Posted on 06/19/2010 7:57:48 AM PDT by hillsdale1
On Wednesday, I posted a piece, drawing attention to what is now obvious even to Maureen Dowd: that, as an executive, Barack Obama is woefully incompetent. In that piece, I noted the propensity of the American people for electing to the Presidency men with ample executive experience – as generals, governors, cabinet secretaries, and the like. I remarked as well on the poor performance of the four Presidents they elected who did not have prior executive experience; and I suggested that it is time for the Republicans to ask who, in their number, has demonstrated a willingness and an ability to take charge and assume what the authors of The Federalist called responsibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
“Even calling Obama incompetent, is an insult to all incompetents. “*** Obama is not even at that point. You actually have to do something to fail at it. ***
True.
I was trying to combine the word incompetent from the article with a line from A Fish Called Wanda.
(it was about being stupid)
If he runs for President look for the msm to replay over and over parts of his response to Obama’s state of the union speech. AP already had this hit piece yesterday titled “Gov. Bobby Jindal could face tough decision on opening his oil spill records”. So they must be worried about him.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2537778/posts
Please explain your logic and evidence for that erroneous conclusion. Saying so doesn't mean it is so and this article never went that far, it was merely stating the qualities a leader needs to possess.
Knowing History and Knowing Who We Are
David McCullough - Historian
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=04
Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny
Edward J. Erler - Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino
http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/mvanderwei/Page_4221/ImprimisJuly08.pdf
http://www.hillsdale.edu/kirbycenter/programs/
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=04
The Supreme Court disagrees with you (Minor vs Happensett)
Children who’s parents are U.S. citizens are Natural Born. Jindal parents were not yet citizns at the time of his birth. He is a native born citizen (Wong Kim Ark case). Native born citizens are ineligible to be President. Of course the Constitution was ignored for obama, so jindal might have a precedent to argue in court. But remember obama is a democrat Jindal is a Republican, so the same rules don’t apply!!
good post
I agree with you, Dr. Rahe, that Mr. Jindal would be an excellent candidate, but I honestly do not believe he would be eligible because his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
I have a daughter who attends Hillsdale College, and I can’t convey enough how much I respect your institution. I have similar regard for The Heritage Foundation. What I cannot understand, however, is the fact that Heritage has in prior years published many articles rejecting both the notions of birthright citizenship and dual citizenship by esteemed scholars such as Dr. John Eastman, Dr. Edward Erler, and Dr. John Fonte. Dr. John Eastman even testified in a 2005 Congressional hearing that the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship to the children of temporary visitors, and Dr. Fonte has written that dual citizenship is a type of “social bigamy.”
This quote from Dr. Eastman in Mark Cromer’s essay, “American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship,” is especially noteworthy:
“According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status. “I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”
Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws.”
I also understand that every student at Hillsdale must take a course on the Constitution, which I assume would include a study on the concept of citizenship by consent and the specific requirements of Article II. In addition, I heard of an Honors seminar at Hillsdale on Vattel’s Law of Nations, and I wonder whether it covered Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen.”
Therefore I find it hard to believe that not only would Heritage and Hillsdale remain silent on the Article II natural born citizenship issue, with the public knowledge that Obama had a non-citizen father (who never obtained US citizenship—at least Jindal’s did!) and was a dual citizen for 23 years, and that you, Dr. Rahe, would endorse Jindal.
Bobby Jindal is NO natural born citizen.
He was born four months after his parents, citizens of India, arrived in the U.S.A. That makes him a native born citizen per U.S. Federal statutes.
Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute. All have equal rights.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
Natural Born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship as per the Federal Government. Natural Born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and requires, as per the Founders, the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of citizen parents (jus sanguinas).
There is NO RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegience for any President of the United States.
I hope the above helps clarify this issue for you.
Bobby Jindal, born on U.S. soil of legal immigrants from India (who were still Indian citizens at his birth), is not a natural born citizen.
However, I understand that his three children were born here, which would make them natural born U.S. citizens, and therefore eligible someday to run for President themselves.
“Bobby Jindal, born on U.S. soil of legal immigrants from India (who were still Indian citizens at his birth), is not a natural born citizen.”
“However, I understand that his three children were born here, which would make them natural born U.S. citizens, and therefore eligible someday to run for President themselves.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.