Bobby Jindal Considering 2016 Presidential Run



Bobby Jindal

Caffeinated Thoughts talks to Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) after his speech to the Republican Party of Iowa State Convention on Saturday, June 14th.

Des Moines, IA – Governor Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana) told Caffeinated Thoughts in an interview on Saturday after speaking to the delegates at the Republican Party of Iowa state convention that he is considering running for President in 2016.

Jindal, 43, is prevented by term limits from running for reelection in Louisiana in 2015. Jindal said “We are considering (a presidential run).  It is something we are thinking about, praying about.  We won’t make a decision until certainly after the November elections.”

He said he wants to focus right now on seeing Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and Congressman Steve King (R-IA) reelected, as well as, helping Joni Ernst win Iowa’s U.S. Senate race along with 36 governors races and helping Republicans win the U.S. Senate.

“When it comes to 2016 and we’ll make our decision and again we are thinking about it and praying about it, and seeing if we can make a difference there.  One of the things I see with whoever wins we need big change in this country.  It’s not about incremental change and I mean that in both parties.  I think the big divide right now is between Washington, DC and the rest of the country,” Jindal added.  “Too often in DC they tell us you can’t do those things.  You can’t repeal Obamacare, they tell us you can’t balance the budget, you can’t cut spending, you can’t change the entitlement programs, you can’t grow the economy.  That is nonsense.  I just spoke to the convention here and I said we need a wholesale takeover, a hostile takeover, and I think that is what the country is looking for.  Whoever our candidates are in 16 we need principled conservatives who are talking about specific policy changes and big changes to get our country back on the right track.”

Jindal last week vetoed a bill that he noted opponents said would enshrine Louisiana’s participation in Common Core and PARCC.  The bill just added another year to a delay of rules approved by the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approved in 2012 regarding the implementation of the Common Core.

Jindal who touted his education reforms in Louisiana during his remarks has recently come out in opposition to the Common Core State Standards.  After affirming that he is in favor of high standards he said, “What I am against and what troubles me about Common Core and the reason I not only want to get Louisiana out of Common Core, but out of PARCC, out of the whole thing… We don’t need a federal takeover of education.  The reality is that the federal government never really had, and shouldn’t have, that role in education.”

“In Louisiana we have no state approval of curriculum, we have no state approval of textbooks, as I said to the convention, I believe in trusting parents.  I want the dollars to follow the child.  I want parents to decide what is the best learning environment for their student, their child.  Maybe it is a parochial school, maybe it is a Christian school, maybe it is a traditional public school, a charter school, online program, maybe it is a homeschool.  We don’t need a one-size fits all approach, every child learns differently.  My concern with Common Core is that not only is it a federal intrusion but you know for certain that once the federal government sets the standards then the curricula, the textbooks, everything is to be shaped around that,” Jindal added.

Jindal said that he’s also nervous about a federal involvement in education based upon his recent experience with Attorney General Eric Holder suing Louisiana in order to stop their scholarship program.  “We have seen the overreach of the federal government.  We have seen this federal government get involved.  At the end of the day it really comes down to trusting parents, trusting locals, we don’t need the federal government making this decision,” Jindal told Caffeinated Thoughts.

He reasserted that as Governor he believes he has the authority and power to get Louisiana out of Common Core, and that he was going to use his power to do that.  He also rejected the U.S. Department of Education’s threat of federal money and ESEA waivers as a paper tiger.  He said they put up false constructs.  He noted they insinuate that if you are not for Common Core, you are against rigor and quality standards, which he said is not the case.

Caffeinated Thoughts asked his opinion of the standards outside of their federal involvement, for instance its ability to help prepare students for STEM fields.  “I would invite any parent that has questions about Common Core, ask you kids to bring home their math.  Ask them to bring home their Common Core math homework and help them do just a couple of sheets.  Look my kids are in elementary school… pick a grade level, work through this math.  Forget the theory, forget the philosophy, forget the debate just work through these math sheets and then let’s talk about is this really the best way to teach our kids.  I think this is inevitable when you have a one-size fits all approach,” Jindal answered.  “I have nothing against a local school that decides on their own they want to do this curriculum that is fine by me.  I’m not saying they can’t do it.  What I am saying is choice and competition is the way we grow our economy.  What is ironic to me is that we believe in choice and competition in almost every aspect of our lives.  If the government were to come to us tomorrow and say we can only buy one kind of jeans we would rebel against that.”

He said that for some reason the left is ok with choice except in the arenas of healthcare and education.  They don’t think that citizens know best.  “This is a symptom of a much bigger problem,” Jindal said.

He pointed out that Republicans can’t just attack the left and ignore when Republicans stray.  “As conservatives we need to remember we’re just not against stuff from the other side when they are in charge.  We need to be against the abuse of government power when it is our guys in charge too.  Sometimes we forget that sometimes Republicans make that mistake thinking that when we’re in charge that Republicans earmarks are better than Democratic earmarks and Republicans government programs… we have got to be consistent.  If it is not right for them to do it, it is not right for us to do it either,” Jindal stated.

Jindal during the convention speech touted Louisiana as being the most prolife state in the nation.  He signed the “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act” last week in Baton Rogue.  Caffeinated Thoughts asked what the consequences of that bill will be.  “What the law literally does is that these abortion clinics that are providing these services their doctors have to have admitting privileges (to hospitals) within 30 miles.  What we are saying is that we are going to treat them the same way we treat other outpatient surgical facilities.  It is about safety and standards.  Why would you want to hold them to a lower standard quite frankly.  If there are complications they should have admitting privileges at a hospital that can help that patient,” Jindal noted.

“There is an overall pattern, an overall trend in our state, and certainly we’ve championed this as I have been governor of trying to pass and approve laws that protect our unborn, innocent human life.  I’m proud that year after year we are ranked the most prolife state in the country.   It is a reflection of who we are, our values, our priorities,” he added.

LifeNews.com reports that Planned Parenthood complained that the Act Jindal signed could have the effect of closing three of the five abortion clinics in the state.

He also pointed out that he recently signed a bill, that was authored by a Democratic legislator, that cracks down on human trafficking.  He lamented that this issue doesn’t get enough attention.  “This to me is a huge, huge problem in our society and people tend to think of it as – ‘That is happening overseas.  That is happening in some third world country, maybe it happens in eastern Europe, maybe it happens in Asia…’ It does happen in American, and tragically is is happening in Louisiana,” Jindal said.

He said the bills recently passed address the problem by setting up special courts, providing protections to victims so they are the ones arrested, going after the assets of those who perpetrate trafficking rings, stiffening the penalties, and making offenders register as sex offenders.

“This is not a victimless crime, it is happening in our back yard,” he added.  “Unfortunately it is happening in a lot of states with our interstates and materials moving across state lines.  Unfortunately it is happening along those interstate corridors as well.”

Those bills are part of the Jindal administration’s initiatives to protect human life and protect families.

Jindal in September of 2012 participated in the No Wiggins Tour an effort to oust Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins by voting no on his retention that year.  Caffeinated Thoughts asked his thoughts on the trend of federal judges overturning state constitutional amendments and laws defining marriage.

“This shows you the importance of the November elections.  We don’t need this President putting more liberal judges on the bench,” Jindal said.  “Some of the judges are so… they actually admit, they actually tell you when you listen to their speeches and you read their writings they sound like legislators.  They talk about taking opinion polls, and by the way, sometimes you hear it even at the Supreme Court level.  We had a case even in Louisiana where we were trying to put to death, this awful, awful criminal who raped a young girl and just brutally, brutally abused her.  Unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that we couldn’t do that.  That it wasn’t constitutional that we couldn’t do the death penalty in that type of case.”

“What was striking when you sometimes read these court cases and they say ‘well the majority of public opinion.’  Wait a minute – why are they taking public opinion polls?  That is not their job.  Sometimes you hear them referencing international legal standards.  Wait a minute, my understanding of their job is that they are to be looking at the U.S. Constitution.  What are doing looking at that… I don’t really care what the United Nations or other countries say on issues such as this.  They are really supposed to be looking at the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers intended,” Jindal added.

He said that the electorate needs to vet candidates on the types of judges they would approve and what their understanding of the law is.

“It is important, whether you are a lawyer or not, to understand what it means for the courts to actually apply the Constitution as opposed for them just to create new laws or to read things and just decide they are going to contradict what the other two branches of government did.  We’ve gotten away from these three separate but equal branches of government and instead we’ve got these activist judges who are overreaching. We have to recognize the problem for what it is,” Jindal added.

He emphasized the importance of elections and their impact on judicial confirmations because sometimes Constitutional amendments will correct the problem, and other times federal judges will just overrule them.

You can watch the entire interview below:

If you like what you read, sign-up to get CT in your inbox!

Comments

  1. Josh Lincecum says

    There is no way Jindal can win a national party nomination, whether President or VP. Aside from the fact that i genuinely dislike my state’s governor, he is to the right of too many issues to win at a national stage. His record on education is a joke. The voucher program has been demonstrated to be ineffective in increasing student performance. He’s rejected common core and embraced the right of public schools to teach intelligent design in the science classroom. Under his administration, funding for higher ed has been cut more than any other state in the Union. He’s demonstrated time after time that he is beholden to oil and gas, that if it’s ever a choice between the welfare of people and the welfare of industry, he will always choose industry. Our state has some of the highest rates of obesity and related health issues, yet he has refused federal funding to implement better healthcare for Louisiana citizens. He’s signed legislation that will limit families’ access to planned parenthood. Honestly, it’s hard to figure out whether he is a shill for the oil industry or a reality television star. Jindal would lose with democrats, secularists, the scientifically literate, moderates, independents, and women right out the gate, and I doubt very seriously he will do anything to improve the republican image among African American and hispanic voters. There is no way Jindal will ever be anything outside of Louisiana. Our state is the only one uneducated enough to keep ignoring how beholden he is to industry and concentrate instead on his Duck Dynasty appearances.

    • SirWilhelm says

      In other words, he’s done everything the Left hates, and everything the Right loves, and you hate it. That makes the choice clear, and obvious. Too bad he’s not eligible for the Presidency. On the other hand, Obama was never eligible to be President, and has been getting away with violating the Constitution every day he’s been in Office, but, I bet that makes you happy, as long as he’s doing what you want him to do.

      • Josh Lincecum says

        Well, we’re talking about Jindal receiving the republican nomination for POTUS, my response being that he can’t capture enough votes, because his policies alienate key demographics. Plus, he has sold out to private industry before he has even launched a national campaign. The only opinion I’m putting forward is that Jindal is not a viable candidate for national executive office. As I stated, I don’t think Jindal has been good for the people of Louisiana (he has a 35% approval rating in the state), but that’s not my point. My point is that he isn’t a viable candidate.

      • SirWilhelm says

        Your ignorance is only exceeded by your obstinence. The Birthers never left. They’re still gathering evidence, and are on the verge of releasing “universe shattering” information in a way that, we’re hoping, will end the Usurper’s reign. It’s taken way too long, and our patience is wearing thin, but, we’re hanging in there.

    • GQ4U says

      “…the scientifically literate”??? Is this a joke. Big Bang Science? Darwinism Science? Global Warming Science? To which literate science are you referring? Hopefully its not Common Core science. Common Core is designed to train our children to be good little communist members of the collective as opposed to vibrant successful individual Americans.
      I like Bobby but he cannot be POTUS because he is ineligible. His parents weren’t citizens when he was born.

  2. SirWilhelm says

    As much as I may agree with his political stances, or admire him as an individual, I must point out that Jindal, too, is not eligible, under Art II, Sec 1 of the Constitution, speciifcally, the natural born citizen phrase, because his parents were not yet naturalized citizens, when he was born. Cruz, Rubio, and Santorum, also have eligibility issues. That they, and the rest of the Republican leadership, refuse to recognize their own eligibility issues, along with Obama’s, is evidence that they are all conspiring to ignore the Constitution to the detriment of the American people.

    • says

      My understanding is that the consensus is if a person is born in the United States they are a natural born citizen.

      Anyway, there is debate over the meaning of that phrase.

      • SirWilhelm says

        There’s only a debate by those who refuse to recognize that the definition of natural born citizen is based on a natural situation, and not any man made law. It begins with where you are born. If you are born within the borders of a certain nation, that makes you a citizen of that nation. If your parents are both citizens of that nation, at the time of birth, that completes the citizenship of the natural born individual. Such an individual tends to be loyal to the country of their birth, and their parents citizenship, at birth. The Founders were concerned that if one of the parents, particularly the father, was a citizen of another country, particularly Britain, from which they had just won their freedom, their loyaties may be conflicted, between the US, and Britain. They did not want anyone with such conflicted loyalties, in the postion of Commander in Chief, or in the postion to inherit that position, as the VP is. The irony is, that, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his father, as stated on the online birth certificate, was born in Kenya, at a time when Kenya was still a British colony, making his father a British citizen, and Obama a dual, US and British, citizen, and not a natural born citizen. All that has been obfuscated by those in power with the assitance of the media.

      • GQ4U says

        Sir: Here is just one SCOTUS decision that defines Natural Born Citizenship as opposed to all other types of US citizenship. You can use it to verify your true and accurate position. Enjoy.

        Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or NATURAL-BORN citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. at 167-68. The Court said that at common law, if one was not born in the country to citizen parents, one was an “alien or foreigner.” This is the same exact treatment that Congress gave to children born in the United States to alien parents in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 so these children needed to be naturalized to be US citizens. The 14th amendment passed shortly after the Civil War included a new wording that has been interpreted to mean that any child born in the USA is a USA citizen – but that is not the same as a NATURAL-BORN citizen. If the 14th amendment had, had any effect on existing provisions within the Constitution then it must be clearly stated and point to the Article & Section & Clause that is altered.

      • SirWilhelm says

        Thank you. I’m aware of Minor vs Happersett, but, Obot debunkers jump all over it, and trigger long discussions that get bogged down in technicallities, and dogmatic beliefs. Nice to have you on the same side.

      • says

        From William Jacobson (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/)

        the Court in Minor v. Happersett did not even purport to resolve the issue as to whether children born in the United States “without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were “natural born Citizen[s].” The issue of “natural born Citizen[ship]” was not before the court, was not the issue in the case, and expressly was not resolved; yet this wording relating to “natural-born Citizens” often is used improperly to claim that birth in the United States is not enough to be a “natural born Citizen” unless both parents were citizens.

      • GQ4U says

        Wrong again. This was not a case to resolve the definition because in
        that day and age everyone knew what it meant, however the court did cite
        the definition in its ruling and differentiated it from the other forms
        of US citizenship; “the nomenclature of which the framers of the
        Constitution were familiar,
        it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [2]
        who
        were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
        These were natives or NATURAL-BORN citizens…” so your argument is
        moot because the definition is given even though it was not the focus of
        the case before the court.
        Also, if we cling to the definition
        that being born in this country makes you a Natural Born Citizen then
        there was no need for the Framers to include it in the Constitution. No
        one can show where an amendment altered the Natural Born clause so it
        still stands as understood and written in the 1790’s.

        Also look
        into the historical significance of Emmerich de Vattel and his book THE
        LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW (1758) and how it
        influenced and defined many of the ideals the Framers incorporated into
        the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the remainder of
        the original Constitution. Search for the letters by Ben Franklin
        praising Vattel’s work and mentioning how the Founders were passing
        copies around that Franklin had donated to congress and to the Library
        in Philadelphia. Vattel’s works on governing focused on Natural Law not
        Common Law and the uniqueness of our government aligns more with the
        Natural over the Common law. Vattel stressed the sovereignty of the
        individual in governing and Common law does not. Hope this is helpful.

      • GQ4U says

        There is no debate, the definition is known if one looks for it. There is a massive campaign of misinformation but that is not a debate its a cover-up.
        If NATURAL BORN CITIZEN defies definition then why did the Framers include the term and then add an exemption for themselves to be POTUS?
        Do your own due diligence and the truth will become self evident. As moderator it seems you would choose knowledge over sound bytes.

      • says

        “As the moderator it seems you would choose knowledge over soundbytes.”
        Yes, but that doesn’t mean I have time to do adequate research related to everything that comes up on this blog… and I have a job. This doesn’t pay the bills. I’m assuming this is your hot button issue since I haven’t seen you comment here before and this was the only thing you had to say about the interview. His potential presidential asperations were a small portion.

        Regarding debate… there is always debate, and just because you threw a bunch of examples from case law and laws that I haven’t had the chance to read doesn’t mean this is settled. Gee I wish people viewed my op/ed pieces that way. You may be right or you may just have one interpretation. I admit I simply don’t know enough. Considering I don’t see many conservative media outlets or attorneys jump on this I can only conclude that there are a variety of legal opinions. It is something I will be researching a little more as 2016 gets closer.

      • GQ4U says

        That’s all anyone could ask for; hope you seek until you find.
        As for posting here in the past, today is the first time I have ever heard of this site. Hot Button? I would hope all violations or contemplated violations of the US Constitution would be Hot Button.

      • says

        For example is this article written by conservative Cornell Law professor William Jacobson.

        http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

        He makes a reasonable case, and here is the money quote at the. “This is a very confusing area as to which scholars acting in good faith disagree, although there is a clear weight of authority.”

        His conclusion:

        A reasonable reading of the plain text of the Constitution supports Rubio, Jindal and Cruz being “natural born Citizen[s]” because they were citizens by birth. There is no clear, demonstrable intent otherwise from the Framers or clear, commonly understood use of the term to the contrary at the time of drafting the Constitution. The British term “natural born Subject” as well as concepts of “natural law” were not clearly relied upon by the Framers, and are in themselves not clearly contradictory to this plain reading of the text.

        Anyway, I don’t really care to debate this any further only to say this is by no means a settled issue like you claim.

      • rockyvnvmc says

        Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
        It’s a false debate. The reason that there exists, no where in our Constitution, a definition of the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’, is because everyone already understood what it meant. Emmerich d’ Vattel, in his seminal work, ‘Laws of Nations’, a tomb which history informs us was used extensively, throughout the Constitutional Convention and for 100 years thereafter in our Colleges and Universities, patently laid out it’s meaning, ie; ‘A citizen child, born in the country, of two citizen parents’. It’s solely due to the desires of International ‘Statists’ wanting to infiltrate and control our government, that we are even having this dispute, to begin with. Including GOP Statists, as well as DNC Statists. ‘Progressives’ have infiltrated all of America’s political parties.
        Establishment politicians are the Enemy of ‘We the People’. What is today being referred to as ‘far rightwing’ politics, is merely representative of our Founding Father’s values, when they established this country. ‘Political Correctness’ is properly known as ‘Cultural Marxism’. Google ‘The 45 Goals of the Communist Party for America’ (as written into the Congressional Register, in 1963) to see just how many of them have been incorporated into our nation’s policies, to se just how far down the slippery slope we have come.

  3. rockyvnvmc says

    What is it, about the plethora of GOP Presidential Candidates who are Not Eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency any more than the current Usurper-in-Chief ?
    Bobby Jindal’s parents were Both Foreign nationals, at the time of his birth, forever denying him the requisite ‘Natural Born Citizenship status. So too did Cruz, Rubio and possibly Santorum (more investigation needed)have one, or both parents, who were also Foreign Nationals, at the time of their births.
    Americans can be Naturalized and assume all of the rights of ordinary American citizens and persons born in the US are still US citizens, at birth, regardless of their parent’s nationalities, but a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a Higher standard, to which Only the US President is held.
    Just because No One, in Congress has the cojones to stand up and call Obama on his Proven Fraudulent Credentials, does Not create any sort of Precedent, whereby just anyone can run for the Presidency !

    • GQ4U says

      Praise the LORD! I just posted this same message above only to find you beat me to it. It is refreshing to see someone else posting the legal facts about being POTUS.
      Congress mocked the law when they vetted McCain’s eligibility but ignored Obama’s.
      They are all guilty of treason.

  4. GQ4U says

    Bobby Jindal is considering a presidential run!!! It is something he is
    thinking about, praying about??? “We won’t make a decision until certainly
    after the November elections.”
    Well lets that decision today — Bobby, you are ineligible to be POTUS because you are not a Natural Born Citizen. You cannot run pretending to support the US Constitution while you are in the process of violating it. I like you Bobby but stay out of this race. Want to be Senator Jindal then I’ve got your back. Run for POTUS and you will see an uprising against your candidacy from those of us who value our Constitution over political aspirations.

    Ineligibility applies to Rubio, Cruz and Obama too. Article-2; Section-1; Clause-5; is specific and the definition is clear, ignoring it doesn’t make it okay. If the press did their job well we wouldn’t have the current POS usurper POTUS.

    • says

      Ok, some friendly pushback… Natural born citizen means that you were born on U.S. soil, that is the legal consensus anyway. Where are you getting your definition from?

      • says

        Minor versus Happersatt. This 1875 Supreme Court ruling upheld women’s denial of suffrage. It ranks with Dred Scott as one of the most ill advised SCOTUS rulings in history. Yet birthers consider it gospel!

  5. Snidely70448 says

    I live in the district in Louisiana Governor Jindal represented in Congress. He was a terrible Congressman. He has been a terrible governor. He has destroyed the higher education system in Louisiana, especially the system of technical education. Rate increases he has put in place are making it impossible for many low income students to better themselves. Essential programs like machine tool technology is being eliminated. Instructor compensation is being reduced to the point where good instructors are leaving. Everything the man does is geared to building his resume as a “conservative”, which means his credibility with his corporate donors and social conservatives, and damn the consequences to the state.
    The next governor of Louisiana is going to have to address Jindal’s destruction. Louisiana has been starved to feed Jindal’s ambitions.

  6. says

    Bobby Jindal would be an interesting candidate. But, I doubt that he could raise the money to fund a 50-state campaign. His best bet would be to get behind Governor Perry, as he did in 2016. A Perry-Rubio ticket will win in a landslide.
    Jindal’s luster has worn off a bit in Louisiana. Nevertheless, he would make an excellent U.S. Senator. Perhaps, he can run for David Vitter’s soon to be vacant seat.