Skip to comments.Jindal May Be the Answer to Romney's VP Question
Posted on 05/11/2012 4:00:02 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
As the counterweight to a presidential nominee blessed with wealth and privilege, Jindals stirring life story as the child of Indian immigrants -- who bestowed upon himself at the age of 4 the all-American name of the youngest son in The Brady Bunch -- could be especially appealing.
A Rhodes scholar who helmed the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals -- the states largest agency -- at the almost absurd age of 24, Piyush Bobby Jindals aptitude and credentials for the nations second-highest office would be difficult for anyone to question seriously.
Like Jindal, Romney was an academic overachiever who may never have been the life of the party but was the kind of kid that moms hoped their daughters would bring home one day, and the two men are similar in mind-set and temperament.
Though he does not share Romneys decades of business experience, Jindal did have a brief post-collegiate stint working as a business consultant at McKinsey & Company before entering politics, and he shares the Bain Capital co-founders hyper-analytical approach to governing.
Unlike Romney, who faced likely defeat in Massachusetts had he chosen to run for a second term, Jindal has remained overwhelmingly popular in his home state. In October of last year, he was re-elected with a whopping 66 percent of the vote in Louisianas nonpartisan blanket primary system.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“If obama is the recent precedent, does that mean that all future Presidents could ‘legally’ hide - delete - all records about themselves?”
Where in the Constitution does it say you get any/all documents for Potus candidates, that you personally demand?
I don’t like Obama, but the birther stuff has gone absolutely nowhere. (That in part because it employed a legal scattergun approach and Orly Tatiz as counsel)
NBC is NOT defined in the Constitution. The American voters picked him, knowing his father was not American.
There is writing, including entries to the Congretional Record, that NBC equals native born citizen, fyi. And that carries every bit as much legal weight as Emerich de Vattel.
Right now the priority SHOULD BE getting him out in the November election. Time/words/resources wasted elsewhere are wasted.
I’m the practical, pragmatic type who wants results.
Just the make-believe part.
The HID0H has released an abstract of information on file in their archives indicating that both of these men were possibly born in Hawaii, or possibly could have been born in Hawaii, and/or would have been born in Hawaii, had either set of their respective non-citizen parental units ever heard of Hawaii.
In any case, this digital data can be used with any number of graphics programs to create something that at a cursory glance, looks like sort of some kind of a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. According to the latest interpretations of the US Constitution, possible birth in Hawaii or equivalent, is proof of "Natural Born Citizenship."
This legal doctrine, "The Hawaiian Woulda-Shoulda-Coulda" (aka "The Honolulu Shuffle") theory of constitutional interpretation has been pioneered by Team Obama. As you may know, although our POTUS had his license to practice law suspended for lying on his Bar App, he is still a world famous constitutional scholar, professor, raconteur, and bon vivant extraordinaire.
So, bucko, get with the program. Aloha!
“I’m going to go ahead and trust constitutional scholars like Mark Levin on this, and ignore the birther brigades who lose in court over and over and over and over again.”
Longbow, I always enjoy your posts as a voice of reason above the din.
Let’s consider for a moment...
Suppose, just suppose, a couple from Mexico sneak across the border. The woman has her baby in an American hospital, then the couple goes back across the border to Mexico. Their child is raised “as a Mexican”. Yet all he has to do after age 18 is walk into the American embassy, present his birth certificate, and claim his American citizenship, which will be granted to him as an adult. He can then go back to being a Mexican, until, around age 30, he returns to the United States, AS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. Preposterous as it may seem, he could then run for president, meeting all the “Constitutional requirements”, even though he had never lived “in country” until a year or two previous.
As unlikely a scenario as this may seem, I predict such a scenario will occur later in this century. It may not be a Mexican, but it will happen. A “boutique baby”, of Chinese parents, perhaps?
And the amazing thing is, there wil be nothing which distinguishes the birth of this Mexican or Chinese baby from a Bobby Jindal or a Marco Rubio. Any and all of them were born to non-citizen parents while on American soil.
That’s why the “natural born citizen” issue must be resolved (probably by the Supreme Court). It’s a bomb waiting to go off. Perhaps it’s already blown, with Obama....
I think it’s going to be Newt.
Jindal and Santorum would definitely get more conservatives to vote for Romney.
He seems to be the right choice.
Virginia which went Blue is coming back red. This would seal Virginia to Rep. Also coattail in Mccaca into a Senate seat.
I rely on MY OWN brain and research. Cases are mostly NOT HEARD in court. It is just more evidence how corrupt our courts are.
Unfortunately neither of his parents were citizens at the time he was born (in Baton Rouge).
Neither Jindal nor Rubio are NBC. Great where they are but not eligible for VPOTUS or POTUS.
Word meanings do change over time and a word generally has more than one meaning so context is very important but in this age meanings seem to depend on who is using the word to a large extent. Sometimes the slang usage takes over and usurps the traditional meaning as in “gay”. Forty six years ago I briefly dated a woman who referred to herself as a gay divorcee. No she was not a lesbian but the word could still be used to mean happy in those days, now no heterosexual woman or especially no heterosexual man would ever use the word gay in a self description.
Cool is another word which seems to be gradually losing its original meaning. Young people never seem to use it to refer to temperature any longer, back in the fifties “cool cat” was already the description most young men wanted to hear used to describe them but now cool is so often used to describe people who would have been considered the epitome of uncool back then that I hate to hear the word anymore.
A Usurper does not set a precedent for overcoming the eligibility requirements set forth in Article Two. A usurper simply usurps. We do not currently have a legal President, thus we do not currently have a President.
Twentieth Amendment, Section 3.
It instructs Congress to name a replacement President if the President Elect dies or "shall have failed to qualify".
“A Usurper does not set a precedent for overcoming the eligibility requirements set forth in Article Two. A usurper simply usurps. We do not currently have a legal President, thus we do not currently have a President.”
Then tell me why Congress and the courts have not acted?
And then tell me how they should act. Motions, steps, etc.
And tell me how practical it is to spend resources doing that between now and this November?
Because voting is in the Constitution.
But if you tell me you want Obama out, are voting for Goode or writing in Palin, I’ll know for sure you don’t visit reality very often.
There is still live controversy over the matter. The failure to make progress in this matter concerning Obama is largely tied to the inability to prove positively he was born elsewhere, along with the American inclination to deem innocent until proven guilty. So Obama with the hidden past skates.
So it wouldn’t be wise to name Rubio or Jindal even if the birthplace issue weren’t a factor. Not if the GOP wants to keep the heat on Barack Obama.
One of two reasons for Congress, cowardice, enough so to commit the treason that has been committed, or tactical. My guess goes with cowardice. The courts have been scared to death of dealing with this and have been intimidated behind the scenes one judge at a time.
"And then tell me how they should act. Motions, steps, etc."
Have your Congressman explain to you how the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 was complied with. If he cannot give you an answer, it wasn't, and he is part of the coverup. If Congress won't enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, the states themselves should pass legislation ensuring it has been complied with before obeying any laws signed by a President unable to prove he is legally President. Anyone who is legally President should have no problem with such a law.
Because proving you are legal is in the Constitution.
First, it was spot-on, secondly there was a link back to FR and finally and most importantly, it capped off a smarm-laced exchange, and nobody dared attempt to rebut it.
I don't know who MDWC is, but they're likely a FReeper, and they nailed it pretty well, methinks.
Hopefully a goodly number of readers followed the link back to the FR post and discussion.
Guess what, if he’s elected he’s gonna take office.
As I recall the speech was boring but I wasn’t on the “disaster” train.
Is that a fak Jack?
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.