Posted on 12/02/2008 5:05:53 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
As I said, read Defining Natural-Born Citizen by P.A. Madison. Some excerpts:
The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Thus Obama may be disqualified and McCain may be disqualified. So might Jindal. Go through the 1001 Obama citizenship threads if you want more information.
I guess it up to the courts to interpret the Constitution, we'll see.
I wonder if they are bringing up Jindal, saying, if you want us to accept Jindal as natural born, you have to accept Obama as natural born. For the record, I think the issue of divided loyalties is a tricky one. Most legal immigrants are far more loyal to the United States than a lot of natural born citizens. I know that Jindal is a great loyal American. I do not know that of Obama.
I'm not saying what the courts will decide. They decided that the unborn aren't protected by the Constitution, so who knows.
"Anchor babies also do not qualify as natural born as their citizenship was created by an act of law and they have divided loyalties."
And what "act of law" was it that "created their citizenship". Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. And neither will the courts.
Few notes from Donofrio :
The "anchor babies" issue deals with whether those children are "citizens", not whether they are "natural born citizens" eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. They are not eligible since, at birth, they are also subject to the jurisdiction of the countries their parents were citizens of.
Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court, once again, that had the legislature intended to grant "natural born citizen" status to all who were born on US soil, then the 14th Amendment would contain the words "natural born citizen", but it doesn't.
And so this proposition leads to the logical conclusion that a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the United States to parents, neither of which is an alien. Having an alien parent would tie such person at birth to the possibility of other loyalties and laws. And such a person, even if he be as loyal and devoted to this country as Senators Obama and McCain have proven to be, is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized. He is a citizen at birth by statute. ... McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth, but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute. ... So, not being born on US soil, McCain cannot be a "natural born citizen".
A lot more arguments there if you care to read them.
If Jindal gains traction as a Presidential candidate expect posters here to question whether if Jindal is a Muslim or if any of his family members are illegals.
I've seen them. For the most part, they are bullshit. A "natural born citizen" is one born on US territory (and in the case of John McCain in particular, the article is TOTAL bullshit, because he WAS born on US territory, as, at the time of his birth, the Panama Canal WAS "US territory"). The courts have accepted that definition for many decades---it's settled law.
The problem with Obama is that he was likely NOT born on US territory.
And they will prove themselves to be idiots. Jindal's background, unlike Obama's, is an "open book". All the relevant facts are matters of public record. He was certainly born in the USA, in Louisiana, in Baton Rouge. His parents were (and are) Hindu, and were here legally, and the facts of his converstion to Catholicism are well known. At precisely what point his parents got green cards and became citizens, I haven't seen---but there is no question of their "visa status".
As far as I am concerned, Sarah/Jindal 2012. When Jindal starts brining in the crowds the way Sarah does then I might think about him at the top, until then, which is to say never, I want Sarah as POTUS candidate for 2012 and I am not alone in that thinking.
He's Catholic. I'm not sure what "fundamental" means, in reference to Catholics.
The media will savage him.
The real question is: will the Romophobic idiots on FR savage him?
Sorry, but I'm not willing to limit it to "her (his) time in office". That is far too limited a snapshot of overall ability. Jindal simply demolishes Palins overall track record.
"When Jindal starts brining in the crowds the way Sarah does then I might think about him at the top, until then, which is to say never, I want Sarah as POTUS candidate for 2012 and I am not alone in that thinking."
In other words, just like a Democrat, the only thing that matters is "charisma". Yup, Palin has more charisma than Jindal, but Jindal has more of everything else than Palin--which is why a Jindal/Palin ticket is the overall best. Palin needs seasoning. Jindal does not.
The GOP is cowering somewhere, hoping for shooting to stop.
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.