Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg

“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.


78 posted on 07/16/2012 11:44:10 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Forty-Niner
Putting aside the insults, Justice Horace Gray agrees with me. That is why when he wrote the opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark, he cited the above cases. Please cite one (1) SCOTUS case that cites de Vattel.
81 posted on 07/16/2012 1:46:14 PM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson