CHARLOTTE — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal stands out among the Republican Party’s up-and-comers. As president of the Republican Governors Association and a frequent speaker for the GOP, he’s one of a new generation of reform-minded, young Republican leaders — among them, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Many observers consider Jindal, 41, potential presidential material. He is a blunt talker who pushes big change for government and his party.
Comments: I like Gov. Jindal and hope he does well. I just hope he has gotten over his stage fright that happened at his 2009 SOTU response.
I don´t like some of the things has said recently. I´m not a fan of people who are so quick to publicly condescend towards Republicans. I think that was big part of Romney´s lack of appeal. The problems in this country continue to be the fault of Democrats, not Republicans.
I´m also skeptical of newspapers trying to be kingmakers. Few, if any publications that I knew of supported Reagan. He was an effective leader none the less.
I will continue to watch carefully to look for good conservative leadership. I think I´ll know it when I see it. In the mean time, we all need to be careful of publications like this one that seem to elevate Jindal just because he scolded Republicans.
He is a social conservative. One stance -- he wants the Federal Government to control which marriages in which states are declared "legitimate". The GOP should nominate him for the Presidency if they really want the US to remain a Socialist nation.
" His executive experience began at 24 when he was appointed to run Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, an unwieldy bureaucracy."
Now what was Barry doing at 24 , again ? Obama´s sketchy ethnic background was ( and still is ) given the Manti Te´o treatment by the media. They will dissect and besmirch and cast aspersions on Jindal´s background, no doubt implying that he´s Muslim.
He is not natural born. When his parents came here from India, his mother was pregnant with Bobby. Bobby was born here, but his parents were not citizens yet. Same thing with Rubio. Parents were not citizens yet. Obama has to be exposed for being an illegal president or we will have more like him in our future. Jindal and Rubio are at least on America´s side; Obama is not.
There´s lots of football left between now and 2016, and not to put too fine a point on it, but Jindahl is still just flexing his muscle in Division III. He has yet to take his first NFL hit. We´ll see if he gets up the first time he gets his bell rung. Talk to me about him then.
#5, if the Federal government created an act that imposed recognition of same sex marriage rights on the states, would you still oppose it on principled constitutional conservative grounds? If the answer is "no," then the disagreement with Jindal is about preferred outcomes, not first principles. If you believe, as I do, that the Constitution does not empower the Federal government to decide who can get married, then you are looking to the states to debate and legislate the issue. However, proponents of same sex marriage are pursuing their goals by suing their fellow citizens. This turns a political and social question into a legal decision whereby one state judiciary can create a right that previously did not exist and then leverage the Constitution´s full faith and credit clause to nationalize recognition of that right. Jindal´s position is that the power to create rights (e.g. marriage) carries with it the power to destroy rights (e.g. the 2nd Amendment) and the judiciary does not, and should not, have that power.
Men of good faith can debate the issue of same sex marriage. Jindal´s support of the Defense of Marriage Act was couched in terms of opposing judicial activism at the state level. I´m still waiting to find a proponent of same sex marriage who also opposes judicial activism in support of that goal.
No, #22, your interpretation does not close the matter. There are many credible, informed, legal and constitutional scholars who believe otherwise.This is from the Cornell University Law School: Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person´s parents.
The vast majority of the country would revolt and never stand for it if a person born in the US was not allowed to run for President. Congress and the courts won´t touch it with a 10 foot pole and most legal scholars agree natural-born means born in the USA OR born of citizen parents if born outside the physical boundaries of the country. To the tiny group who is still fighting the ´both parents must be citizens´ fight, give it up. It´s over.
I remember having such high hopes for him....until he joined the dem bash wagon attacking Pres. Bush after katrina. I swear, you could not tell any difference between what the dems were saying about Pres. Bush and what jindal was saying.....they read from the same script. After that, I didn´t have much regard for him. If he is doing a good job in LA, let him stay there and finish the reformation....don´t let him near the dc crowd again, he can´t keep his head straight.
#23, No.s 22 and 15 are not offering their own interpretations but Vattel´s.
Those attempting to redefine this term have yet to explain the difference between citizen (qualification for Representatives and Senators) and natural born citizen (qualification for President) as presented in the Constitution. They are clearly two seperate terms. It should also be noted that the phrase ´...a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...´ seems also to indicate two different types of citizenship.
Words mean something and the consensus of scholars and experts does not change their meaning.
Dunno if anyone will see this, but I must address errors.
#23: I neither make nor offer an "interpretation." My #22 is correct. Post #29 is correct. I [and #29] correctly accept that the Constitution sets the qualification for President.Period. Further, an actual "interpretation" [read: opinion] of some judge, some law school, or some political party did not and does not set the qualifications. That´s clear beyond obviousness.
The only way to have "room" for the subjective opinion quoted in #23 is if we assume the Constitutional Convention was comprised of morons who didn´t understand that they used "natural born citizen" just one time for one office only and used "citizen" elsewhere but did not mean to indicate a difference. But it´s beyond clear that they understood the meaning of "natural born citizen" and used it specifically to impose that well-understood meaning.
I won´t dig into de Vattel yet again [I´ve posted on "The Law of Nations," the deliberations, and the relevant Federalist Paper again and again, and still some people who never even heard of de Vattel ´til they read my post argue with me]. Been there over and over. Thanks.
Can we, before our L-Tryptophan coma commences, vow to abandon all attempts to festoon Obamacare with ridiculous historical metaphors? The damn law is big, with a regulatory heft now in excess of 20,000 pages. But even this governmental behemoth groans under the weight of metaphorical ornaments both daft and dull. Obamacare is not Katrina, not in fact or political impact. Obamacare is not Iraq, not in its human or material cost or in the reckless misuse of a commander in chief´s most sacred obligations of truth, judgment, and management. Obamacare is not the Bay of Pigs, not in concept, execution, or
In trying to assess the the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicted truths emerge for me. The first is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice. In examining the first conclusion, I think it´s important to take a very hard look at the qualifications allowed for aggressors by Florida´s self-defense statute: Use of force by aggressor.
Sometimes when you’re writing part of a column you keep getting close to the meaning of what you want to say but you don’t quite get there, the full formulation of the idea eludes you. Then two days later, relaxing in conversation with friends, the thought comes to you whole, and you think: That’s what I meant to say. That’s what I was trying to get. This week I had one of those moments.
In one of the toughest defeats of President Obama´s political career, the Senate this week sank a piece of gun control legislation that the White House had been laboring over for months. As the post-mortems of the loss begin, some have questioned if gun control got bogged down with the president´s ongoing struggle to effectively operate the levers of power in Washington. Culprits for the bill´s demise are plenty — from gutless Senate moderates, to inflexible pro-gun conservatives, to a brazen gun lobby that waged an aggressive, and sometimes misleading, campaign to defeat the legislation.
I remember it so clearly — a memory you can only remember so clearly when it is from sadness. You can’t let it go. I was sitting in the mud by the rear passenger side tire of my old Acura cradling my one year old in the steady, driving rain. I was sobbing doing my best not to fall apart in front of my little girl. But the tears ran. My throat hurt as I tried to suppress the guttural cries I wanted to cry there in the mud.
Pat Toomey obviously isn´t flummoxed by basic arithmetic. The Republican Pennsylvania senator is proving that as he and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., attempt to modestly modify requirements for criminal background checks on gun purchases. The two senators, both gun-rights advocates, are pushing legislation that would require such checks for all gun show and Internet sales. Toomey is being labeled a Judas in conservative circles for backing what is being described incorrectly as a gun control bill. It is not.
Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania abortion doctor, is on trial for a lurid series of lurid crimes at his clinic. I can´t bring myself to describe them, so I´ll let Kirsten Powers do it. Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven´t heard about these sickening accusations? It´s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page.
The nation’s view of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, colored by the horrific Benghazi assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya on her watch, has suddenly turned upside down, with more now holding an unfavorable opinion of the likely 2016 presidential candidate. A new YouGov/Economist poll found Clinton, whose approval ratings have typically been sky high, with an unfavorable rating of 48 percent, more than the 46 percent who have a favorable opinion of her. The YouGov pollsters said that the change in American attitudes toward Clinton "suggests that negative press surrounding the tragic
President Obama will cast growing income inequality and a decline in economic mobility as a “fundamental threat to the American dream” during a speech Wednesday in Washington. The speech will serve as an early preview for next year’s State of the Union address, according to a White House official, who said Obama would focus much of his energy over the next three years on the issue. “The decisions we make over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in an America where, if you work hard, you can get ahead,” the official said.
Bill Clinton, the cliché goes, was the first black president, no matter his skin color. That being the case, Barack Obama is not the first black president, or the first African-American president, if you prefer, but the first hippie president. Clinton’s southern background and lifestyle were indeed more typically black, just as Obama’s was more typically hippie. And we’re not just talking about the “Choom gang” here, scarfing “Maui Wowie” on the sands of Oahu. We’re talking about all of it, the whole multi-culti-missing-white-mother-vanished-Kenyan-father-anti-imperialist-America-is-always-the-enemy-and-don’t-you-forget-it-nine-yards. And like most hippie culture as I knew and experienced it, it wasn’t about “peace and love.” Not
Good stuff from Jonathan Turley at today’s House hearing on executive power, although I regret that I couldn’t find a more user-friendly format for you to watch. There’s no compilation clip; you’ll have to make do with the C-SPAN embed by fast-forwarding to the time cues I give you and being patient while the vid buffers (and buffers, and buffers).(Snip)That brings us to point two: Even if Congress can’t stop Obama, the courts can. The problem there, though, says Turley, is that O and the DOJ have argued successfully in many cases that no one has standing to sue him
During a presentation at the White House in which President Barack Obama touted the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, the president declared that his signature health care reform law was not going to be repealed. This assertion led his administration members, his staff, and audience members to rise from their seats and give the president a standing ovation. Obama said that ACA opponents’ alternative to the health care reform law is to champion repeal and going back to the health care delivery system status quo ante. He specifically cited Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who he said was asked directly for
A woman has revealed how difficult it is to eat healthily and stay full when living off an average food stamp budget. Melinda Moulton, from Huntington, Vermont, was one of 200 people to take part in the 3Squares Challenge, which saw her living for a week on just $36 worth of food, or around $1.71 a meal. Opting to try and eat as healthily as possible, Ms Moulton resorted to cheap foods like yogurt for breakfast, two handfuls of peanuts for lunch and lentil stew for dinner, all of which left her unsatisfied.´I don´t know how people do it,´ said
Just over two weeks ago, MSNBC host Martin Bashir delivered a harsh piece of commentary that culminated in the suggestion that someone should “s-h-i-t” in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin‘s (R-AK) mouth. Bashir offered an abject apology on his next broadcast, but a chorus of critics continued to demand action against the host. After a reported “vacation” for the host earlier this week, Bashir announced, Wednesday afternoon, that MSNBC and Martin Bashir are parting ways. Here’s the statement from Martin Bashir, via email: After making an on-air apology, I asked for permission to take some additional time out around the Thanksgiving holiday. Upon