Posted on

Gov. Bobby Jindal to attend school voucher summit in New Jersey

Gov. Bobby Jindal to attend school voucher summit in New Jersey

Gov. Bobby Jindal will travel to New Jersey next week to speak to a pro-voucher group, only two weeks after the Louisiana governor signed a bill that creates a statewide voucher program that will use tax dollars to send children to private schools.

The American Federation for Children said Monday that Jindal is participating in its 2012 national policy meeting, which is set for May 3 and 4.  (Associated Press)

http://www.app.com/article/20120424/NJNEWS10/304240026/Gov-Bobby-Jindal-attend-school-summit-New-Jersey

3 thoughts on “Gov. Bobby Jindal to attend school voucher summit in New Jersey

  1. Someone please ask Jindal what he considers the definition of the constitutional term Natural Born Citizen to mean.

    If his definition is anything other than a person born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens, ask him why he disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court (Minor v. Happersett, 1875).

    The following individuals, among others, are ineligible to the office of President of the United States according to the Supreme Court’s definition: Barack Obama (at least one parent was not a U.S. citizen when he was born), John McCain (born outside the U.S.), Bobby Jindal (at least one parent was not a U.S. citizen when he was born), and Marco Rubio (at least one parent was not a U.S. citizen when he was born).

    If Romney elevates either Jindal or Rubio to the VP slot on the Republican ticket, he will be giving the middle finger to the electorate (as Obama has been doing for more than four years) and this country will descend into absolute chaos.

  2. Supreme Court cases can and have been overruled in the past, either by subsequent cases or by amendment. The main issue in Minor vs. Happersett was overturned, when the 19th amendment outlawed laws that prohibited women from voting.

    There are plenty of reasons why Obama is an incompetent president. No need to make more up.

  3. In order to consider the main issue of voting rights, the justices in Minor v. Happersett needed to lay the groundwork for their decision by determining whether Virginia Minor was, in fact, a U.S. citizen.

    This was no ‘minor’ issue in the case, you see. Minor actually wanted the Supreme Court to hold that she was a citizen under the 14th amendment, believing such a disposition would help her directly demonstrate her right to vote by citing the undeniable voting rights of recently liberated slaves. Instead, the Supreme Court found that she was a citizen under the original Constitution: a so-called natural born citizen.

    In order to find that an individual was a natural born citizen, the Supreme Court had to define the term. They defined it as an individual born in the United States to two U.S. citizens. Then they applied that definition to Minor. Concluding that she was an Article II natural born citizen, they then found that she was unquestionably a U.S. citizen.

    There was no need to delve into whether Minor was a citizen under the 14th amendment.

    The eventual adoption of the 19th amendment displaced the gender-based voting rights holding in Minor v. Happersett. However, it did not displace or ‘overrule’ the above-discussed citizenship holding. As such, the definition of Natural Born Citizen set forth in Minor v. Happersett is still U.S. law, as fully applicable as the day the ruling came out in 1875. This despite the fact that the case in which the definition was provided did not involve a POTUS ballot dispute, or a case to remove a usurper from the White House.

    We know, and have known for 137 years, the Supreme Court’s opinion on what a Natural Born Citizen is. Why are we so shy and sheepish about taking appropriate action based on that knowledge, including excluding would-be candidates for POTUS who don’t meet the qualification, such as Obama, McCain, Rubio, and Jindal?

    This is a constitutional crisis that will only get worse if Rubio or Jindal is selected for the VPOTUS slot, marking two straight election cycles in which both major parties have an ineligible candidate on the ticket. Is it any wonder why neither party wants to deal with this issue?

    We need to act now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.