.jpgView full sizeGov. Bobby Jindal's birth certificate
As he wrote last year in his book, "Leadership and Crisis," his mother had been offered a scholarship in 1970 to complete a graduate degree in nuclear physics at LSU.
When she informed the university that she couldn't accept the scholarship because she was pregnant, "LSU wrote back and promised her a month off for childbirth if she changed her mind. LSU was so accommodating, and the opportunity to come to America so thrilling, that my parents accepted.
"So, my parents stepped out on faith, secured green cards, packed up a few suitcases, said their goodbyes, and took off for this exotic new place called Baton Rouge, Louisiana."
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Compare the serifs on the 1 digits in the serial number.
That's pretty easy - because prior to the Declaration of Independence, no one born before that day could be "Natural Born" citizens as they had been born in British sovereign territory.
This issue has been settled law for quite some time. Since the Constitution did not completely spell it out, it is likely the meaning of the phrase was understood as being based on the English Common Law. This was ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where it held that It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
This is a good one for comparison. Notice how all the boxes are tabbed to the left except for the time of birth. Notice how prominent and easily read is the seal. Notice how it lies flat with no curve along the left edge. The graphics experts should take this one and give it the same kind of analysis they gave that other thing last week and then compare the results side by side.
If your wanting to quote dicta, fine...I'll match your state of New York case with multiple SCOTUS cases that align with the born on soverign territory to two parents who owe no alligience to another definition.
born June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, LA (Meets the Jus Soli Requirement)
Parents were
Amar Jindal born in India
Raj Jindal born in India
Unless proof of their naturalization prior to June 10, 1971 is produced Bobby Jindal must be considered as NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Yes. There is evidence that Vattel's work was "celebrated" as "genius" nearly a quarter of a century prior to the penning of the Constitution.
The framers thought it an important enough legal treatise that they openly read and referenced his work during the Constitutional Convention itself.
The "father" of the Constitution, and the "father" of the bill of rights...reject any notion that England's common law was the common law of the U.S.
See their writings of October 18, 1787 and June 18, 1788.
Furthermore, had we taken their common law after fighting the Revolutionary War against them, instead of creating our own common law based in large part on the principles found in the laws of nature, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be POTUS eligible.
Whats really sad is that a 1998 Freeper would be an afterbirther.
You would be more persuasive if you correctly and completely identified Lynch v. Clarke (1844) as a New York State jurisdiction case and not a federal jurisdiction case, and that the issue before the courts was whether or not Julia Lynch was a citizen, not whether or not she was a natural born citizen, and hence Lynch v. Clarke regarding NBC is only dicta, not directly germane to the precise issue before the court.
That would be a forthright thing to do the next time you post your argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you want to be forthright.
People who are not forthright in their arguments are commonly considered trolls.
haha you are busy destroying the obamabots on this thread...guess that would include the jindalbots.
“They will come here and destroy the laws we have built” Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution doesn’t matter much to you?
I’ll bet you five dollars he is.
Wonder if the latest birth certificate getting circulated is the same birth certificate that BamBamKennedy used to get into college, get a driver’s license, a marriage license, a passport, etc. WHY did he have to apply for a birth certificate now? Why did he not have his own personal birth certificate in his possession?
HE IS HIDING SOMETHING.
Absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Hey 0bama, this is an example of what we the people need.
A true complete and correct copy of a certificate or document registered with the State.
We do not need your “abstract of a record”. The difference is obvious to a child.
By comparison, your green piece of paper is cr@p.
Yes he is, he was born here, period, leave him alone. No need to drag a decent man into this.
I think, maybe, Jindal knows that he is not a Natural Born Citizen and is taking this action to bring the issue to the fore. He seems like a genuinely good man and it is unfortunate that he does not qualify.
Thanks, SatinDoll. I have bookmarked ASA vets freeper page. Very interesting. It is a very well stated case for a definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as being born on American soil (or an American military base) of two parents who are American citizens .
http://www.freerepublic.com/~asavet/
How old are you? I’ll bet the schools have been teaching that erroneous definition for the last 25 years. that does not make it correct.
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.