Posted on 07/16/2012 7:13:04 AM PDT by Perdogg
Allen West would be great! They rarely mention him as a choice even on Fox News.
You are talking about current US citizenship law, and I’m talking about “natural born” in the US Constitution. No way native citizen and natural born should mean the same thing, but they do, so we’re left with a useless differentiation from the past that is wise, but is ignored.
So, no way that Jindal is eligible.
It’s a moot point. Romney is desperate for Electoral College help and Louisianna is already a “safe romney” state. Jindal doesn’t help him in any way. No big Indian-American demographic, the birthers will be incensed, males are already with him, and Louisianna is already his.
He’s going for some otherwise qualified person who helps him in some way, electorally or demographically.
Imho, he can’t do better than Rubio, who brings Florida and Hispanics, but he might consider Paw (MN), Snyder (MI), or Corbett (PA), because he needs an electoral college game changer and all those states are Obama states according to Rasmussen that also have Republican governors.
If he could become competitive in one of those AND hold the Bush states, then he has dealt a major blow to Obama.
“Tim Pawlenty” and “energetic” do not belong in the same sentence.
People need to distinguish between “originalism” and “literalism.” “Natural-born” was a term of art in the 18th century, and was used to bat foreign born princes from the presidency, such as Prince Henry of Prussia, the very able, and liberal, brother of Frederick the Great. The problem being, that the off-spring of great men are seldom great. or even competent. One reason why Washington decided not to be President for Life. He had no natural issue and his step-step son was a boob.
People need to distinguish between “originalism” and “literalism.” “Natural-born” was a term of art in the 18th century, and was used to bat foreign born princes from the presidency, such as Prince Henry of Prussia, the very able, and liberal, brother of Frederick the Great. The problem being, that the off-spring of great men are seldom great. or even competent. One reason why Washington decided not to be President for Life. He had no natural issue and his step son was a boob.
“Even if (and I think it’s a big if) a court should decide this case, the argument will be made that it is the role of the congress to define NBC and not the courts.’
The term NBC is a matter of language, not law, as far as it’s definition goes. In the 18th century, when the Founders wrote the Constitution, NBC, a term dating to Roman times, was understood to be those born in a country to parents who were its citizens in western jusrist thought. There is ample evidence that this definition was the Founders intent in writing Article II.
That said, I agree it would be nice if the Congress would codify the term so that there is no doubt as to it’s meaning and intent in the law, so long as that definition reflects the Founders Original Intent.
The Supreme Court, in many of it’s citizenship decisions, have always held that the term meant jus solis and jus sanguine....Birth to the soil to citizen parents.....These individuals are the very foundation of any society and they are recognized as the one true, unchanging, unequivical example of a citizen.
NBC is a quality of birth, not a class of citizenship. It bears the status of being a “native” and considered essential to anyone holding the highest office in the land by those that wrote the Constitution.....it has no other cashet in American Law or society.
The Founder’s concerns about someone other than a Natural Born Citizen being President have been realized in Barack Obama. In this instance, and all others, we would have been wise to follow our own laws.
Contrary to your supposition, One bad president/precident does not negate the wisdom of the Founders in this area, instead it only serves to reinforce it. Nor does it overturn the past 220+ years of American Law and Tradition.
Today or tomorrow, as in the past, ineligible individuals, or their cheering sections, will attempt to circumvent the Constitution with regard to the very simple, and seemingly easily met, requirements of Article II. It is up to We the People to uphold our own laws and it’s wisdom.
Portman is a boring speaker, but in a debate he would pick Biden apart like Cheney would have.
The only problem that Jindal has that too many people think you are right.
The only problem that Jindal has that too many people think you are right.
The ONLY way to put the NBC genie back in the bottle (and get back to the founders original intent) is for congress to clarify the definition. If you are SERIOUS about this, you need to be focusing on congress.
Hoping a court will do it is wishful thinking, and nothing more. If that is where you are placing your hope, then I can only assume you aren’t really serious.
Thousands of people that wouldn’t vote for Romney because of Jindal’s NBC status (between 2 and 3 thousand in total).
In other words, it would only be an issue for a handful of voters—about as many as you could fit in a high school gym to watch a basketball game.
It’s not going to be Jindal.
Me too. I think these VP whispers the last couple of weeks are there to create news and excitement. This will continue til he week of the convention when Rubio is picked.
I find that the article itself is useless because the author has inserted the phrase Natural Born Citizen in place of the original document’s “citizen” in many places. For an example of this see his discussion of Minor.
The author writes that in Minor the court wrote...” The Constitution never said who shall be Natural Born Citizens....”
The original text of this decision is “The Constitution never said who shall be citizens....”
The issue of Minor was her right to vote. In determining that her citzenship was established. Since the quality of her birth was Natural Born Citizenship, born in country to citizen parents, there was no doubt as to her citizenship.
Your link is worthless to an honest discussion of the issue.
Allen West or Rubio....the only two I want.
The issue deserves action by all three branches of government.
Nowadays I am wary of all of them.... the trust factor is fast approaching “zero.”
Barack Obama is an aboration in American History. I suspect that his long term effect will be “Zero” re. Article II.
In 20 years Obama will be on top of the trash heap of history lying right on top of Jimmy Carter.
“According to Lynch v Clarke and the 14th amendment, Jindal would be eligible.”
Only if your reading comprehension skills are non-existent.
The 14 Amendment provides “born citizenship” for persons that were NOT “Natural Born Citizens.” Neither quality of birth requires naturalization. Natural Born Citizenship is still the Article II requirement. Born citizenship doesn’t meet the requirement. Jindal both a born and naturalized citizen is still ineligible along with both Rubio and Obama.
“The only problem that Jindal has that too many people think you are right.”
The only problem that Jindal has is that you are right and people know it.
Fixed it for ya!
If it is changed, it will be like FDR and term limits. Plenty of people wanted to change that when FDR ran for a third term, but they waited till he was out of office.
Any change in the future would certainly (1) be after Obama is out of office and (2) grandfather in anyone currently in office or in line for the presidency (vp, speaker, etc...) just as the did with the original constitutional requirement. So Jindal (if he was the sitting VP) would certainly be grandfathered in on the “new standard.”
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.