Here they go again: Today the New York Times ran yet another flaky story questioning the presidential eligibility of John McCain, born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, where his Navy father was stationed.
Back on February 28, Congressional reporter Carl Hulse wrote a big story on the "controversy," even though Hulse himself admitted little was likely to come of it. The Senate later approved a resolution declaring McCain eligible for the presidency.
Law reporter Adam Liptak's story today, which led the paper's National Section, ran under the hopeful headline, "A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue," and detailed findings from a Democratic college professor allegedly showing McCain unable to satisfty the constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen."
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain's eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain's birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a "natural-born citizen."
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain's eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
"It's preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy," Professor Chin said. "But this is the constitutional text that we have."
Several legal experts said that Professor Chin's analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.
"Nothing" but a meaningless, but prominently placed, 900-word story to further chip away at John McCain's stature. (The Times has yet to bring up Internet rumors about the validity of Obama's birth certificate.)
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No hope for NY Times
July 11, 2008 - 13:17 ET by acumenBirds wouldn't dignify the rag by pooping on it.
The fish would rot before you got it home.
Makes sense to me
July 11, 2008 - 13:22 ET by cvgbuckeyeMakes sense to me because with 143 days of experience, the only way Barack Hussein Osama COULD be QUALIFIED to be POTUS is if he was born qualified. He sure as heck doesn't have any other qualifications.
I guess fate putting him in the position to wash away "White Liberal Guilt" is more than enough. Even if it leads us from Democracy into outright Marxism, similar to The USSR and San Fransicko.
McCains birth right is NOT
July 11, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Delsain question except for the left wing freeks in this country questioning it.
SOBama's birth rights??? Now there is an interesting story.
I have big questions. Was his mother really a citizen? How did Hawaii, Somolia, Keyna, and where ever else his people come from make him a citizen???
I think there is more to investigate with SOBama than McCain!
just sayin
I agree, the whole forged
July 11, 2008 - 13:36 ET by amberI agree, the whole forged birth certificate and Obama's failure to pruduce a real one brings serious questions to my mind. Pamela Geller has some great analysis on this issue at Atlas Shrugged. Also, did you see his book "The Audacity of Hope-.." was translated for Indonesians, but the title is different. It is "Assault Hope- from Jakarta to the White House" Assault Hope in the Koran or Assault on hope is translated to mean Jihad. Why are we not hearing about this stuff in the media? He is certainly a dangerous person to have in positions of power, not to mention the White House.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
Too late?
July 11, 2008 - 13:26 ET by CobraMan"But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen."
A 1937 law that conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904 comes TOO LATE to help McCain in 2008? What planet do these idiots live on? It sure isn't earth!
I noticed the same
July 11, 2008 - 13:58 ET by Free ThinkerI noticed the same contradiction. Correct me where I am wrong, if McCain was born in 1936, isn't 1936 after 1904? Was a reporter involved in this story to ask questions or is this just a press release written by Professor Chin?
It is on Earth
July 11, 2008 - 14:26 ET by CobraMan"isn't 1936 after 1904?"
It is on Earth. I'm not sure what planet this Democratic college professor is on though. They may have time reversed and age backwards, like Mork.
"It's preposterous that a
July 11, 2008 - 13:35 ET by Chris Norman"It's preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy," Professor Chin said. "But this is the constitutional text that we have."
Ah, come on Professor Chin. You know that "the constitutional text" has never stopped liberals from enacting things they want. After all, "the Constitution is a living, breathing, and changing document"...
McNotObama '08
First Congress
July 11, 2008 - 14:19 ET by allanfIn 1790 Congress approved an act which stated:
While that law changed over time to address the issue of dual citizenship parents, the priciple remained the same. Findlaw has a good summary of the law. According to that article, at the time of McCain's birth the law conferred citizenship on the children of US citizens provided one parent has lived in the United States.
Citizenship only becomes an issue when the child lives as a citizen of another country for many years. Of course Barack Obama of did not do that in Indonesia and Kenya.
Chin bases his argument on the phrase "limits and jurisdiction" which he claims was the term in force in the immigration act at the time of McCain's brith.
He claims the Canal Zone while beyond the limits of the United States was not beyond the jurisdiction. Frankly that is an absurd analysis.
But it does become a
July 11, 2008 - 14:22 ET by amberBut it does become a problem for him because his father was not a citizen and so he is under different rules. His mother has to have lived here for 5 years after the age of 16 and she was not 21 when he was born.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
NO its not a Problem for Barack
July 11, 2008 - 15:03 ET by allanfNo its not a problem for Barack..... He is the Messiah. No judge would dare challenge the Messiah.
Seriously, Obama says the was born in Hawaii. He has not released his birth certificate. Hawaiian birth makes him citizen under the 14th Amendment regardless of the citizenship of his parents.
As an aside, Congress has every right to address anchor babies in future legislation (babies born to non-immigrant foreigners). Obama's mother was a US Citizen so he would never be considered an anchor baby.
Again, there is a big
July 11, 2008 - 15:10 ET by amberAgain, there is a big difference between being a citizen and being a citizen eligable to run for President. Those are 2 separate issues.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
I have done a careful
July 11, 2008 - 13:36 ET by marvlI have done a careful analysis of Democratic professors with oriental last names, and have concluded that, under constitutional law, they must not teach or practice law. They are, specifically, nitwits.
Professor Chin should spend his time on more profitable endeavors, such as investigating the civil rights of leprechauns.
Natural born A-holes
July 11, 2008 - 13:41 ET by SickofLibsNice headline: "A Hint of New Life To a McCain Birth Issue"
I am crazy or do the words 'new life' imply a positive?
To the slimerag NYT, anything demeaning McCain (factual or not) IS the positive. There is not even the slightest attempt to disguise it anymore.
ps: Prof. Chin, this 'advanced democracy' of ours is going down the tubes in case you've been too busy birthing more lib lawyers we don't need to notice that fact.
Yeah, they're probably
July 11, 2008 - 13:50 ET by motherbeltYeah, they're probably thrilled at the chance to "breathe new life" into the issue.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
"It's alive, Igor! It's
July 11, 2008 - 14:34 ET by Chris Norman"It's alive, Igor! It's alive!"
McNotObama '08
What about Obama?
July 11, 2008 - 13:46 ET by BayshoremanThere is still a controversy over Obama's birth records (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/10/the-buzz-about-baracks-birth-certificate/ "The buzz about Barack’s birth certificate" By Michelle Malkin • June 10, 2008 07:39 AM)
Obama has yet to release a certified copy of his birth certificate. Someone at the DailyKos produced a non-certified redacted copy of an HI birth certificate for Obama that allegedly was given to him from Obama's campaign HQ but until Obama officially releases it to the general public, it ain't worth the pixels its scaned on.
Now why hasn't the NYT been following up on this?
"Now why hasn't the NYT been following up on this?"
July 11, 2008 - 13:57 ET by Indiana JoeYou're kidding, right?
Hahahahaheheheheeheeheeehahehahehaheeheehee... oh, man!
You're killing me.
The certificate shown on
July 11, 2008 - 14:24 ET by dscottThe certificate shown on the internet is a forgery in any event because:
1. Certified copies of birth certificates are NEVER sent electronically. Copies can be requested by qualified individuals in person, by mail, or on line; and the Vital Records (VR) office will MAIL the Certification of Live Birth within 4 to 6 weeks.
2. Certifications of Live Birth will ALWAYS include an embossed seal.
3. The Vital Records office will NEVER black out the certification number.
4. Hawaii has never used the term “African” to describe someone’s race on a birth certificate. “Negro” or “Black” are the appropriate terms, not “African”.
You will note that the certificate shown on the internet has Barack's father's race as "African" not "Black". That's what happens when you get a PC staffer to reproduce your official documents, they have a habit of correcting them...
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Here is a site that shows
July 11, 2008 - 14:45 ET by dscottHere is a site that shows an actual HI birth certificate and the Daily Kos supplied one: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-certificate-the-problems/
Besides the "African" correction there is also missing the notary seal making the certificate "authentic" and also the signature of said notary.
Note, the serial # incorporates the year of birth.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
OBAMA BY BIRTH???
July 11, 2008 - 14:51 ET by danybhoyThis may be THEEEEE 1 story the MSM will never give the time of day, unless it literally cannot be avoided. There are plenty of questions about his qualifications. Not his political qualifications, he is an inch wide & an inch deep. With almost no experience & a need to vote "present" on the tough issues of the day, he is not ready for prime time.
But does he meet the constitutional requirements to be present? I don't believe he does meet those requirements, & IT IS UP TO OBAMA TO PROVE HE IS BY PROVIDING HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Not that fake @$$ one the Kos idiots tried to pass off as the end of the story. Do his parrents meet the standard set by law? I say prove it, & it is as simple as producing the birth certificate.
Besides, who is he really? Is he Barack Hussain Obama? Is he Barry Sotero? Let's be honest, if we are gonna be hellbent about making sure people in porn meet the legal requirements, should'nt we make sure someone who stands a good chance of being the President is legal as well? I think so, to the MSM, what say you?
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Clay, you do realize why
July 11, 2008 - 13:55 ET by dscottClay, you do realize why the NYT is engaging in this kind of ruse over citizenship??? You always know something is up when the libs start with nonsense about their opponents because it ususally is a game of PROJECTION.
The constitution says "natural born", it does not say where or when they were born. A natural born citizen is one who was born of at least one parent who is a citizen of the US at the time of their birth. You are a natural born US citizen if one of your parents is not a citizen, you are a natural born US citizen if you were born of a US Citizen in a foreign country. The operative phrase is "born of a US Citizen." The exception is if a foreigner has a child on US territory and neither parent is a US citizen, that child under current law is a "natural born" citizen as in "anchor baby".
The reason why the NYT is making a big deal out of this non-story is because of Obama. Even though his mother was a US citizen when she was born, the issue is he father was not, he was Kenyan. Now ordinarily that isn't an issue, however his father was Muslim and in the Muslim culture, Obama's mother's citizenship ended on the day of their marriage even though she may not have renounced it formally. She became his property and thus she became a citizen of Kenya, Obama's father's country. To complicate matter's further any child of a Muslim is the property of the father and therefore is a citizen of that country. In addition, when Obama's parents divorced and she remarried, Obama's step father was also a Muslim and they lived in Indonesia, Barack Obama under the laws of Indonesia is an Indonesian. The reason being under Sharia Law, women and children are the property of the husband. In fact if you as a married woman of a Muslim enter a Muslim country, your passport is taken from you.
By the strict legal definition, Obama is born of a US citizen and therefore is a natural born citizen. However, the issue is was Obama's mother still a citizen at the time of his birth?
Furthermore Obama has not released his birth certificate unredacted. The serial number shown on the internet is redacted, without that serial number you can not determine if the birth certificate he is showing is legitimate or if said certificate was actually issued within a week or year after the birth.
In the 1950's & 60's, it was not uncommon for children to travel on the mother's or father's passport with no birth certificate. Is was the practice of the time that all a mother had to do at most is present (as in show) their baby to registrar to get a birth certificate made from scratch. They did not need a hospital certificate to give the registrar. Given this latitude, there is no reason to believe at that time that the State of Hawaii would have denied Mrs. Obama a birth certificate if she failed to mention to them she had traveled from Kenya with baby Barack or lied about where he was born, they would have taken her word for it.
This is why I suspect the NYT and others are prancing around the subject, and Hillary was so confident of winning the primary. At this point, Hillary doesn't want to come off as the spoiler, lest she loose DNC support to keep her senate seat in the next election cycle. Lieberman lost DNC support but was popular enough to win on his own, Hillary may not be popular enough especially if she dissed the libs favorite son.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
No one at this point has
July 11, 2008 - 14:29 ET by dscottNo one at this point has seen a copy of Obama's parents marriage certificate. Again, if they were married in the US, this would be readily available and quickly put down any notion that they were in Kenya at the time of Barack's birth. They may have met at the University of HI but her parent's never attended the wedding. Was that because they refused or because they were married the proper Muslim way in Kenya? If they were married in Kenya, Ann immediately ceased to be a US citizen at that cerimony.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
All Good Points
July 11, 2008 - 15:11 ET by BayshoremanAll good points dscott.
Multiculturalism
July 11, 2008 - 14:11 ET by DocClay,
On Wednesday the New York Times Co. stock dropped 7% after a downgrade by a Wall Street analyst. The lowest point in 10 years. However, what is really scary is that the Times is $1.01 BILLION in debt! The stock is down another 4% today.
Clearly this company is in trouble. However, it continues to publish crap articles like this on McCain. The Far-Left orientation of this newspaper is driving it to destruction.
With the assets dwindling it should not be long before the creditors demand some action. Hopefully the creditors will liquidate and sell the Times Building in Manhattan. If a foreign sovereign wealth fund buys the building and other physical assets that should not be a problem for the Times editors and writers. They have always been for multiculturalism.
Be funny if the NY
July 11, 2008 - 14:13 ET by general companyBe funny if the NY times got their wish, and we got a true conservative to run against Obama. Someone who would take advantage of all the hypocrisy and BS from the Dems. I for one have been hoping for some such miracle
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
worldnetdaily
July 11, 2008 - 14:21 ET by cocodriethere is an article in the World Net Daily that says that hussein-o's birth certificate is a fake and that he is not a citizen.
Can't say whether he's a citizen or not, but...
July 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET by c5thenI've seen the images of his so-called birth cirtificate and it is DEFINITELY suspect.
The scanned registration is too pefect, there are no blemishes or fold marks that you should see for a 40 year old document and the fonts used on the supposedly typed document look surprisingly like modern day computer fonts (Arial, to be exact).
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Yet another strawman put up by the liberals
July 11, 2008 - 14:21 ET by c5thenRegardless of where John McCain was born or whether one or more of his parents was in the Armed Forces, he, by virtue of his parent's citizenship, is an American citizen. The term 'natural born citizen' is used to distinguish that from a 'naturalized citizen'. John McCain is a citizen of the US, of that there is no debate or question. No one would argue that he is a naturalized citizen, therefore he must be a natural born citizen.
If John McCain had been born in England, or Japan, or Germany, or Venezuela, he would still, by virtue of his parents, be a natural born citizen of the USA.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
it doesn't matter where he was born
July 11, 2008 - 14:23 ET by wizardjrIf he had at least one American citizen parent, then he's an American. End of story. Done. Over. Finished. ...
Being a citizen and being
July 11, 2008 - 14:25 ET by amberBeing a citizen and being someone eligable to run for president are two different things.
Obviously McCain can run...but can Obama???
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
what disqualifies McCain in
July 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET by cocodriewhat disqualifies McCain in the liberal parallel universe is the same thing that disqualified the military vote in the last election. he is military and a true patriot.
The wrong law
July 11, 2008 - 14:38 ET by SGriffisThat Democratic (ie: liberal) college professor is using the wrong law. While it is true that a law was passed granting citizenship to those born in Panama, McCain qualifies under U. S. Code Title 18, Section 1401
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:"
"(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;"
I am shocked that a
July 11, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Jack BauerI am shocked that a presigious publication like the New York Times would have endorsed a man for President who wasn't qualified.
This makes me uneasy.
They have also endorsed Barack "we are all Hussein" Obama. Maybe they've made a mistake there also. It appears the NYT is fallible.
"It appears the NYT is
July 11, 2008 - 15:15 ET by Chris Norman"It appears the NYT is fallible"
and foul, too.
McNotObama '08
NYT
July 11, 2008 - 22:16 ET by dmannThey're still in business? Who knew.....