Native-Born Citizen Yes, But Gov. Bobby Jindal Is Not A Natural-Born Citizen

Jefferson's Rebels ^ | 5/22/11 | EricaThunderpaws

[Scanian]

Believe me, I HAVE read all of that and it gets me in trouble down here with people who want to run Marco Rubio on the GOP ticket. I was an early supporter of his-—FOR THE SENATE. But until he comes up with documentary proof of his parents’ naturalization prior to 1971, I think he needs to stay where he is.

I think Rubio knows it too because he refuses to entertain any presidential or VP overtures.

Jindal is absolutedly ineligible. By his own admission, his parents were still Indian citizens in 1971.

[Scanian]

Yes, SCOTUS needs to get involved but they don’t seem too eager to tackle much of anything right now of a “political” nature, do they?

Not Obamacare, not eligibility.

They seem like they’re still cowed by criticism for doing the “right thing” in 2000. That must have made life a living hell for them on the DC cocktail party circuit, the poor babies.

/s

[kabar]

They are just postponing the inevitable.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yes both Jindal and Rubio know they are not eligible. I think both are honorable guys and will not try to run for President.

[TheBigIf]

You claim it is a glaring loophole but I disagree. The Framers did not have an open borders mentality in regards to the position of Commander-in-Chief and specifically stated that only a ‘natural born citizen’ who is born to TWO American citizen parents is eligible for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

Just as in many cases today in our country, faulty premises are put forth which distort the argument, yours is the same... a faulty premise.

[Kleon]

So let me get this straight: if we accept that both parents don't have to be US citizens , then bin laden can have a muslim woman pragnant, not even an American woman, have the child born here or...elsewhere and say he was born here..but let's say born here, and then they teach him all the imam and alQueda muslims rules and sharia law, including a deep hatred of America, our values and Americans people and then one day, this child can be president. Is this correct?

There's no requirement for the office that will ensure that the President is absolutely loyal. What if instead of Bin Laden it was two Al Qaeda operatives who became naturalized citizens before having this baby? It's no more ridiculous than your hypothetical scenario, and would make their baby eligible even under the strictest interpretations of the Constitution.

[ReignOfError]

You claim it is a glaring loophole but I disagree. The Framers did not have an open borders mentality in regards to the position of Commander-in-Chief and specifically stated that only a ‘natural born citizen’ who is born to TWO American citizen parents is eligible for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

Yeah, except for the part where they didn't specifically state any such thing. You might find one who geld that opinion, but when you discuss "The Framers" as a group, they reached a consensus through debate and compromise -- and the consensus is what is found in the black-letter text of the Constitution.

If the Framers were that specific, why do so many birthers turn to Vattel to try to divine what they meant by "natural born citizen"?

[Kleon]

If the Framers were that specific, why do so many birthers turn to Vattel to try to divine what they meant by "natural born citizen"?

Many birthers believe that Vattel's Law of Nations was written into the Constitution. So by citing Vattel, they are citing an extension of the Constitution.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Many birthers believe that Vattel's Law of Nations was written into the Constitution. So by citing Vattel, they are citing an extension of the Constitution.

But just that part. I doubt most of them go along with Vattel when he supports compulsory public education and guaranteed employment.

[NOVACPA]

It could be that many contemporaneous documents from the same time provide such?

Like David Ramsay, who was an historian of the time, and an historian that simply reported what was done, rather than what he wished had been done (like many of our historians today)?

[CodeToad]

“Gov. Jindal cannot be classified as a natural-born citizen”

Yes, he can. Only people that write this crap try to redefine the word “natural”. If a person is a citizen by birth then they are natural born citizens. There is only natural and naturalized citizens. No other category of citizen exists no matter how many conspiracy nerds try to redefine it.

[CodeToad]

“She was born in this country while I was still a residential alien. “

Yes, she is a natural born citizen and can run for President.

[CodeToad]

“A NBC is someone with two American citizen parents.”

That’s not what US law says. The 14th and subsequent USC say otherwise. You guys want to redefine that “natural” means. I looked up “natural” in the dictionary, never did see it say, “Two US citizen parents”.

[TruthConquers]

Even if she can and might become a Canadian citizen by virtue of my still being Canadian when she was born?

Because she CAN do that, and have dual citizenship, according to Canadian law.

Even then?

[CodeToad]

So, if a nation wants to prevent all people born in the US from becoming President I guess they could screw with us and grant citizenship. Imagine Canada wanting to screw with us and granting every person born on the North American continent Canadian citizenship. lol. That would be funny.

The fact is, we don’t care who grants citizenship. The King of England tried that back in 1776, basically claiming we were keeping all persons English hostage.

I have two sisters born overseas while dad was on military assignment. Both retain citizenship of those respective countries. Who cares? They are both natural born US citizens as they were by law US citizens at the time of their birth.

Your daughter born on US soil to two parents legally in and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a natural born US citizen.

“8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; “

[bushpilot1]

The Supreme Court has said...the Law of Nations...referring to Vattel is law in the US.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Quotation?

[DaveTesla]

The Principal framer (John Bingham) of the 14th amendment
and in particular the CITIZENSHIP clause had this to say
during a debate on the house floor regarding the 14th
amendment:

Center column 3rd paragraph down:

Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>

Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham, framer of the 14 amendment in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

Charles Pinckney
Signer of the United States Constitution, Governor of South
Carolina. Senator and a member of the House of Representatives.
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born
citizen of the United States means those persons born
whose father the United States already has an established
jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are
themselves citizens of the United States.”

[bushpilot1]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41947855/2003-Supreme-Court-The-SCOTUS-affirmed-Vatell-s-Law-of-Nations-as-a-part-of-US-Domestic-law

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

That is an interesting case that Souter argues, but I, again, find myself in agreement with Scalia concurring argument in this case.

This Court’s decision in Erie R. Co. v.Tompkin s, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), signaled the end of federal-court elaboration and application of the general common law.

Before this point, Scalia recognizes, the Law of Nations was used by the Supreme Court in issues of disagreements between the U.S. Government and foreign Nations, as Common Law did not clearly address such issues.

However, Common Law held sway in all matters of jurisprudence within the United States until the Erie Railway Co case in 1938. That is when, as Scalia puts it:

After the death of the old general common law in Erie came the birth of a new and different common law pronounced by federal courts. There developed a specifically federal common law (in the sense of judicially pronounced law) for a “few and restricted” areas in which “a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, and those in which Congress has given the courts the power to develop substantive law.”

In this case, I think you will find a bolstered case that English Common Law, and not Vattel, was the basis for jurisprudence when it came to issues of domestic attention. Even Souter's arguments seem to agree with that.