Posted on 02/24/2009 9:05:11 PM PST by AndrewWalden
It’s not so much what they’re saying, which is the usual expletive laden garbage, but the fact that Jindal is the Numero Uno topic of discussion. Even the idiotic daily massive picture threads of PO picking his nose, MO wearing drapery for clothing, etc. are taking a backseat to Jindal.
Youtube commenters are calling him Mr. Rogers...saying he’s a joke and Palin was our answer to Hillary (also saying that was a joke)
I think the Dems are so friggin’ stupid that they really don’t get it. “Obama is going to pay my mortgage!” My thought was that Jindal was trying to dumb down to their level to try to explain it in terms they could understand.
There is no doubt that Soros and the DNC have their own paid "web brigades" as well.
They are everywhere! The more vehemently they fight every shred of opposition, the more convinced I am they are being paid. We need our own army to counter the cyber blitzkrieg!
You’ve been in Kalifornia too long.
Slick looking guys do not always win...never have.
What conservatives need is an orator and that means a combination of Keyes and Romney - smart and pleasant in one package. A Persona - like Reagan had and Bush did not.
Looks is way down the list in importance...I mean the hildebeast could have been in the WH...she came close.
“Looks is way down the list in importance...I mean the hildebeast could have been in the WH...she came close.”
My GOD I am actually thinking we should have nominated Hillary to save us from Obama ... I cannot believe how godawful bad Obama is as President.
txrangerette is right.
Natural born citizen is a special category for defining a person born of TWO American citizen parents. There is still discussion as to whether such a child of TWO American citizen parents has to be born on U.S. soil.
LOL. Only in your own mind. Supreme Court has ruled definitely on this over a century ago 100% opposite to your claim. Born in USA suffices to be a natural born citizen.
It's funny how the more wrong people are on FR, the more stubborn they are in their wrongness.
The term “natural born citizen” has NEVER been defined in the U.S. Constitution or in codified U.S. law. However …
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
" ... 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 [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution).
The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.
Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
What is a natural born citizen of the U.S.? To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland (I am not in agreement with the 'born on the mainland, but we will continue).
Congress many has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen, as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can't change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is. What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de'tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.
*
Why are you even arguing with me? Your argument is not with me or txrangerete, but with the Supreme Court going back over 100 years. In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that children of resident immigrants were to be considered natural born citizens. That was their ruling:
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen. The Court stated that: “The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’” [5] Since there was no definition found in the constitution, the majority adopted the common law of England that was a carry over from feudal times.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
You are free to argue with the Supreme Court’s decision of 1898, and think their interpretation of law is wrong - but IT IS THE LAW and has been for over 100 years and will remains until the Supreme Court overrules this ruling. calling other people wrong or out-of-touch for being right on this point of law is silly.
oh, and as for the likelihood of SCOTUS overruling....
I am one who would like for the 14th amendment jurisdictional clause to be re-understood to AT LEAST exclude *illegal* aliens’ kids born in USA. I asked a Congressman (conservative one) about this, and he said that this question came up in a discussion with Scalia and their was not a good chance according to scalia of putting ANY restrictions on the jurisdiction claused of the 14th. That is, today SCOTUS MAJORITY would RULE that children of any illegal aliens born in USA are ‘natural born citizens’.
Given that the chance of SCOTUS changing on this point is nil, arguing with other freepers who simply are making a point about what is court-decided law is misdirected and pointless.
"The Court stated that: “The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
ZDoes the bolded sentence state these are natural born citizens? No and it specifically cites this meant yo define ONLY citizen.
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.