Jindal & Rubio: Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

During the three-month ordeal of the 2010 British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the American people were given a demonstration of true leadership by Gov. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal (R-La.).  The performance of the young Republican governor was in stark contrast to the sheer incompetence of his predecessor, Kathleen Blanco, during Hurricane Katrina.

With three day’s advance warning that a category 5 hurricane was headed straight for their city, most residents of New Orleans evacuated to higher ground.  Hundreds of thousands of others… those who refused to recognize the seriousness of the storm, those who stayed behind to rape and pillage, and those who didn’t have a reliable means of transportation… were left behind.  It was left to Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin, both Democrats, to evacuate those stragglers and they failed, utterly, in that responsibility.

By contrast, in the wake of the BP oil spill, the people of America were able to see how a capable and talented young governor, the first Indian-American governor in history, was able to know his duty and to do what had to be done, in spite of Obama Administration roadblocks.

Now, as the  nation faces economic Armageddon, we find a grossly incompetent president and a Democrat-controlled senate attempting to load an additional burden of taxes and regulations on an already over-taxed and over-regulated business community… attempting to administer a fatal dose of poison to an already sick economy.  In the midst of that debate, one of the clearest voices of reason in the U.S. Senate has been that of freshman Republican Marco Rubio, of Florida.

In his inaugural senate floor speech on June 14, 2011, Rubio had this to say:

“Another American century is fully within our reach because there is nothing wrong with our people.  The American people haven’t forgotten how to start a business.  The American people haven’t run out of good ideas.  We Americans are as great as we have ever been.  But our government is broken. And it is keeping us from doing what we have done better than any people in the history of the world: create jobs and prosperity.

“If we here in Washington could just find agreement on a plan to get control of our debt, if we could just make our tax code simpler and more predictable, and if we could just get the government to ease up on some of these onerous regulations, the American people will take care of the rest…  If we give America a government that could live within its means, the American economy will give us a government of considerable means… a government that can afford to pay for the things government should be doing, because it does not waste money on the things government should not be doing.  If we can deliver on a few simple but important things, we have the chance to do something that’s difficult to imagine is even possible: An America whose future will be greater than her past…”

The performance of these two young men, Jindal and Rubio… one the son of Indian immigrants, the other the son of Cuban refugees… has caused many conservatives and Republicans to think in terms of a future President Bobby Jindal or a future President Marco Rubio.

There is no doubt that either of these men, on their worst day, would make a more capable and competent leader than the narcissistic bungler, Barack Obama, on his best day. Unfortunately, neither of these men can ever hold that office because they are not “natural born” citizens, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Contrary to widely-held “birther” opinion, it is not necessary to be born on American soil to qualify as a “natural born” citizen.  Former Michigan Governor and American Motors CEO George Romney, a 1968 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, was born in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.  However, Romney qualified as a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were American citizens.  Similarly, Sen. John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, qualifies as “natural born” because both of his parents were U.S. citizens.

Governor Jindal was born on June 10, 1971, in Baton Rouge, La.  However, according to a WorldNetDaily report of May 22, his father, Amar Jindal, a permanent legal resident of the United States, did not become a U.S. citizen until December 4, 1986.  His mother, Raj Jindal, also a permanent legal resident, became a naturalized U.S. citizen on Sept. 21, 1976.

Senator Rubio was born on May 28, 1971, in Miami.  Both parents, Mario and Oriales Rubio, were born in Cuba and came to the U.S. as refugees from Castro’s communist regime.  Both were given political asylum and permanent legal residency; however, the Rubios did not become citizens until Nov. 5, 1975, four and one-half years after Marco Rubio was born.

While some, liberals and conservatives alike, are fond of saying that the Founding Fathers did not define the term “natural born” in the Constitution, the fact is they did.  By direct implication, they defined the term “natural born Citizen” by describing what a “natural born Citizen” is not.  Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, as follows:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

At the time the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land on June 21, 1788, there were two categories of citizens:  there were “citizens” and there were “natural born” citizens.  Those in the “citizen” category included the former British subjects who became citizens on July 4, 1776, the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, as well as those later naturalized by act of law and those who were dual citizens by automatic operation of foreign laws.

The “natural born” citizens were the children born after July 4, 1776 to parents who became U.S. citizens on that date.  They were the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all were less than twelve years old when the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

As WorldNetDaily reminds us, the first U.S. Congress, which included eight members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” clause, defined a “natural born citizen” as a child born of two American parents.  The Naturalization Act of 1790 (later repealed) specified that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil.  It proclaimed, “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… ”

The subsequent repeal of that law does not alter the way in which the first Congress, and those who authored the “natural born citizen” clause, understood the meaning of the term.

John Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 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 above represent rather clear parameters showing that neither Governor Jindal nor Senator Rubio can claim status as “natural born” citizens… but neither can Barack Obama.  Barack Obama’s mother was a 17-year-old girl, an American citizen, but his father was a Luo tribesman from the African village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, in Kenya.  Not only was he not an American citizen, he was not a permanent legal resident and was kicked out of the country because he was a self-confessed bigamist.

In a November 2010 broadcast, speculating on a future Rubio candidacy, Rush Limbaugh suggested that liberal “birthers” would almost certainly demand to see Rubio’s birth certificate.  He went on to say, “I’m not worried about it.  If Obama’s taught us anything, it’s that the news media doesn’t care where our presidents are born…  Well, let’s see if it does.  Let’s see if all of  a sudden the media starts caring where Republicans are born…”

Clearly, Limbaugh makes a rather common mistake.  He confuses “native born” with “natural born.”  Assuming their birth certificates are all valid (Obama’s birth certificate leaves much doubt in that regard), Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama are all “native born,” but none are “natural born” and are, therefore, ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

When asked specifically if Senator Rubio considers himself to be a “natural born” citizen, his press secretary, Alex Burgos, is quoted as saying, “Yes.”  Similarly, Kyle Plotkin, Governor Jindal’s press secretary, is quoted by WorldNetDaily as saying, “The governor is obviously a natural-born citizen.”

Not so fast, gentlemen.  It’s nice to demonstrate loyalty, and it would be nice to have a common sense conservatives such as Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio in the White House, but we can never forget that, unlike Democrats, we Republicans not only believe in the rule of law, we actually demand that our laws be enforced and that the demands of the U.S. Constitution be adhered to.
The American people deserve to have at least one political party that can be counted on to do what’s right, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, By Paul R. Hollrah, Marco Rubio, U.S. Constitution and tagged , , , , , by BobMcCarty. Bookmark the permalink.

About BobMcCarty

A native of Enid, Oklahoma, Bob McCarty graduated from Oklahoma State University with a degree in journalism in 1984. During the next two decades, he served stints as an Air Force public affairs officer, a political campaign manager, a technology sales consultant and a public relations professional. Today, Bob spends most of his time researching topics, writing about them and publishing those writings. When he’s not writing online, he’s working as an author. Bob’s first published book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice (October 2011), chronicles the life story and wrongful conviction of Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, a highly-decorated Green Beret combat veteran. In his second book, THE CLAPPER MEMO (May 2013), Bob connects the dots between a memo signed by James R. Clapper Jr. — the man now serving as our nation’s top intelligence official — and the deaths of dozens of Americans in Afghanistan at the hands of our so-called Afghan “allies” wearing the uniforms of their nation’s military, police and security forces. Bob is married, has three sons and lives in the St. Louis area. Bob is available for media and blogger interviews. Simply drop a comment here, leaving your name, organization, phone number, e-mail address and area of interest. He’ll try to respond as soon as possible.

11 thoughts on “Jindal & Rubio: Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

  1. Excellent article. I want to re-read it to make sure I understand. To sum up; the definition of a natural born citizen (which is a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency) is someone who’s parent are both legal citizens of the U.S. when that person is born. Yes? If so, then many of us need to be re – educated so that we know that. Furthermore, if this is true then we have a Constitutional violation on the part of the person (and his party) who is currently living in the WH and that person should be thrown out, yes? What is the possibility of this going to the U.S. Supreme Court or even being challenged in a court of law?

  2. Givemeliberty, long time no read. You only need a spare couple of a hundred thousand dollars to enforce the constitution through legal action. If not? We are all mere subjects and the constitution an urban legend from our history.

  3. Jindal, Obama and Rubio are all Natural Born US Citizens due to their place of birth, the USA.

    The meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written referred only to the PLACE of birth. There is no mention in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or the writings of any of the writers of the US Constitution at the time, or the writings of any American leaders at the time that ever referred to the phrase Natural Born as dependent on the parents.

    Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers ONLY to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.” There is no mention of parents or of dual citizenship, nor is there in the writings of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison and James Wilson.

    And, here is how the phrase was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    And here is how Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, had it used in the book that he edited:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  4. Wow! Talk about spinning words ellen! Are you a liberal or something that cannot take what is written as what is written?

    I suppose back in the 1930′s if you were living in Germany you would have voted for a particular guy (because he just melted you) even though he wasn’t born in Germany or even a German….but argued that being born in Austria did give him NBC rights to a foreign nation…

  5. Re: “I suppose back in the 1930?s if you were living in Germany…”

    Neither of us is living in Germany. The issue is the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the USA. Edwin Meese had the original definition absolutely right:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    That applies to Rubio and to Jindal, and since he was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of THREE Republican officials, and the notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 make clear, it also applies to Obama.

  6. While I agree with your conclusion about Jindal and Rubio, you arrived at that conclusion by applying an inaccurate litmus test.

    Simply put, a natural born citizen is the most fundamental form of citizenship in a society: birth into a society by members of a society. As such, a natural born citizen must be born on American soil AND be born to parents who were (at that time) American citizens.

    John McCain is NOT a natural born citizen, and was only made a mere citizen of the United States 25 days short of his first birthday when 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was made into law on August 4, 1937. Even if that statute had been in place upon McCain’s birth, he still only would be a naturalized citizen, and in no way natural born. In fact a great deal of fraud was perpetrated by members of the U.S. Senate regarding McCain’s candidacy, including the mis-representative phrasing of S.R. 511, the non-binding resolution fraudulently declaring McCain a natural born citizen.

    John McCain: A Case of Senate Fraud
    http://tinyurl.com/senatefraud (PDF)

    In fact the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently identified the terms of natural born citizen over its entire history as 1) birth on American soil AND 2) birth to parents who were American citizens. While some early definitions by the court in ostensibly seem to only recognizes the father’s citizenship, at this time the mother/wife was deemed to follow the naturalization of the father by default, without any formal naturalization process, a product of patriarchal society.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814)
    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830):
    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857):
    Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872):
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875):
    Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879):
    Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884):
    United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890):
    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):

    Reference Apuzzo:

    Mere birth to parents who are this country’s citizens does not make the offspring a natural member of this American society, which is what natural born citizen status entails. The parents do not convey that society with them wherever they might give birth. While the offspring might be made a citizen of American society, despite being born on foreign soil, that offspring is naturalized and not “naturally” a member of American society, and no other society, as they are born with a natural allegiance to that society (and soil) which they were born into.

    While the 1790 Naturalization Act, this country’s first naturalization law, made reference to the offspring born overseas being “considered as” natural born, this was NOT actually recognizing those born overseas as having natural born citizen status. That naturalization law was employing a rhetorical fashion of argument used more commonly in those times, using simile, comparing to inherently unlike conditions, to argue for the mere citizenship of the foreign-born offspring, and not awarding natural born status upon them. Changing the definition of natural born is not something within the purview of Congress, and not something they would do before the ink was dry on the Constitution itself.

    The subsequent 1795 Naturalization Act confirms this, removing this confusing reference in repeating the 1790 Act nearly verbatim, except leaving out the natural born reference, and specifically repealing that 1790 Act by name.

  7. Ellen
    Your citation of Meese and “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” is simply wrong, and a sloppy, unsupported conclusion, and demonstrably so.

    Not only is the mere birth on American soil in conflict with every statement by the U.S. Supreme Court over its entire history, but also the historical fact of the early states was that even those born on those state’s soils were not recognized as being citizens by mere fact of birth! As such, we would not have generated a “natural born citizen” until sometime after U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Gray, by gross calculating malfeasance, corrupted the 14th Amendment’s definition of “jurisdiction” to fabricate what we today know as “anchor babies”. And Gray did this a full THIRTY years after the 14th Amendment was enacted, in conflict with his own precedent in Wilkins v Elk, and in defiance of the clear intent of Congress to not recognize any new citizen by that Amendment!

    This fact is supported by John Jay’s famous letter to George Washington in July 25th, 1787, in which Jay suggested the natural born requirement so that the Office of President would not fall under foreign influence.

    Jay wrote:
    “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    If those persons merely born on American soil were to become “natural born”, then there would be quite literally ZERO protection from foreign influence on the presidency! Neither Jay nor Washington were idiots and their understanding was not flawed; only the understanding of current Americans is flawed.

  8. Ellen

    Furthermore your reference to Blackstone’s commentaries is as errant and inaccurate as was Horace Gray’s abuse of the Blackstone reference in U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark.

    Blackstone’s own Commentaries recognizes that in Britain the terms of what was a “natural born (SUBJECT) was changed by decree of the Crown, and as such, was no longer really even “common law” any longer.

    In 1765 the British Jurist William Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries:

    But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are
    still farther taken off
    : so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose
    fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves,
    to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were
    attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a
    prince at enmity with Great Britain.

    The above is an evidence of the British policy of “Perpetual Allegiance”, whereby one is born fully owing allegiance to the crown no matter where they are born. We fought two wars, Revolutionary and 1812, to object quite strenuously to this ideology of perpetual allegiance, making Justice Gray’s inaccurate citation of Blackstone not only dishonest, but also extremely contrary to this Nation’s very existence! This is only one small part of the gross malfeasance of the Gray court in Wong Kim Ark.

    Only 30 years prior to Blackstone?s writings, in 1736, British scholar Matthew Bacon recognized the fundamental meaning of “natural-born Subject” in “A New Abridgement of the Law”, Vol 1, Pg 77, to be:

    “All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of
    Birth was within his dominions.”

    Not only Bacon’s reference indicate that the place of birth must be within the “dominion” (British territory) itself, but it also indicates that the parents must be under the “actual obedience” of the King. The emphasis on “actual Obedience” strongly differentiates that from a presumed obedience resulting from mere happenstance of birth within the dominion. Given this, those who had foreign allegiance did not give birth on British soil to British natural born subjects. This is definition by Bacon is the same as our own “Natural Law” definition today, involving (1) the allegiance (citizenship) of both parents and (2) birth within the U.S.territory (dominion).

    And, no, Barack Obama is not by any stretch a natural born citizen and is, and can only be, a usurper improperly occupying that Office and abusing its authority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>