Posted on 06/23/2012 1:38:33 AM PDT by Jyotishi
Bobby Jindal attacks Obama as the Presidential race hots up
Agencies Washington, Sat Jun 23 2012, 13:18 hrs
Indian American Governor Bobby Jindal has launched yet another attack on the US President by alleging that Barack Obama's re-election campaign message is “divide and blame” and not “hope and change” of his 2008 campaign.
“In 2008, President Obama campaigned on a message of 'Hope and Change'. (On) Thursday, speaking in Ohio, the President announced his re-election campaign message of 'Divide and Blame',” Jindal wrote in an op-ed on the CNN website.
Jindal is said to be among those shortlisted as the Vice President running mate of Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
The first Indian American governor of a US State, Jindal said Obama cannot ask Americans if they are better off than they were four years ago, and so is trying to blame others for his record.
Over half a million fewer Americans have jobs today than when he took office, he charged.
“After his advisors projected that his USD 800 billion stimulus bill would keep unemployment below eight per cent, it has remained above that benchmark for a record 40 months and counting.
“Median family net worth has hit a two-decade low, median household income has declined, more than 30 per cent of borrowers are underwater on their mortgage, 23 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, and half of college graduates this year come out of school unemployed or underemployed,” he said.
This is for the second time in less than a month that Jindal has launched a scathing attack on Obama.
Early this month Jindal alleged Obama's administration is a nexus of liberalism and incompetence.
“The Obama admin(istration) is at the nexus of liberalism and incompetence and together that's a deadly combination," Jindal said in his remarks at the Chicago meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Writing for the CNN, Jindal said being President is a hard job. “One of the hardest parts is that you can't just make excuses. Harry Truman understood this. It's just not allowed from the president of the United States. Excuses make the president look small and weak. It is frankly a little embarrassing,” he wrote.
“The President himself promised, after being elected, that if he didn't get the economy fixed in three years, then his presidency was 'going to be a one-term proposition'. President Clinton, speaking in 2010 at the same spot where the President spoke Thursday, said 'Give us two more years. If it doesn't work, vote us out'. Good advice. That was then. Now, the president is basically saying that he is a victim of circumstances, and we are all victims,” Jindal wrote.
“Thursday's speech was also a speech of class warfare. The other campaign President Obama announced is a class warfare campaign of division. He plans to divide America along class lines, gender lines, party lines, age lines and any other lines he can find. He will run a campaign of rich against poor, men against women, Democrats against Republicans, young against old and liberals against conservatives,” he said.
Jindal said Obama's entire philosophy can be encapsulated in one little line toward the end of his speech.
“He suggested we should put money into infrastructure and 'do some nation building here at home'. While this may be a cute turn of phrase, and certainly polls well, it is all you need to know about the outlook of this President.”
“He believes that this nation was built by the government, and that more government spending is the key to our future. This is a speech that should have been delivered in France,” Jindal said.
Here are the actual cases cited:
12 U.S. 253 (1814)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/
A case about cargo on a ship in the War of 1812.
SHANKS v. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242 (1830)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=28&invol=242
Descendants of a U.S. born citizen ruled able to inherit, never mind which islands the British invaded.
DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
A pre-civil war slavery case. OVERTURNED.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
A case where a woman wanted to vote and was denied. OVERTURNED.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649
Held that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.
ALL of the crap quoted in a post above is nothing but meaningless dicta. Passing comments by a court (including the USSC) have no bearing on the actual RULING of the court. ONLY THE RULING MATTERS.
Dicta doesn’t mean squat, legally, but it’s great fun for those who don’t know what they’re talking about to extract a meaningless sentence or two from an opinion to support their delusions.
Like I said, NO court has ever ruled that anyone born in the U.S. isn’t a U.S. citizen and NO court ever will. Doesn’t matter where the parents were born. Period.
BTW, your “direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent” quote is absolute and total garbage. Who wrote that junk? I notice that you provided no source.
The court actually held this:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment.”
Get it? The holding says absolutely NOTHING about citizenship, doesn’t even mention it. The court meandered on about citizens at length, mostly pointing out the obvious and finally dismissing it all. Citizenship had no bearing on the holding. Didn’t mention it in its holding because it had nothing to do with the holding. It was all meaningless dicta.
Not to mention that the ruling was overturned by both the USSC and the 19th Amendment.
But, hey, don’t let out-of-date and off-point nonsense stop you from making a fool of yourself.
No, it doesn’t matter where your parents were born, it matters where YOU were born.
Only if you were born outside the U.S. does the issue of whether one of your parents was a U.S. citizen come into play.
And not the intent of the US Constitution.
> . . .
> Parents were NOT US Citizens at the time of his birth (Does
> NOT meet the Jus Sanguinis Requirement)
>
> Bobby Jindal is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
> . . .
The Seventh U.S. President with a Foreign-Born Parent
With Barack Obama’s election, immigrant parents from all over the world can now honestly tell their American-born[*] children that they, too, can dream of one day becoming president. It’s a cultural as much as as a racial barrier that’s fallen: As the son of a Kenyan man, Barack Obama will be the first U.S. president with a parent born outside the British Isles or Canada.
Only six other U.S. presidents had a foreign-born parent. Mr. Obama will be the first in nearly ninety years, since President Herbert Hoover was inaugurated in 1929.
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.
[*] There’s of course considerable doubt about Barack Hussein Obama’s alleged U.S. birth.
> “...race hots up.” LOL
I find “hots up” funny too! However:
hot up
vb (adverb) Informal
1. to make or become more exciting, active, or intense the chase was hotting up
2. (Engineering / Automotive Engineering) (tr) another term for soup up
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hot+up
I think I’ll start using it. LOL
I am not trying to take issue with Jus Soli / Jus Sanguinis / Vattel but just want to understand how this reading of Jus Sanguinis can be reconciled with the facts in the case of the Founders.
This is a good-faith question -- I am fine with Sarah or Rand or (if he is Constitutional) Bobby as VP -- though I am putting on my asbestos suit here in any event, meaning that I don't foresee the need to reply unless I have more questions.
Thanks in advance.
No amount of wishing or desiring or thinking or even writing that something is true doesn’t make it so.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for you or anyone else to come up with any ruling that supports what you claim, because it doesn’t exist.
That was the reason the founders stated "citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." They exempted themselves from the NBC rule so we wouldn't have to wait 35 years to have an eligible person. Notice, they used different terms "Citizen at the time of Adoption" and separately "Natural Born Citizen." The founders knew the difference, so wrote the Constitution in a manner to buy us the 35 years. They could have just declared any citizen eligible, but choose the more restrictive requirement "NATUAL BORN CITIZEN" for the office of President only. For House of Representatives members the founders considered age 25 and a citizen for 7 years as good enough. For Senators, they went with 30 years of age, and 9 years a citizen.
Article II, Section 1:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
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.