George Will: I’d have to go with Bobby Jindal for my VP pick

posted at 5:21 pm on June 25, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, George Will made a succinct case for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as Mitt Romney’s best option for a running mate, and I’m going to go ahead and agree with him. It’s right around the beginning of the segment:

“My choice decided that he would rather be president of Purdue University, that is Mitch Daniels. [Rob] Portman and Pawlenty, they’re just fine. I prefer someone who brings a little more excitement. [Paul] Ryan would be good. The trouble is if you take Ryan out of the House, where he could in two years be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, so, by default and that’s not to disparage him, I would go with Bobby Jindal.”

If you haven’t yet picked up on it, I’m a pretty big Jindal fan. I think it’s a shame that the average voter seems to best know him for that calamity of a State of the Union response in 2009, because after having seen him speak in person and been on several conference calls with him, the man is actually a very compelling, candid, and clever speaker.

He’s relatively young, but Jindal’s already had a bunch of policy experience (most especially in health care, which is going to be a clutch issue for awhile yet), he handled the BP oil spill beautifully, he’s been taking on some of the education unions in Louisiana, and he’s been a highly vocal and effective critic of President Obama. He’s not too “vanilla,” he’s Southern, and I think he’d round out Romney’s ticket nicely.

And while there are several other VP-options I could definitely support, given the other possible candidates’ individual situations (I think Paul Ryan, for example, is extremely valuable staying in Congress for the time being), I have to go with Bobby Jindal all the way.

Just my vice presidential-two cents — and judging by last week’s reader poll, looks like plenty of you agree!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Yeah…looks and brains are not two words that come to mind when I think of Ann Barnhardt.

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Don’t fret about it. I don’t think you ever had a chance anyway.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM

At the rate you are going, soon you will know nothing at all.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Come from conspiracy trash such as you-that’s a compliment.
thanks!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM

O/T – Very nice picture of Condi on Drudge today…….’

Just Saying.

FlaMurph on June 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Ann Barnhardt – Looks, brains and guts.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I guess 2 out of 3 ain’t bad…but brains ain’t one of the two in her case.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Zing!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM

At the rate you are going, soon you will know nothing at all.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I love it when obnoxious people use nonsensical insults. It’s like dinner theater.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:22 PM

your right. however he quickly changed his tune, so now i can despise him again.LOL

renalin on June 25, 2012 at 6:19 PM

The point I was trying to make is that just because someone in the establishment or the media likes a conservative doesn’t mean it’s the kiss of death. It is when the media and establishment love him/her, but the base doesn’t. This isn’t a problem for Jindal because the Republican establishment, “conservatives intellectuals” in the media, and the base all love him.

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Come from conspiracy trash such as you-that’s a compliment.
thanks!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM

You do have a way with words. Are you really Dave Axlerod?

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:23 PM

I guess 2 out of 3 ain’t bad…but brains ain’t one of the two in her case.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Leaves you in the dust.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Don’t fret about it. I don’t think you ever had a chance anyway.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Thank goodness for that. I don’t go for crazy and scary looking.

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 6:24 PM

O/T – Very nice picture of Condi on Drudge today…….’

Just Saying.

FlaMurph on June 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Clueless Condi, the Palestinian lover?

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Thank goodness for that. I don’t go for crazy and scary looking.

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 6:24 PM

If you don’t take whatever you can, you’ll never get anything. Even Nancy Pelosi would probably turn you down.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:27 PM

You have to give him credit for repeating himself even though he hasn’t convinced even one person. That’s dedication right there.

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I’m not sure I am convinced, but Dante and his ilk have a valid argument here. The people calling him a nut haven’t read the literature. I read it over the week end, and the case is compelling, if hardly settled.

The phrase “natural born citizen” while not defined in the Constitution, has a very specific meaning. The phrase is defined in Emmerich de Vattel’s authoritive The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), a book well known to the founders, including Washington, Jefferson, Jay (who had the phrase inserted into the Constitution), and Hamilton. Vattel defines a natural born citizen as one born on a country’s soil to parents who are both citizens. Those parents may be natural born citizens, or one or both may be “naturalized” citizens.

The Fourteenth amendment defines citizenship, not natural born citizenship. According to the 14th, Jindal is a citizen; he is not a natural born citizen.

Various court cases have stressed that there is no question Vattel’s definition holds. Whether the “citizen” defined by the 14th amendment constitutes a “natural born citizen” has never been settled. There is much evidence from the deliberations over the 14th that jus soli does not constitute natural born citizenship.

I’m doing this complex subject a disservice, but these guys have a compelling case.

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Who let all the birthers in here?

wargamer6 on June 25, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Leaves you in the dust.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Now remember, it is all irrelevant because the Republic is already dead…

Again, I poop you negative.

Clearly.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:29 PM

If you don’t take whatever you can, you’ll never get anything. Even Nancy Pelosi would probably turn you down.

VorDaj on June 25, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Projecting is never a good thing. Don’t worry, bud. Everything will be okay.

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM

If Paul Ryan wants to run for Governor of Wisconsin, then he might be Presidential material. Right now he is an accountant. Let’s get away from considering legislators for an executive position. I was very impressed with how Jindal handled the BP oil spill, and he would be a great candidate after 8 years experience as VP if Romney wins.

lea on June 25, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I’ve spoken to numerous constitutional scholars and law professors and not even one agrees with the birthers’ interpretation.

Bret Baier also received plenty of emails from the WND crowd and he finally had to address it:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/blog/2012/05/31/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 6:33 PM

err, ahh, uhh, ehh, ahh dont’s fogets sheriff joe’s press conference abouts me’s in mid-july. He gonna say I is born in kenyas. He is gonna sez I is fraudin’ on social security and my draft registration. I shows him todays though, got dat yo.

Mr. Sun on June 25, 2012 at 6:33 PM

O/T – Very nice picture of Condi on Drudge today…….’

Just Saying.

FlaMurph on June 25, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Yep.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM

[i]The phrase is defined in Emmerich de Vattel’s authoritive The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), a book well known to the founders, including Washington, Jefferson, Jay (who had the phrase inserted into the Constitution), and Hamilton. Vattel defines a natural born citizen as one born on a country’s soil to parents who are both citizens. Those parents may be natural born citizens, or one or both may be “naturalized” citizens.

The Fourteenth amendment defines citizenship, not natural born citizenship. According to the 14th, Jindal is a citizen; he is not a natural born citizen.

Various court cases have stressed that there is no question Vattel’s definition holds. Whether the “citizen” defined by the 14th amendment constitutes a “natural born citizen” has never been settled. There is much evidence from the deliberations over the 14th that jus soli does not constitute natural born citizenship.

I’m doing this complex subject a disservice, but these guys have a compelling case.

Mr. Arkadin[/i]

Nonsense. The idea that a 1758 treatise overrides all of the US court cases or legal discussion is asinine.

Just read up on a few of the cases. The topic is beyond moot.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html#NBC_PS1B_Hartford

chimney sweep on June 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Were Jindal’s parents citizens when he was born here?

What’s a natural born citizen again?

Akzed on June 25, 2012 at 6:37 PM

He’s born in the US, can’t see what the problem would be?

Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, who came to the United States as immigrants from Punjab, India, six months before he was born.

Oil Can on June 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM

His parents were not American citizens. Therefore, Jindal is nit a natural born citizen.

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Proof that I rarely read other posts before posting…

Akzed on June 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM

The Founders’ chief concern, as demonstrated in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, was that the commander-in-chief not have dual loyalties.

Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first Supreme Court chief justice, wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S. Congress can be seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The law, specifying that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

link I don’t care for this website, but the info here is important.

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Fair enough.

So who is your mystery uber-conservative that will bolster the ticket?

FlaMurph on June 25, 2012 at 6:01 PM

The man I’ll be voting for is no mystery to people that READ here in Hot Air:

Gary Johnson: I would have vetoed DHS after 9/11

Why are CNN, media ignoring Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson offers third choice in 2012 election

Michigan Libertarian Party Files Lawsuit to Get Gary Johnson on the Ballot

The [republican] Secretary of State said on May 3 that she would not print Johnson’s name on the November ballot because his name had appeared on the Republican presidential primary ballot in February this year. Johnson had tried to withdraw but the Secretary of State says his withdrawal was received three minutes too late. There are very few precedents for a case like this, because no state has ever before told a ballot-qualified party that it will not list its actual presidential nominee on the grounds that the actual presidential nominee had run in the presidential primary of some other party.

DannoJyd on June 25, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Dante must be busy looking through the Constitution for the part where it defines what a “natural-born citizen” is. I’m sure he’ll be reporting in shortly with his findings.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Do you think the Constitution is a dictionary?

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Do you think the Constitution is a dictionary?

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I guess that’s a “no, I couldn’t find the part in the Constitution that defines what a natural-born citizen is”. Don’t worry. I’m patient. Take all the time you need.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:49 PM

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:49 PM

rofl!..:)

Dire Straits on June 25, 2012 at 6:55 PM

It’s always interesting and sad to see so-called conservatives mock and deride those who wish to see the Constitution upheld.

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 6:56 PM

They just mock birthers. Sorry.

wargamer6 on June 25, 2012 at 6:57 PM

It’s always pathetic and sad to see a someone spend their entire time on a website, telling everyone that they aren’t conservative because they don’t agree with them on everything.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM

+ 100..Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on June 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Pythagoras on June 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM

There are different kinds of birthers. Not every birther believes that Obummer was born outside of the US.

Valkyriepundit on June 25, 2012 at 6:01 PM

And what does that have to do with anything I said about Bobby Jindal?

Pythagoras on June 25, 2012 at 7:05 PM

He’s born in the US, can’t see what the problem would be?

Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, who came to the United States as immigrants from Punjab, India, six months before he was born.

Oil Can on June 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I hear you and I agree that what you said seems to be the prevailing view of the law, but DON’T think that if Rubio or Jindal are nominated that there won’t be a sudden explosion of interest on the LEFT in the Constitution. We will see ‘birthers’ on the left.

If that costs us one or two percent in the polls, is it worth it?

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Jindal is my choice. Even if those saying he and Rubio are not natural born citizens are right, the fact that Obama has gotten away with not qualifying by that definition means it won’t matter. The Supreme Court has not followed conservative thinking in the Arizona case on three of four issues, and they sure won’t make any ruling that would nullify Obama’s presidency. A precedent has been set regarding who is eligible and they won’t change it.

Rose on June 25, 2012 at 7:06 PM

As stated above I think that natural born citizenship is not in dispute with someone who is born to persons who are subject to US law. Obviously if your parents have immigrated here with the declared intent of becoming citizens they are subject to US law.

I believe the issue is if your parents have come illegally and have not declared their intent to become citizens there may be a question. Because they are subject to the laws of their country of citizenship.
To my knowledge that issue has not been finalized by the Court. I could be wrong.

I have nephews born in Canada and they had to declare at 18 they were Americans not Canadians. They had a choice. That was all they had to do because they were born to natural born citizens subject to US law.

BullShooterAsInElk on June 25, 2012 at 7:13 PM

He’s simply ineligible as is Rubio.

Danzo on June 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

It’s always interesting and sad to see so-called conservatives mock and deride those who wish to see the Constitution upheld.

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 6:56 PM

The Constitution does not define the term.

I’m sorry, are you on the Supreme Court now to change the precedent??

MikeknaJ on June 25, 2012 at 7:36 PM

MikeknaJ on June 25, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Sure it does, if you have your handy-dandy Constitution decoder ring! Get yours now, for a limited time only!

MJBrutus on June 25, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Sure it does, if you have your handy-dandy Constitution decoder ring! Get yours now, for a limited time only!

MJBrutus on June 25, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Heh.
Romney/Jindal 2012

GOPRanknFile on June 25, 2012 at 8:00 PM

The phrase “natural born citizen” while not defined in the Constitution, has a very specific meaning. The phrase is defined in Emmerich de Vattel’s authoritive The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), a book well known to the founders, including Washington, Jefferson, Jay (who had the phrase inserted into the Constitution), and Hamilton. Vattel defines a natural born citizen as one born on a country’s soil to parents who are both citizens. Those parents may be natural born citizens, or one or both may be “naturalized” citizens.

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 6:27 PM

So the birthers are now saying that what some French guy wrote in 1758 is “authoritative”, despite the fact that it wasn’t even translated into English at the time.

Even if they had read it, so what? Who says they agreed with him? My constitution says nothing about Vattel.

For a bunch of people claiming to revere the constitution, you certainly don’t seem all that concerned with what it actually says.

No, you’d rather our country be ruled by the dictates of some French guy.

RINO in Name Only on June 25, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Nonsense. The idea that a 1758 treatise overrides all of the US court cases or legal discussion is asinine.

chimney sweep on June 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Vattel is enough of an authority for Scalia to refer explicity to Vattel’s definition of sovereignty in the opening of his Arizona dissent:

As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has longbeen recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur- poses, according as he may think it advantageous…

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Oh my.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Why are CNN, media ignoring Gary Johnson?

For the same reason everyone else ignores him.

xblade on June 25, 2012 at 8:48 PM

I’d could go along with Jindal as long as I don’t have to listen to him make a speech.

bflat879 on June 25, 2012 at 8:50 PM

So the birthers are now saying that what some French guy wrote in 1758 is “authoritative”, despite the fact that it wasn’t even translated into English at the time.

RINO in Name Only on June 25, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Vattel was first translated into English in 1760.

Ben Franklin owned three copies of Vattel in the original French, one of which he donated to a library.

Washington borrowed a copy of Vattel from the NY Public Library in 1789.

Jefferson owned a copy of the 1775 French edition.

Samuel Adams read Vattel in 1772 or so.

Hamilton quoted from Vattel in his 1784 defense of the case Rutgers vs. Waddington.

Shall I continue?

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton’s draft constitution provided:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Later, John Jay wrote the following to Washington:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[

The phrase was changed without debate at the convention.

Jay references Vattel in his letters, and was conversant with his works.

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Vattel was first translated into English in 1760.
Ben Franklin owned three copies of Vattel in the original French, one of which he donated to a library.
Washington borrowed a copy of Vattel from the NY Public Library in 1789.
Jefferson owned a copy of the 1775 French edition.
Samuel Adams read Vattel in 1772 or so.
Hamilton quoted from Vattel in his 1784 defense of the case Rutgers vs. Waddington.
Shall I continue?
Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Nice try. That translation does not use the phrase “natural born citizen”.

The birthers argument requires ignoring both the original, and the earlier translation.

Yes, please do explain how the framers were supposed to have read a translation that didn’t exist yet.

RINO in Name Only on June 25, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I thought Will was gonna endorse Rubio, but I knew it would be either the ineligible Jindal or the ineligible Rubio.

Buddahpundit on June 25, 2012 at 9:20 PM

So the birthers are now saying that what some French guy wrote in 1758 is “authoritative”, despite the fact that it wasn’t even translated into English at the time.

It didn’t have to be. The term was already well understood as a matter of English common law, which was the basis of our own law. The founders would have felt no more need to explain the term “natural born citizen” than they would “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Unless, of course, they were to overestimate the ability of their descendants to grasp complex subjects. I’d love nothing more than for Jindal to run for vice-president, or even president. But the fact that he does not meet the requirement under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, has to mean something to somebody, even if it means nothing to others. If we cannot endorse the return of a nation under the law, as opposed to the fiat of men, we have already abdicated our birthright.

manwithblackhat on June 25, 2012 at 9:22 PM

The Constitution does not define the term.

I’m sorry, are you on the Supreme Court now to change the precedent??

MikeknaJ on June 25, 2012 at 7:36 PM

The Constitution does indeed define Natural Born Citizen:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Whether you think Bingham got it right or not is irrelevant. They set out to define natural born citizenship with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and so that is what it means now even if it meant something else prior. That’s what amendments do.

Buddahpundit on June 25, 2012 at 9:29 PM

The Fourteenth amendment defines citizenship, not natural born citizenship. According to the 14th, Jindal is a citizen; he is not a natural born citizen.

Mr. Arkadin on June 25, 2012 at 6:27 PM

No, it actually defines Constitutional citizenship as opposed to naturalized citizenship. Naturalized citizenship can be repealed by congress.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does match Vattel’s definition, but it wouldn’t even need to for it to become the definition of natural born citizenship after ratification of the 14th. They could have defined it as anything they wanted to and it would be the new definition as long as it was ratified. Although, it wouldn’t have been ratified if they had defined it in anyway other than:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

After realizing this, if any conservative still defines natural born citizenship as being born to non citizen parents, then they certainly don’t believe in abiding by the framers’ intent, and they are frauds or imbeciles.

Buddahpundit on June 25, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Why are CNN, media ignoring Gary Johnson?

For the same reason everyone else ignores him.

xblade on June 25, 2012 at 8:48 PM

LOL.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I’d could go along with Jindal as long as I don’t have to listen to him make a speech.

bflat879 on June 25, 2012 at 8:50 PM

He’s not a good speechifier, for sure. If he gets to work solving problems, that’s all I care about.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Jindal is my choice. Even if those saying he and Rubio are not natural born citizens are right, the fact that Obama has gotten away with not qualifying by that definition means it won’t matter. The Supreme Court has not followed conservative thinking in the Arizona case on three of four issues, and they sure won’t make any ruling that would nullify Obama’s presidency. A precedent has been set regarding who is eligible and they won’t change it.

Rose on June 25, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Bingo. I’m not disputing the judgment of those who say that Constitutionally, Jindal and Rubio are not natural born citizens. I’m saying that Obama’s candidacy and presidency has already violated that definition and it is a moot point. The Supremes chose not to enforce that strict definition and passed on the petition challenging Zero’s eligibility.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM

I’m saying that Obama’s candidacy and presidency has already violated that definition and it is a moot point. The Supremes chose not to enforce that strict definition and passed on the petition challenging Zero’s eligibility.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM

I think you’re saying that when the Constitution is violated, then that part of the Constitution that was violated is no longer valid. That invalidates most or all of it because I’m sure just about everything on the parchment has been violated at one time or another.

Buddahpundit on June 25, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I’d could go along with Jindal as long as I don’t have to listen to him make a speech.

bflat879 on June 25, 2012 at 8:50 PM

He’s not a good speechifier, for sure. If he gets to work solving problems, that’s all I care about.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Brilliant man, severely lacking in the charisma category. Small, mousey, short, looks funny, abominable haircut, bad smile. /blunt

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 10:34 PM

What is amazing to me is that back in late 2005, when I first started getting interested in politics, a conservative poster on a forum I frequent brought up two hot names to watch out for: Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.

I’ma buy that man a crystal ball and rule the effin’ world!

SpikeRHSC on June 25, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Condimania! She’s on Greta.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Buddha, I’m not saying it’s no longer valid; I’m saying that the likelihood of this Supreme Court resolving this issue after allowing Obama to seemingly violate it is next to nothing.

The Supreme Court needs to rule on what the term “natural born citizen” means in light of the Obama presidency. And I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Brilliant man, severely lacking in the charisma category. Small, mousey, short, looks funny, abominable haircut, bad smile. /blunt

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Yup. Luckily, he’s got leadership skills and a charming Southern accent.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I agree that Jindal would be fine, but don’t give me this “too vanilla” garbage. What if someone said Obama is “too chocolate?” Everyone would go nuts. But anti-white slurs are just peachy keen? No thank you!

CoolCzech on June 26, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Nice argument, but I think if Buddah is correct in his quote of the 14th Amendment, then that is the end of discussion.

The Amendment IS the law, which means that Jindal IS a qualified natural born citizen.

connertown on June 26, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Nice try. That translation does not use the phrase “natural born citizen”.

The birthers argument requires ignoring both the original, and the earlier translation.

Yes, please do explain how the framers were supposed to have read a translation that didn’t exist yet.

RINO in Name Only on June 25, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Is it your position that in the Age of Enlightenment many of the Framers lacked a classical education, were dumb farmers, couldn’t read/speak other languages, and that they weren’t or couldn’t possibly be influenced by European intelllectuals?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Nice argument, but I think if Buddah is correct in his quote of the 14th Amendment, then that is the end of discussion.

The Amendment IS the law, which means that Jindal IS a qualified natural born citizen.

connertown on June 26, 2012 at 1:52 AM

“Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is “born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Chester Arthur was born from a foreign born father, Obama was born from a foreign born father, and yet both still served as President of the United States…albeit with controversy regarding there Natural Born Citizenship. Obviously, the precedent has been set, regardless of the Framers original intent. They were born on US soil. That is all that matters now. Can we all move on from this? I, as much as anyone else, would love to say Obama is not eligible. However, it doesn’t matter now and it will never matter. No court will overturn his presidency. So now let’s move on and work to get him voted out of office.

maables on June 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2