Sow the Seeds of Freedom
Support Free Republic
Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Save our sweetie, Lazamataz.
Posted on 05/06/2011 9:32:12 PM PDT by machogirl
Gov. Bobby Jindal arrived in the United States in utero, his mother about three months pregnant. jindal-birth-certificate.jpgView full sizeGov. Bobby Jindal's birth certificate
As he wrote last year in his book, "Leadership and Crisis," his mother had been offered a scholarship in 1970 to complete a graduate degree in nuclear physics at LSU.
When she informed the university that she couldn't accept the scholarship because she was pregnant, "LSU wrote back and promised her a month off for childbirth if she changed her mind. LSU was so accommodating, and the opportunity to come to America so thrilling, that my parents accepted.
"So, my parents stepped out on faith, secured green cards, packed up a few suitcases, said their goodbyes, and took off for this exotic new place called Baton Rouge, Louisiana."
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
.......but weren’t his parents nsturalized a year before his birth?
Poppycock madam, poppycock. No court would hold up your opinion.
6 Presidents other than Bar-aq had foreign born parents. (Andrew Jackson had 2).
No one will stop Jindal if he runs and he’ll run if he wants to.
Certainly no one would stop the child of an American born here who had an American father (Trump). That’s even more ridiculous then alleging Jindal is not eligible.
Stick to our enemy Obama and quit wracking up collateral damage by showing us how non-partial and bipartisan you are.
You can shove your head back up axelrod’s butt for all the stealth you will enjoy hereafter. You’ve outed yourself, obamanoid.
lol, to be a fly on Barry’s lip.
As crazy busy as my WalMart was today there was plenty of wait time in the check out lanes to if nothing else be forced to look at the great American newspapers on display.
KD, it will be a pleasant day at FR when you are finally banned for doing nothing but ridiculing and insult fellow freepers.
The issue is no,t after all is said and done, about a BC from Hawaii or a fraudulent composite of several images foisted upon the world as if legitimate. The issue is criminality, and we will no tbe allowed to get to the essence of that until the bassturd is no longer in his politically protected state of the oval office.
It is very obvious that stealth operatives at FR are using the issue of barry bassturd's ineligibility to wag a democrat/axelgreasy dog with fleas. The insults and derision, ridicule and lies from those defending the quite possibly ineligible scum in the White House outs these vermin prior to the coming election cycle. And that is something to appreciate, not ignore.
Why should I be banned??? Cause I think the birther issue is a waste of time and energy??
No, because you are an insulting slug who uses FR to ridicule conservatives at every turn. Go back and read your own posts on just this thread. Then multiply that ridicule by several bc threads you’ve rushed to.
I don’t think so.
Here is both..
No I’m just pointing out how stupid this dead issue is.. Aren’t you doing the same thing? Insulting people who disagree with you?
No they didn't.
The exception clause is written for that generation only. There was no United States until the Constitution was adopted so, ipso facto, not a single signatory (nor anyone else above infancy) would be qualified without that clause. I, for one, am happy that George Washington got a chance to serve since he was born a British subject.
Here is the applicable clause from the Constitution.
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.I pasted that from a marvelous .pdf I found. It downloads quickly and allows you to run word searches for things like 'natural' 'born' 'naturalized' etc.
Based on this, would Bobby Jindal be eligible for President? Marco Rubio? Looks like it to me...
You poor thing, you just posted the very sentence which shows the founders differentiated mere citizen from natural born citizen ... if there were no difference, why address two separate types of citizen while not yet addressing naturalization? But keep on trying to shove your square peg barry bassturd into the round hole. It is instructive for readers.
That's a unique claim you've made. Are you suggesting that the title of the document we call he Declaration of Independence is incorrect? You do know the title of that document, don't you? Here, I'll help you out - its real title is:
The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
IOW, we were the united States of America before the Constitution was written. The men who would be leaders at the adoption of the Constitution were citizens before the adoption of the Constitution. That's the plain meaning of the NBC clause.
A person could meet the requirements of that clause one of two ways: By being a person who was a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or being a citizen who was a Natural Born Citizen in the next generation.
That must mean there is a difference between being a citizen and being a Natural Born Citizen. That is the plain meaning of the clause. To disagree with that is silliness. There is a distinction and a difference between the two citizenship classes or it wouldn't have been necessary to make the distinction.
Because there was one generation that wasn't.
The very people who wrote the Constitution itself.
They were not born in the US (because it didn't exist) and so they were ALL naturalized citizens. Now they did not want a naturalized citizen to hold the presidency, but they also did not want to elude everybody over the age of zero, so they wrote an exception that IF you were a naturalized citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, you could still be president.
That condition expired when the last person born before on on September 17, 1787 also expired.
You’re just dickering on the cutoff date being 1776 or 1787.
Since there was an Articles of Confederation prior in between, I think most would argue that the United States came into existence when the Constitution was agreed upon.
The men who signed the unanimous Declaration declared within the document that they were the representatives of the united States of America. Were they dreaming? Are you claiming to have more knowledge and understanding than they had?
Also, the Articles of Confederation claimed for the inhabitants of each State the rights and privileges of citizens of all the States in the confederation. So, all were citizens of the States, and not subjects. So, any which way you look at it, people eligible for the office of President during the first presidential elections had to be citizens. And the same for subsequent elections as long as men wanting to be president were citizens at the adoption of the Constitution. If a person who wanted to be President was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he needed to be a Natural Born Citizen, a more restrictive class of citizenship.
From this point in the debate, you are, in effect, saying the NBC definition established by the “Law of Nations” was not recognized by the founders as they debated the NBC clause in the Constitution. That is false, as you can discover by reading notes of those debates. If you haven’t studied those contemporaneous notes, that should be your next course of study, I would suggest.
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.