SUBSTANTIVE CANDIDATE WILL ELEVATE THE DEBATE
|| By RICK MANNING || Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal entered the race for the presidency of the United States yesterday joining a bevy of hopefuls as America enters perhaps the most important political cycle in her history.
Jindal boasts a record as member of Congress, governor, and one of the foremost experts on health care that will enhance the level of discussion on some of the most formidable issues facing the nation.
Whereas, many politicians are generalists, able to mouth 40,000 foot-level sound bites without much understanding of the difficulties in accomplishing the mission, a governor like Jindal has had the opportunity to deal with the complexities of implementing policy.
It is likely that amongst the pressing issues facing the 45th President of the United States will be an imploding health care system left behind by his or her predecessor. While many Presidential contenders have confronted the issue in various forms, Jindal is considered to be a policy expert on the subject and has proposed a full plan for not only repealing Obamacare, but also replacing it. Unlike many politicians on both sides of the aisle who ask voters to trust them without providing a blueprint for what they want to accomplish if elected, Jindal is taking a different, more honest and, indeed, more politically dangerous course.
By laying out real positions on the issues that are facing America, Jindal opens himself up to attack as opponents nitpick his plans without having substantive proposals of their own that can be held up to the same scrutiny.
Jindal has also been unique in that he has been unafraid to call out the practitioners of Sharia Law, was the first to specifically oppose attempts by Republican leadership in Congress to grant President Obama fast track trade authority, and took on the Obama administration’s slow and failed response to the BP Oil spill by pushing action plan after action plan in an attempt to get the Environmental Protection Agency to allow the shoreline to be protected.
One thing is certain, with Jindal in the race, he will bring a unique combination of intellectual firepower and the political courage to fight for what he believes is the right course to save America.
Jindal joins a stellar group of Republican candidates with businesswoman Carly Fiorina, acclaimed physician Ben Carson, Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, and real estate mogul Donald Trump among those already announced. It is expected that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will also reveal his intentions in the days ahead.
While many bemoan the number of candidates competing for the Republican nomination for the presidency, the GOP field stands in stark contrast to those seeking the Democratic Party nomination …
(To continue reading this column, click the link below …)
Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government, one of the country’s most influential conservative organizations. Follow him on Twitter @RManning957. His column – reprinted with permission – originally appeared on NetRightDaily.
37 comments
Link for full plan appears to be wrong link.
A commenter on the original article has a very lengthy comment on his Disqus. Thoughts?
Most Rev. Gregori • a day ago
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, having satisfied the 35 years age and 14 years residency requirements, being a “citizen” of the United States was sufficient to be eligible to be President. It also provides that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, that ONLY a “natural born citizen” of the United States is eligible to be President. So, with presidential eligibility under Article II, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, the American people need to know the definition of a natural born citizen as compared to merely being a citizen, because there is a difference. People need to understand that all natural born citizens are citizens, but NOT all citizens are natural born citizens.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was born in Delaware. Cruz’ father was born in Cuba, lived in the U.S. on a student visa, went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. He did NOT become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005. Therefore, Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen at birth through his mother but not a natural born citizen. He is also a Canadian citizen through his place of birth and his father having taken Canadian citizenship.
Marco Rubio was born in May 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents did not become U.S. citizens until November 1975, four years AFTER Marco’s birth. Therefore, Rubio IS a U.S. citizen at birth, but NOT a natural born citizen.
Bobby Jindal’s parents arrived Feb 1, 1971, and a bit over four months later, on June 10, 1971, Piyush (Bobby) Jindal was born at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, which makes Bobby Jindal a U.S. citizen at birth, but NOT a natural born citizen, because his parents were NOT U.S. citizens at the time of his birth; His mother became a citizen in 1976, and his father in 1986.
The Framers of the Constitution used the natural born citizen clause to assure that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military would be born citizens of and in allegiance with only the United States from the moment of birth and throughout their lives. They concluded that such a person would be one to least have sympathies for some foreign power or influence which could result in conflict of interests which could harm the United States and its people. Allowing constitutionally ineligible candidates to run for the office of president and to take part in the presidential debates only gives the false impression to the American people that such persons are constitutionally eligible to be elected President. The end result is far more damaging to the Constitution, the Rule of Law and to the nation itself, especially in light of the fact that the federal courts refused to get involved in the question of whether Barack Obama is an Article II natural born citizen.
Actually, one does not even need the courts to give a ruling on that question, since the Framers themselves laid out the answer in their writings in the Federalist Papers. The mess that we find the United States of America in today all had to do with the question of HONESTY, because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) perpetuated a huge fraud on the American people by putting forth an constitutionally ineligible candidate, and ultimately getting that candidate illegally elected and sworn in. They could never have gotten away with it without help, and it was the GOP who gave them that help. The GOP aided abetted them in this fraud. Every single member of Congress (House and Senate, both Democrat and Republican), and every federal judge knew that Barack Hussein Obama was NOT a “natural born” citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to be president or vice-president of the United States, and it has nothing to do with where he was born.
Knowing that Obama was and is not eligible to hold the office of president, and choosing to aid and abet in covering up that fact, the GOP is pushing the candidacy of three constitutionally ineligible individuals of their own. These individuals are Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal, and every single news channel and media wonk, including FOX and Glenn Beck are lending their support in this fraud.
The Framers also defined a natural born citizen under natural law and the law of nations, looking to Vattel upon whom they would have relied for that definition. Vattel defined a natural born citizen as follows:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents (notice it says PARENTS plural and NOT parent singular) who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
From this, we can see that Vattel expected not the citizens, but the natural born citizens as being the persons upon whom the expectation lied as being the ones who would best protect and perpetuate the civil and political society into which they were born. Under this natural law and law of nations rule, a natural born citizen had to do nothing other than be born in the county to parents who were both citizens of that country. No law, including any naturalization act or treaty, was needed to make him or her a natural born citizen. The universal and immutable principle of the law of nations that defined a natural born citizen was incorporated into American national common law. We know this by what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).
A clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents (that’s plural, meaning both Father and Mother) who are citizens.
What does this mean? Simply put, it means that Barack Hussein Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is NOT eligible to be President, and Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, along with Gov. Bobby Jindal are NOT eligible to be President or Vice President either.
This US Supreme Court precedent was established by the case of Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). The precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. The definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts to this day.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens, therefore, resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain the meaning of that term. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENTS (plural, meaning BOTH parents, Father and Mother) who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. There are some authorities who go further and include as CITIZENS (citizens, NOT natural born citizens) children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Whether the holding here was influenced by Emmerich Vattel, who authored The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, is of no real importance, although it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So, lets see the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. What the Court actually said is what makes law.
In the Minor vs. Happersett case, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt. By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship which was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. By so doing, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
In the Minor case, the Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different “class”. In Minor, the Court refused to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons because Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a “natural-born citizen”. Here again is what the Court said:
“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of CITIZEN PARENTS with in the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens, but rather the opposite, the Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.
In 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did. To avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Obama, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal do not. This is abundantly evident by the fact that the Minor Court specifically states that the “citizenship” of those who have non-citizen parents was historically subject to doubt. Whether the 14th Amendment nullified those doubts was irrelevant to the Court in Minor, since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen.
The 14th Amendment specifically confers ONLY “citizenship”. In Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.
Thus, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are NOT natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:
1.) A Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;
2.) A Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case.
Neither of these exist.
The case of Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents were “citizens” ONLY, NOT “natural born” citizens.
The Minor case was severely misconstrued in the Ankeny vs. Governor case opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Ankeny Court has it backwards.
The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question.
Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1.
Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.
The Minor Court established binding precedent as follows:
“…[A]ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…”
Please note carefully, that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents. These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a foreigner.
A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama’s, Cruz’s, Rubio’s and Jindal’s eligibility is that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that person is also automatically a natural-born citizen. This is totally FALSE! This was unequivocally established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
To those who think this appears to provide a neat little workaround for Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal supporters, it does NOT. They take the above quote out of context, because the Court’s opinion goes on to state:
“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”
Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.
The Minor case does establish that not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”. Minor also gives an unequivocal definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal do NOT fit into that class. Obama was born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father, and Cruz who was born in Canada to a US citizen mother and a Cuban/Canadian father, therefore, they were born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US citizen, part foreigner. Rubio and Jindal were both born in the US to parents who were foreigners at the time of their births. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born citizens and aliens or foreigners.
No Constitutional amendment supersedes Minor by defining natural-born citizen in a more inclusive way. No US Supreme Court case has overruled it. Justice Gray’s statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the passage quoted is wrong. The Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 while directly avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark directly construed the 14th Amendment and specifically avoided construction of Article 2 Section 1. The two cases are not in contradiction. They are consistent.
Therefore, according to the US Supreme Court precedent established by Minor, neither Obama, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are eligible to the office of President of the United States. PERIOD!
Now the question; Why won’t the GOP admit the truth concerning the ineligibility of Cruz, Rubio and Jindal? The answer is clear:
Both times Barry, aka Obama, was submitted as a candidate, the Democratic/Communist Party USA committed fraud, and every Republican member of Congress (House and Senate) abetted in this fraud because they ALL knew Obama was not and is not constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice-President, yet they remained silent, in essence, aiding and abetting in the crime of fraud, so if the GOP were to admit that Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are NOT eligible to hold the office of either President or Vise President, they would also have to admit that Obama is also ineligible, which would then expose their own involvement in the crime.
If the Republican Party (GOP) submits ballot qualification paperwork for Rubio, Jindal or Cruz to be on any ballot as President or Vice-President, they will also be committing fraud by knowingly and willfully submitting an ineligible candidate.
If it’s true, I find it interesting that Ted Cruz’s Dominionist daddy did not become a US citizen until 2005 when it would look better for Ted’s political career.
But, there’s some pretty crazy stuff in there.
I’m not sure if it’s true, but this guy has done a tremendous amount of research on the topic. Even posts his email address on the site. He seems well educated. Calls himself a life long conservative. His comments are more interesting than the articles he comments on.
“Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvendo Cruz, was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. As a teenager, he joined Fidel Castro’s guerrilla groups to fight against the regime of Fulgencio Batista. He left Cuba in 1957 to attend the University of Texas.[19] Rafael Cruz became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. Cruz’s father eventually left the oil business to become a minister, and he is now a pastor in Carrollton, Texas, a Dallas suburb.[26]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
After a little research it does look like some crazy stuff. Possibly a birther. Sure has done a ton of research though!
Would Nikki Haley be eligible to be President? Is eligibility for required to be Vice President?
I have no idea. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I find these comments interesting. Particularly coming from someone who calls himself a life long conservative. He has done a ton of research, but based on a brief Google of information, it looks like he fits the description of what is commonly referred to as a Birther.
I don’t remember the entire argument in rebuttal, but it goes something like this. The US has only two kinds of citizenship. Naturalized and natural born; therefore if Cruz, because his mother was a citizen, wasn’t required to go though the Naturalization process then he must be a natural born citizen. Since Obama, Jindal, Rubio and Haley were born here, they also didn’t have to be Naturalized.
Have you seen Nikki’s birth certificate?
No, but I was there. It was at a grass shack in Punjab.
Difficult to imagine someone US born wouldn’t be a citizen. If his comments held any truth, then he just disqualified a large slate of GOP candidates.
I think people went too far asking for proof of Obama’s citizenship. It created a media monster of its own with deep roots in conspiracy.
The question is not if they are citizens, but if they are natural born citizens. Even so, I think they are and are eligible to be President.
Seems if someone is born in US that would be “natural” but I know law often defines words differently than every day use.
We’ve just about exhausted this subject but the issue of illegal immigrants having anchor babies and Chinese women traveling to the US to have babies while on tourist visas raises many issues.
It seems equally odd they Ted Cruz would be a naturally – born citizen, but was born in a foreign country.
I think according to the law it is because his mother was born in US. Interesting family history.
“Jindal is now so unpopular in deep-red Louisiana that his approval rating plunged to 32% in a recent poll — compared with 42% for President Obama, who lost the state by 17 percentage points in 2012.”
Jindal has budget problems in Louisiana. Imagine him as POTUS.
If Jindal is running, we might as well get Brownback to run too.
haha!
I figure Sam plans to finish his second term in 2018 and run for POTUS in 2020.
At least, that was his original plan…
I go to Saints games probably 3 times a year. I haven’t heard anything good about him from anyone in the state; just negativity.
Wow. Rick Manning must be an idiot.
Bobby Jindal has run his state in the fiscal ditch worse than Chris Christie and almost as bad as Sam Brownback have done with theirs.
“Rick Manning must be an idiot.”
With Jindal, Christie, and Walker in the race the big question is which one of these will Haley back?
Oh I almost forgot, none of them are polling well so she will forget all them and back Bush…with the hopes of getting some sort of appointment at the federal level after 2018.
She went with the establishment candidate last time. So, Bush is the likely one.
I looked at the draft which said $9958@mk3
..
http://www.GlobalworkworldsJobs/board/hop...
Bobby is a dick and will not go anywhere. He is a guy who will sell his soul and grandmother to be allowed at the table….
I know Jindal is Indian-American, but for all the world he looks and sounds like a back-woods Southern goober with a deep tan.
His accent is probably as fake as George W. Bush’s.
“Backwoods southern goober.” I resemble that remark. LOL (Damn proud of it too.)
I can’t support Jindal. We can’t have two people of Indian origin on the same ticket.
There is a connection between Piyush and Nimrata in that Haley appointed Tony Keck as Director of HHS after he was passed over for the same job in Louisiana.
I can’t remember how long he lasted here, but his main effort was to resist Medicaid expansion under the ACA. Then, to make matters worse, under the guise of combating fraud, he slowed down the Medicaid reimbursement process so much that some doctors left the state, unable to survive the cash-flow problems Keck forced on them.
“under the guise of combating fraud,”
Because we know fraud doesn’t exist.
They probably left for Florida, where fraud is more lucrative.
The unemployment insurance trust fund squandered an $800,000,000 balance, much of it before the recession even began and then went $977,000,000 in debt to the federal government just two months after Haley took office because of fraud and lax standards and only finally repaid it all this month.
Another of the single digit crowd. He brought a lot of improvement to the ed. system in La. but mot much else. I think he has given it an honest try. Oh well ! Around the bowl and down the hole. NEXT.
Jindal may be having budget issues, but my BLS data from January 2011 until now (he took office in January 2008) shows Louisiana as having the highest increase in it’s Labor participation rate and the 3rd highest increase in Employment – Population ratio of the 50 (not 56 Obama) states. It still doesn’t rank high statistically because it is an historically poor state, but has shown more improvement than all but two other states since January 2011 whether they are rich or poor states.