Governor Jindal
Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisian, would, unlike his fellow governor from Arizona, sign a bill that required US Presidential candidates to prove U. S. Citizenship, according to his press secretary, Kyle Plotkin, speaking to the Times-Picayune and reported in USA Today.
This is ironic given that many in the birther movement, whose antics sparked presidential eligibility legislation in 15 states, would wrongly deny that Jindal himself, the US-born son of two newly arrived immigrants from India, was eligible to run for President because of his parentage.
Louisiana’s birther bill (House Bill 561) was introduced last week. It requires that the President be born in a hospital.
Somehow I doubt he’ll sign a Vattel bill if it comes out of the legislature (although I would be surprised if it did…).
Now that’s interesting, I wonder if anyone has ever asked him that question?
Piyush Howdy DoodyBobby Jindal is also is an expert at exorcism:http://jezebel.com/#!387087/future-vp-bobby-jindals-college-girlfriend-possessed-by-satan-or-just-horny
Just wait until he announces, and that crowd turns on him.
I’m guessing that he doesn’t understand that most birthers consider him ineligible – either that or he gave up any presidential aspirations after his disastrous debut on the national stage…
I think he’s actually so desperate to want the GOP to love him and thus be able to continue his “political career aspirations” that he thinks he has to play “yes man” to any crazy idea the base comes up with.
The irony is I bet he’s just saying “yes” without thought to these Birther Bills because he perceives them as popular and sees appeasement here as he way back to Presidential aspirations; not realizing that he’s as much of a target of many of these bills himself….
“Golly gee, I’ll do whatever you want me to. It’s just so cool being the Indian in your cool, secret club! Hey… when do we get girls and beer?”
The Louisiana bill also requires:
“A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate’s places of residence for the preceding fourteen years.”
Which is swell and all…but the Constitution’s fourteen-year residency requirement is usually not interpreted to mean the *preceding* fourteen years.
Loren,
What part of “and been” is causing you such confusion? Is it you opinion that “and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States” would be the years “preceding” taking office, or “following” taking office?
Words really do cause the blindly ignorant Obama defenders problems. That’s probably why terms of art like “natural born citizen” (which is conclusive citizenship) causes you problems.
And before I forget: FU to misha trotsky for referring to Bobby Jindal as “Piyush Howdy Doody”. Of course your fellow racist friends would never scorn you.
> Which is swell and all…but the Constitution’s fourteen-year residency requirement is usually not interpreted to mean the *preceding* fourteen years.
But this sentence appears in nearly every “birther bill”. I think it’s time an investigative journalist asks the question “who is feeding these templates to the state representatives?”. They can’t possibly have come up with it all on their own, that’s like “no, I didn’t copy my homework although it’s identical to the word”. They can’t possibly have come from sideline birthers such as Orly or Apuzzo. No-one would sponsor a bill just sent in by someone with no name in the business. So who, with enough influence, is behind all this?
> What part of “and been” is causing you such confusion?
None, though you seem incapable of understanding basic English.
> Is it you opinion that “and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States” would be the years “preceding” taking office, or “following” taking office?
That’s a straw man argument. By “preceding”, Loren obviously meant “immediately preceding”.
The Constitution only means one must have been a resident for 14 years of one’s life, not the 14 years immediately preceding the presidency (which some birther bills require).
> Words really do cause the blindly ignorant Obama defenders problems.
Obviously your mastery of words applies only in the parallel Universe where up is down and the Constitution incorporates Vattel.
Every time Orly refers to our president, she says “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” with scorn, so I am returning the favor. One thing I have noticed about conservatives is that they lack intellectual curiosity, along with a fine sense of irony.
So your hero’s real name is PIYUSH Jindal, who is an anchor baby, as your crowd derisively says. He was born 6 months after his parents arrived from India, so neither parent was a US citizen. According to your twisted rules, he is a native born citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
The irony escapes Jindal.
“FU to misha trotsky” I would like to return the compliment, and double it.
Hoover’s and Eisenhower’s 14 years were cumulative, not consecutive.
“Piyush Howdy Doody”. Of course your fellow racist friends would never scorn you.”
His name is Piyush Amrit “Bobby” Jindal.
He looks and acts like Howdy Doody, a freckle-faced boy marionette who lets a master pull his strings.
I fail to see any racial connection whether historical, cultural or otherwise.
More likely, this paranoid and deranged, mentally and short term memory challenged birther bigot, amateur attorney and hypocrite sees scary shadows everywhere.
Birthers are such idiots.
Racism is the belief that a particular race is intellectually and biologically superior to all others. Sounds like a lot of conservatives and tea partiers.
Reverend Wright is not a racist. He does not believe that black people are intellectually or biologically superior to white people, or others. He is justifiably angry about the way slaves’ descendents have been treated. Those descendents did not have civil rights until 1964, 100 years after emancipation.
I suggest you read about the Green Book, AKA The Negro Travelers Guide to North America. It was simply a compendium of establishments that would serve black travelers. Know why the Borscht Belt developed? Because hotels used to have signs
NO NEGROES
NO HEBREWS
NO CHINESE
NO DOGS
That’s why.
Though to be fair it is insulting an a whole range of non racist levels. *rolls eyes* 🙂
The wonderful thing about this move is that Jindal gets credit among birthers, without actually DOING anything, since this bill is not on his desk awaiting signature.
It’s kind of like when someone asks for your help with something, and you say “I would, but I can’t because of…. (insert excuse here)”. You then get to trick someone into thanking you, without doing anything worthy of thanks.
Please at least try to understand what you read. The question is over where the 14 years must be consecutive and immediately preceding assuming office (which would be implied by the evidence required by the bill) or could be in parts, or consecutive but not immediately preceding. It looks like your rush to be insulting leads to careless errors.
Some US Presidents have not met the immediately preceding definition.
> Hoover’s and Eisenhower’s 14 years were cumulative, not consecutive.
Don’t tell the birthers, they’re gonna throw ’em under the bus faster than you can say “Holy Cao”.
Maybe that’s another birfer meme waiting to bubble up in importance, maybe once there’s a SCOTUS ruling as to “NBC = ius soli only”, they’re gonna claim Obama cannot prove he was a resident the entire time between 1994 and 2008.
The Louisiana bill would require the production of a birth certificate which contains “the names of the hospital and the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.”
Louisiana says that its long-form birth certificate includes the hospital of birth, but says nothing about a doctor’s name or the signatures of witnesses. So it is possible that Louisiana’s long form does not meet the requirements of the bill.
Has anyone here actually seen a Louisiana long-form birth certificate?
This scan was released by a candidate for Congress born in Louisiana:
http://cenlamar.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/screen-shot-2010-07-14-at-9-01-57-pm.png
I see a hospital, but no doctor’s name not witness signatures.
Why would the birthers care? Both Hoover and Eisenhower were white.
Well, so was Chester A. Arthur, but I hear they’re going after him.
They are using him to get Obama. Eisenhower and Hoover don’t help, since you can’t get Obama on residency. He’s lived in the US continuously since he was 10.
The only thing that matters is getting Obama. “Robert, the Phony, Clark” has flat-out admitted it.
President Arthur is their beard (to cover their racism) – they probably figure that no one really cares if a President 100 years ago was ineligible, so they picked him to try and make a precedent for President Obama being ineligible.
Reluctantly, and only because we non-birthers pinned them on it.
They certainly ain’t going after Spiro Agnew, and there’s conclusive proof his daddy was not naturalized before he was born. You know, like the fact he used it as part of his election campaign. And that’s recent enough people can research his election campaign.
But I think having 2 people that didn’t classify their false definition of NBC in office before Obama, both Republicans and both well known as having had non citizen fathers (Arthur put his fathers naturalization cert in with his papers donated to the library of congress) would stretch the gullibility of even birthers to breaking point. And that’s not even counting those that ran for the office and lost.
I guess we need to add James Buchanan to the list of ineligible Presidents. He was Minister to the Court of St James and therefore a resident of London England for the three years immediately prior to his nomination and election.
Um… wouldn’t that make him a diplomat (who never legally left American soil since he carries it with him?)
> since you can’t get Obama on residency. He’s lived in the US continuously since he was 10.
You can’t “get” Obama on anything the birthers make up, but when has that ever stopped them from making ludicrous claims, along with laying the bar for “burden of proof” so high not even God could cross it?
> both well known as having had non citizen fathers (Arthur put his fathers naturalization cert in with his papers donated to the library of congress) would stretch the gullibility of even birthers to breaking point
Not really. They have no problems inventing more lies, like “Arthur burned his papers to hide his non-citizen father”. Gullibility can’t be overstretched since you can always extend it ad infinitum with lies.
I notice that this bill extends exactly the same requirements to candidates for Congress.
Put that together with the fact that birth certificates issued by LA do not meet the requirements of this bill, and you conclude that people born in LA cannot get on the ballot to represent LA in Congress. (Unless LA used to issue BCs that do meet this requirements.)
BTW, five of the seven incumbent Representatives from LA were born in LA. They will not be happy if this bill keeps them off the ballot in 2012.
Jindal used to be a member of Congress. I figure this bill might have prevented his name from being on the ballot. Oh the irony if he signs this bill and it goes back to haunt him if he ever decides to run for Congress again, as well as President or VP.
Jindal knows that he’s in the Schwarzenegger category. He can never be president under current law.
Jindal is firmly in the Wong Kim Ark category – he can run if he wants to. His problem is that he’ll never be able to win… (my opinion).
Bobby was born in the US, Arnold was not. Big difference.
There are more of them. Thomas Jefferson, who in the preceding 14 yours lived the life of any ordinary little Frenchman … in France.
Birfers explain that by saying he was grandfathered in, so it does not matter – but the grandfather clause was not intended to get rid of residency requirements.
John Quincy Adams – spent the first six years of the immediately preceding 14 years in Russia and the United Kingdom. Birfers give two explanations. First one has been dealt with under Jefferson. The second one is a bit more elaborate to refute.
It is claimed that because both in Russia and the UK, Adams was an Ambassador, he never was “under the jurisdiction” of Russia and the UK, meaning his residence remained in the US. But, unlike other nations, the US does not consider US Embassies territory of the United States.
In fact, while still nominally Ambassador to Russia, Adams left Russia to participate in the negotiations at Ghent for the Treaty of Ghent between the US and the UK. Now Ghent was part of France at the time and technically France was still at war with Russia, so although Ghent was occupied by Russian Cossacks at the time, Adams was no longer under the protection of the Tsar of Russia and had stopped being Ambassador. After the Treaty, he was actually immediately sent on to London.
So, the argument that Adams qualified because he was an Ambassador all the time, does not even hold water. Of course, it could be argued that Adams was in US service at the time of the Treaty of Ghent.
The fact that Adams was elected anyway, was used later, when Democrats discovered Hoover’s name in the telephone directory during the 14 years preceding.
There have been arguments that Hoover’s eligibility was never the object of speculation until now, but that is wrong:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20B12FB3C5A147A93C0A91789D85F448285F9
Of course, considering he was in London at the time, Eisenhower COULD have gone to the London Telephone company offices and fixed Hoover’s residency and therefore secured the Presidency for himself – a bit more likely than Obama’s grandmother fixing little Barry’s birth cerficate.
Someone noted that the Donald only seems to marry foreign women. There has been a foreign-born First Lady before. John Quincy Adams’ s wife. Born an Englishwoman in London. Did Orly’s dental chair act with the Tsar. No joking. It’s in Alexander’s biography, he was a real Casanova.
Is a foreign wife a foreign influence? Would it not be nice to have the actual voters decide about a candidate’s foreign influence?
“The fact that Adams was elected anyway, was used later, when Democrats discovered Hoover’s name in the telephone directory during the 14 years preceding.”
One crucial word missing here. They found Hoover’s name in the LONDON phone directory. (as the joke about Ike “fixing” it, indicates)
Note that Hoover is in a special category as far as residency is concerned, because he probably never had a consecutive span of 14 years’ legal residencey in the United States ever. So his period was necessarily cumulative.
Jindal’s problem is purely with Vatel. This is what Vatel really said:
“The naturals, or indigenes, are those born in the country and related by blood to a citizen.”
Obama qualifies, Jindal does not.
It has been claimed that under the citizenship laws of India at the time,Pyush was NOT entitled to Indian citizenship. So no dualism there.
Furthermore, it is also true that the originalist Constitution denies US citizenship to “Indians not taxed”.
His parents being foreign students were certainly not taxed, so even if born within the borders of the United States, the original ratio says that he was not a natural born citizen.
You may now start arguing that it was not that kind of Indian, but the Constitution draws the line only between Indians taxed and Indians not taxed.
Of course, when saying that only natural born citizens can be President, the Constitution does not say natural born citizens OF THE UNITED STATES. But again, Jindal is NOT a natural born citizen of India either, so that does not help him. And he was obviously delivered by Cesarian. Three strokes – he’s out.
If anyone knows of any other ridiculous impediment as to why Bobby Jindal should not be legally President, let him now speak (and mail it to Orly Taitz) or for ever hold his twisted tongue.
Actually foreign students are taxed in the US. They may not earn enough to have to pay anything, but their earnings are subject to tax. In fact, you can be taxed in the US without ever setting foot here, if, for example, you own shares in a US-based company.
But how do we know they had earnings? They could have relied on their parents to send them money.
Of course, in the same way we do not know whether Eisenhower got Hoover on the London phone directory. We do not know where past presidents were conceived. (sht – it is a joke right).
Actually, I remember at one time owning US company shares. I was never asked to pay tax in the US. Of course, part of that may be due to the fact that overhere we used to pay about 54% tax on dividends to the Belgian state. Perhaps it is “liberating” or something, the bank just charges 54%, pays out the Fed first and then gives the remainder to the Belgian government.
Money parents send are not taxable income
For foreign shareholders of US stocks, tax is wiithheld from dividends before they are paid, usually at 30%. Normally you would be able to claim those as a credit agaiinst the taxes you pay in Belgium under the tax treaties between Belgium and the US.
Very true, and the Indians not taxed was added since their territory overlaps with the US and yet they are not under full jurisdiction of the US unless they are paying taxes.
Foreigners in the US however are under full US jurisdiction unless they are invading military or foreign dignitaries/ambassadors etc.
It’s time people try to understand the history of the 14th Amendment, and there is no excuse as many of the debates are available online.
This is not rocket science. But it does mean that the poor birthers are forced to read materials which totally destroys their position