***A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT on this story has come to light, (See below)
Article II, Section I of The Constitution says:
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Since John McCain was not born in a State of the Union, does that mean he is legally ineligible to hold the Office of President of the United States?
Was the Panama Canal Zone a State at the time of John McCain's birth?
Is John McCain a Naturalized Citizen, a US National, or a Natural Born Citizen?
Here is a link to help you understand the differences and how it relates to the law.
Source: Wikipedia
__________________________________________
***UPDATE: This issue just hit the Drudge Report
[NYT: MCCAIN'S BIRTHPLACE IN CANAL ZONE RAISES ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS...]
with a link to an article posted in the International Herald Tribune by Carl Hulse.
__________________________________________
***UPDATE: The above story hits the New York Times and Drudge links to it.Link to the NYT story >> (note: wait few seconds for the ad to disappear)
__________________________________________
***UPDATE: The story catches fire as MSNBC >> , The Wall Street Journal >> and CBS News >> pick it up.__________________________________________
***UPDATE: Is McCain Natural Born? Story goes Global >> as News Wires pick up the story.
__________________________________________
*** MAJOR DEVELOPMENT:*************NewsBusters' EXCLUSIVE!
John McCain, widely reported to have been born in the Panama Canal Zone in the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, COULD NOT have been born in Coco Solo Hospital and probably wasn't born in the Canal Zone at all.
The Coco Solo Hospital was not even built until after 1941
and the nearest hospital to the base was in Panama Proper (in Colon,
Republic of Panama), NOT the US Administered Canal Zone and NOT on a US military base.According to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Executive Order 8981 - NAVY HOSPITAL AREA, COCO SOLO, CANAL ZONE " Dated *1941*
(remember McCain was born in 1936) The executive order lays out the boundaries for the land that the hospital would eventually be built on.Apparently we were lied to.
Now the Big question is; Where was John McCain REALLY born and why weren't we told the truth? Could it be that John McCain's birth certificate says he was born in the Republic of Panama?
To date the McCain campaign has issued no response addressing the Coco Solo Hospital discrepancy.
__________________________________________
***UPDATE: At least two suits have been filed seeking an answer from the US Supreme Court to the "Natural Born Citizen" controversy surrounding John McCain's Presidential bid.
More here >>__________________________________________
***UPDATE: NewsBusters' EXCLUSIVE!US Navy documentation has surfaced that refutes John McCains supposition that he was born in a US Military Hospital on the Coco Solo Military Base in the US administered Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Documents show that No Hospitals existed in the Canal Zone prior to 1941!
Building the Navy's Bases in World War II
History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps
1940-1946
Volume IIUNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
1947
Chapter 18 -- Bases in South America and the Caribbean Area, Including BermudaPage 15 --
"By the end of 1940, work had begun on a new supply depot at Balboa, and on the Farfan Radio Station on the west bank, together with the enlargement of the two inland radio stations at Gatun and Summit. Two net depots were started in December, one at each end of the Canal, and during the same month a third contract was awarded for 1,400 housing units, 1,100 at Coco Solo and the remainder on the west bank at Balboa. The following summer two naval hospitals, one at Coco Solo and the other at Balboa, were begun."Page 20 --
"Hospitals"To care for the large increases in personnel which accompanied the expansion of the naval establishment, a new 200-bed naval hospital was built on a 40-acre tract of high land, on the north side of the new Trans-Isthmian Highway, about 3 miles from the Coco Solo air station. This facility consisted of a four-story structure, with additional buildings for quarters, laundry, garage, and sewage plant, all of reinforced concrete. It was commissioned in September 1942, and later enlarged by the addition of two temporary wards of frame construction, to provide 500 beds."
(emphasis added)
Therefore it has now been shown that John McCain was NOT born in the Panama Canal Zone at all, NOR was he born on a US military base or in a US hospital. Therefore there is no way John McCain can claim birth on US soil and therefore he cannot claim natural birth in the US. He was therefore born abroad on Panamanian soil and does not meet constitutional requirements of eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States.
In order to avoid a constitutional crisis, the members of congress should immediately hold hearings on the subject of John McCain's birth place. John McCain's mother, Roberta McCain (who is still alive and of sound mind), can be called to testify as to where her son John was born and name the hospital and the doctor who delivered him. Since the nearest hospital to the Coco Solo base was the Hospital in Colon, Panama RP (outside of the Canal Zone), it is likely that documentation (McCain's birth records) will indicate he was born in Colon, Panama on sovereign Panamanian territory.
We need to sort this out now BEFORE the election, or the outcome of the election could be in doubt for months if it has to be argued before the Supreme Court. We don't need that kind of crisis during wartime in this country. We need to answer this question NOW!
__________________________________________
***UPDATE: Twenty years ago, Jill A. Pryor (then Senior
Editor for the Yale Law Journal) examined the "natural born" issue and
wrote a comprehensive white paper on the subject with extensive notes
and citations. Anyone interested in understanding the finer points of
the "natural law" issue as it relates to John McCain's presidential
bid, should start by reading her recent news article on the subject,
and then download her 1988 white paper report.
(Note: Ms. Pryor also uncoverd the fact that the statute that gives citizenship to children born in the Canal Zone or Panama to American parents, was not signed into law until the year AFTER John McCain's birth.)Source: Daily Report
Source: Yale Law Journal
__________________________________________
***UPDATE: PROOF!
John McCain's birth certificate has been posted on the internet! And, it says that John McCain was NOT born in the Panama Canal Zone; the US military base at Coco Solo; or the Military hospital at Coco Solo (which did not even exist yet) and he was NOT born on US Soil! He was born in Colon, Republic of Panama, which is OUTSIDE the former US controlled Canal Zone and is, unquestionably, sovereign Panamanian territory; and he, therefore, cannot be a Natural Born US Citizen and fails to qualify for the office of President under Article II of the US Constitution that requires Natural Born Citizenship.
The Story appears here >> on the Dallas News site and includes a detailed image of John McCain's Birth Certificate.
Since this evidence has now come to light, and by virtue of the fact that a law suit is now pending before the court alleging that John McCain is not eligible for the office of the President by virtue of his lack of Natural Born status, there is now a definite likelihood that the court will bar John McCain from being seated as President if elected.
___________________________________________
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
it's probably similar to
February 21, 2008 - 20:42 ET by TruthMongerit's probably similar to being born to American parents but on a foriegn ocean liner, or if your parents are Americans working overseas - they count it...
people don't really seem to concerned about legal citizenship these days however...
Yes, but...
February 21, 2008 - 20:47 ET by BritcomIs he a "natural born Citizen" or a naturalized US Citizen. The Constitution is very specific. Both can be a Senator, but only one can be President.
OR is he a US National?
Legal questions all. Should the SCOTUS rule?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
It was a US territory . . .
February 22, 2008 - 01:12 ET by Free StinkerIt was a US territory . . . nuff said
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Actually, it was not US territory, it was leased.
February 24, 2008 - 05:00 ET by Britcom---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Matters not
February 24, 2008 - 07:25 ET by UnsaneThe status of the territory is immaterial. My sister was born in a military hospital in Germany, but since she was born to two U.S. citizens, she is a U.S. citizen. Oh, and that territory is on lease from the German government. Thus she qualifies to run for President (though she genuinely knows absolutely nothing about politics).
She could have been born in a German Krankenhaus, but since her parents were U.S. citizens, she herself is one.
Keep reaching.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane -- correct. Please
February 24, 2008 - 07:45 ET by Jack Bauerunsane -- correct. Please see above my response.
This was settled in 1790, and no doubt for the very reason which you point out.
It was no doubt quickly realized that the just enacted Constitution was in danger of disqualifying the children of those citizens serving their country dutifully and honorably in foreign lands.
An unsustainable position because who would volunteer to serve, for example, as a diplomat, knowing this would disqualify any offspring born outside US territory?
Boy -- those guys knew what they were doing back then!
As I stated above...
February 28, 2008 - 02:09 ET by BritcomThe Naturalization Act of 1795
superseded and expressly repealed the 1790 law. Therefore the 1790 law has no effect today.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
If he was born of US
February 28, 2008 - 11:09 ET by motherbeltIf he was born of US citizens, he is a "natural-born" citizen, no matter where he was born. My twin
sons were born in a hospital on Spanish territory, outside of Madrid.
Their births are recorded in the town of Torrejon de Ardoz. Their birth certificates are in Spanish.
They are US citizens. We had to file some paperwork with the US embassy in Madrid, but that's it. Because they were born of two US citizen parents, they are citizens. We did not have to "apply" for citizenship for them.
The embassy paper says "Certificate of the birth abroad, of a US Citizen." It doesn't say "citizenship conferred" or citizenship approved." It plainly says that they were born citizens. Birth abroad of a US Citizen
Bloodline citizenship rejected by the courts
May 21, 2008 - 21:02 ET by BritcomCitizenship is not obtained by virtue of Parentage (by blood) in this country and the 14th amendment settled this. Citizenship is by birth within the United States, or by naturalization.
The Confederates argued that citizenship was by bloodline and therefore no African slave had citizenship. The Supreme Court agreed and the Civil War ensued. At the end of the Civil War the States adopted the 14th amendment that overruled bloodline citizenship and declared that "All" citizens are citizens by virtue of having been born IN the United States OR through statutory naturalization. No other form of citizenship exists after the 14th amendment. The courts have consistently upheld the automatic citizenship by virtue of a birthplace within the United States doctrine, and have consistently rejected that any other form of natural citizenship exists. All other citizens are citizens by virtue of qualifying for a statute that permits them to naturalize.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Let's just get to the
February 28, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Jack BauerThanks for the info...
But let's just get to the point...
Are you claiming that the children of US servicemen and women born in a foreign country are NOT "natural" born citizens, and therefore illegible to run for President?
If so... how come this rule has not been enacted in regard to McCain, because is it NOT a secret where and when he was born.
From furhter research I see that the issue has never been challenged in the SCOTUS. I guess we shall see.
We don't yet know where McCain was actually born
March 6, 2008 - 03:45 ET by BritcomAre you claiming that the children of US servicemen and women born in a
foreign country are NOT "natural" born citizens, and therefore
illegible to run for President?
Yes, I am. I am not saying that they are not Citizens. I am saying that for purposes of being President alone, they do not qualify as natural born according to the letter or the spirit of the law.
If so... how come this rule has not been enacted in regard to McCain, because is it NOT a secret where and when he was born.
The rule is that someone like McCain cannot be president, it does not say they cannot run for president (though it would've been better if it had).
McCain's true birthplace does appear to be a secret. He couldn't have been born at the Coco Solo Hospital, it wasn't built yet in 1936. He was probably born in Colon in Panama (not part of the Canal Zone). That means he is a natural born Panamanian Citizen and as we know, you can't be natural born in two different countries.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Is John McCain Married to the
Makookoo for Hucklepuffs!
March 6, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Free StinkerMakookoo for Hucklepuffs!
No leg to stand on
February 23, 2008 - 07:57 ET by UnsaneHis parents were U.S. citizens, and that is enough to make him one, regardless of where he was born.
The two paths to citizenship for most of us is to either be born in the United States, or to be born to U.S. citizens, or both.
Congratulations, my Conspiro friend. Once again you have no leg to stand on. If you want Huckabee to win so badly, may I suggest convincing him to actually BE a conservative for a change?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
McCain's Parents were US Citizens
February 24, 2008 - 04:44 ET by BritcomSo, to clarify, (correct me if I am wrong) you are saying that McCain was NOT "natural born", BUT that because his parents were both US Citizens, that makes him a US Citizen.
But, as we know, not all US Citizens are legally entitled to hold the office of President. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a US Citizen, but not a natural born US Citizen and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President. If you are saying that McCain is merely a US Citizen, that does not appear to be enough to meet the Constitutional mandate to be a "natural born" US Citizen.
So, I don't think you answered the question.
The question is: Is McCain "natural born", or not; and what law or legal precedent supports either status for someone born outside of the 50 US States?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Britcom I'm neither not
February 24, 2008 - 05:43 ET by Jack BauerBritcom I'm neither supporting nor disagreeing with McCain... but on this point it seems you are simpy not correct.
NATURAL BORN does not mean only born within the territory of the continental United States. This is settled.
Socks the Cat
February 24, 2008 - 05:43 ET by Cool ArrowI guess the campaign ends with a Howard Dean type scream of MEOW. (Moral Equivalent Of War), harking back to the Carter era. Followed by harking a hairball.
♣ a seal
cool -- yes, There Will Be
February 24, 2008 - 05:45 ET by Jack Bauercool -- yes, There Will Be Blood (and Claws)
John McCain, is he a natural born American?
February 24, 2008 - 16:56 ET by BritcomA US State Department document states the following: (emphasis added throughout)
And:
Therefore, it seems as if the State Department has determined that the 14th Amendment has overruled the earlier statutes that congress put in place and that the following further supports that showing that the Canal Zone was not US soil.
The 1790 law remained in effect until the Naturalization Act of 1795
superseded and expressly repealed the 1790 law. The 1795 law stated that the children of citizens of the
United States who are born outside the limits of the country "shall be
considered as citizens of the United States." (notice that the wording "natural born" was omitted from the later act.) The 1795 act was later itself superseded by the 14th Amendment.
So, it would appear that John McCain cannot claim US Citizenship under Jus soli (the law of the soil) or the 1790 Act , the latter of which was only in force for five years, and was repealed long before McCain was born. Therefore if John McCain does have legal status as a US Citizen, it must be found in Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ). I cannot find a valid statute to show that persons can claim "natural born" US Citizen status via this common law precedent alone. I do find the such persons are US Nationals (a lesser status) when born in American Samoa, Swain island, and the Panama Canal Zone.
Persons who are US Nationals alone do not appear to be eligible to hold the office of President as they are neither Citizens, nor "natural born" in the US.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Britcom... He may be a
February 24, 2008 - 16:57 ET by Clear thinkerBritcom...
He may be a natural born American, but he is definately NOT a natural born American leader!
First a definition for
May 3, 2008 - 16:00 ET by stratmanFirst a definition for clarification:
As to the United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795, Section 3 states
which means that if this Act were used to determine citizenship status of McCain, then he would not be a naturalized citizen but a natural born citizen because the Panama Canal Zone was under the jurisdiction of the US at the time of his birth.
On to soil versus blood.
While bloodline is not expressly embodied in the words of the Constitution, certain "statute(s)" grant citizenship called "derivative" and not "naturalization".
Note the use of "jurisdiction" again, in this case used to denote that merely having a military installation or a consular facility does not mean control of a territory. The US has a military base and a diplomatic facility in Germany but the Germans have control over the German territory. IMO, the above refers to foreign nationals who give birth in one of those facilities mentioned, that their offspring is not automatically granted US citizenship. The goal is not to encourage foreign nationals to give birth on American installations for a jackpot entrance into the USA. The same goes for foreign diplomats, enemy occupation, Foreign ministers and their offspring, even if born on American soil/territory, including those born of foreign nationals on a foreign registered ship while in US waters. The opposite is true for offspring of American citizens, though ancillary statutes to the Constitution grant the citizenship... and their is no calculus of "naturalization" involved.
Interestingly, a foreign national giving birth on a foreign registered airline (eg Quantas) while over US territory would not confer US citizenship to the child, yet, an illegal alien held in a US territory detention center who gives birth would confer US citizenship to the offspring.
The truth ain't nothin' but the truth
February 24, 2008 - 07:37 ET by UnsaneOh, I answered the question; you just don't like the answer.
Unfortunately for you I will bring examples from home into this to demonstrate I know something about what makes a citizen.
My mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen. She was born in Germany to German parents. It's a long story, but eventually she and my grandmother emigrated to the United States and my mother became a citizen of this country. So, can she run for President? No, because she was born a German citizen and became naturalized later.
My mother later met and married an Army Sergeant who I know colloquially as "Dad". But I was not their firstborn. My oldest sister was, and she was born midway through my father's first tour in Germany. Ironically, my German-born mother, then (and now)a U.S. citizen, gave birth to my sister in a military hospital, and my father was of course a U.S. citizen, born and raised in the Midwest.
But, according to the law, because my sister was born to two U.S. citizens, she was a U.S. citizen, and still is. It matters not the status of the land you are on in that instance as long as the child is born to U.S. citizens. (Virtually every U.S. military brat on earth understands this concept cold.)
Therefore, my sister could run for president, even though I genuinely believe she could not find DC on a marked map, much less know how long a president serves in office for. Why? Because in spite of your reaching, she was born to two U.S. citizens. Later, that same couple would give birth to two other children in TX (to include me) and that would be a double whammy: we are citizens both by the law of the soil and the law of the blood (the Latin terms for those phrases escapes me).
And so this goes for the McCains. They could have had John in downtown Panama City or Colon, or anywhere in the world, but it does not matter in the eyes of the law. Since his parents are U.S. citizens, HE is a U.S. citizen.
Do you wish to keep digging your hole or do you need me to cite further examples?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
So you have a German mum?
February 25, 2008 - 18:38 ET by NL207So you have a German mum? Interesting. Do you know where Lubeck is? I can remember sitting in the kitchen with my mom when I was about 3 or 4 and reciting, ein, zwei, drei, vier ......
Germany
June 29, 2008 - 02:01 ET by UnsaneLübeck. Far northern Germany. Oh yeah, I know where that is.
My mother's family hails from Frankfurt am Main.
She had no knowledge of German when I was born but it was her first language. She freaked out when I told her I was taking German in high school!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You are correct, Unsane...
February 27, 2008 - 03:26 ET by JerYou are correct, Unsane...whether considered to be natural born or instantaneously naturalized at and by birth, McCain clearly meets the presidential citizenship requirements; and no amount of symantical dancing or statutory tail-chasing can force a different conclusion.
Maybe we'll even see your hat in the ring in a few years.
Jer
If he was born of US
February 28, 2008 - 06:49 ET by motherbeltIf he was born of US citizens, he is a "natural-born" citizen. My twin sons were born in a hospital on Spanish territory, outside of Madrid. Their births are recorded in the town there. Their birth certificates are in Spanish. They are US citizens. We had to file some paperwork with the US embassy in Madrid, but that's it.
The embassy papers says "Certificate of the birth abroad, of a US Citizen."
YOu have to admit, it would be stupid if the law declared someone born of two US citizens elsewhere illegal, while making the child of non-citizens legal just because they got across the border when labor started.
So what IS the issue here?
March 1, 2008 - 08:39 ET by goldenthroatMB,
Good point! My pastor and his wife were missionaries in Taiwan for ten years and had two children while there. They often joke that the children were 'made in Taiwan with American parts and labor!"
"Much ado about nothing..." - Shakespeare...Shakesphere...Shakespere...aw, forget it.
Of course he is
February 22, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Gordon EatleyLook this is absolutely spurious and disingenuous. I'm in the navy and while stationed over seas in italy my daughter was born. She is a citizen the same as my other daughter who was born while I was stationed in Georgia. McCain's family was in Panama because of his father's service.
DITTO
February 28, 2008 - 11:30 ET by OldSailor88Due to complications in pregnancy, and the lack of NICU at Yokosuka Naval Base, my oldest was born in Yokohama in a Japanese hospital. She has a Japanese birth certificate and a Consular Certificate in English. She is a citizen because my wife and I are citizens.
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
McCain's Citizenship
February 24, 2008 - 13:45 ET by QueenMumBritcom: Why did you decide to put forth this question? Was it to merely clarify the differences in terms (Naturalized Citizen, a US National, or a Natural Born Citizen)? Or was it your intention to suggest that perhaps John McCain is not Constitutionally eligible for the office of President of the U.S.? Most thinking people would dismiss out-of-hand the idea that McCain is not an eligible candidate for the office.
Power to the people!
To promote The Huckster
February 24, 2008 - 17:01 ET by PopularTechHe put this forth to promote the Huckster who's demise is the only bright point of this whole primary disaster.
Economic and Security Conservatives will not vote for the Huckster so Suckabee fans please give it up.
I already gave you all the ammunition to convert social conservatives.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Zonian Candidate
February 24, 2008 - 17:08 ET by BritcomI am not convinced that John McCain's citizenship status entitles him to hold the office of the President. I would like to know for sure if the law supports the idea of a "Zonian" becoming President.
Better to find out sooner than later.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Hi Brit... While there is
February 24, 2008 - 17:37 ET by bigtimerHi Brit...
While there is a lot we could talk about when it comes to McCain for some of us...this point is not one of them...at all.
Seriously, Britcom. Don't
February 24, 2008 - 19:08 ET by QueenMumSeriously, Britcom. Don't you think that both the media and the Dems would have brought up such a "problem" if it existed?
McCain was born in Panama while his father was serving in the U.S. military. He is by no means a Zonian, as you suggest.
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] Nationals and Citizens of The United States At Birth
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;
You have been given ample evidence in this thread to convince any reasonable person that McCain is eligible to be President of the U.S. If you prefer to ignore the obvious, there's nothing more we can do for you.
Power to the people!
Thanks for that quote...
February 25, 2008 - 01:21 ET by BritcomBut it seem it was the right church, wrong pew. I found the right one. It pays to look a few pages ahead. Here it is: (emphasis added)
Now let us contrast that with the operative clauses of the other places from the same code:
Owing to the fact that John Jay's specific requirement clause in the Constitution of only a "natural born Citizen" may hold the office of President, we see that the office of President requires a higher level of loyalty than mere US Citizenship. Unlike other Federal offices that only require US Citizenship, one must be a natural born US Citizen to become President.
It appears that the "natural born Citizen" clause has an express purpose and is an effective mandate to keep foreign born persons from obtaining the position of Commander in Chief of the army.
Let me be clear, I am not saying that persons born in the Zone or other outlying areas are not US Citizens or US Nationals, I am pointing out that the Constitution has a unique and special requirement purposefully mandated upon those who aspire to the office of President.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Ad nauseum
February 25, 2008 - 06:36 ET by Unsane...and McCain, like many other Americans (like my sister, read further above) meet that unique and special requirement because they were born to U.S. citizens.
If you are born on U.S. territory, you become a citizen. If you are born to U.S. citizens, regardless of the status of where you were born, you are a U.S. citizen.
What part of that do you not understand?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Tis not I
February 25, 2008 - 13:29 ET by BritcomI think it quite obvious that John Jay and the rest of the Founding Fathers placed TWO (2) {"Count them: One... Two... AH! AH! AH! AH!", says the Count} criteria in the Presidential qualification clause in the Constitution:
The two are not now, and never have been synonymous. The Constitution discriminates. (gasp!) Those who were not born here are excluded from the office of President. You can dig up John Jay and argue with his corpse if you want, but it's still going to be in there.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Ad nauseum
February 25, 2008 - 14:29 ET by UnsaneThe only thing you have demonstrated on this thread is your inability to read information differing from what your beliefs are, and your inability to critically think, which is legion (and that depresses me to no end). Not to mention an irritating ability to insult my intelligence, which was gained by direct personal experience as outlined above.
My sister's birth certificate clearly states that she is a U.S. citizen, because she was born to two U.S. citizens. End of story. She is a citizen of the United States because she was born to two U.S. citizens. The status of the territory on which she was born (a hospital on land leased from the German government) is 100% immaterial. And so it goes with McCain, who was born in similar circumstances for similar reasons.
I realize you want your populist hero to win in the worst way, but instead of taking this route (how dim is the light in the hold you are digging now?), you MIGHT want him to try and beat McCain on the issues.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane
February 25, 2008 - 15:41 ET by BritcomYou're in denial and attempting to deflect the argument from "born" to "citizen". Just being a citizen doesn't cut it for the highest office of the land. People aren't that stupid you know. They don't need you telling them to disbelieve their own eyes.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
"What are you going to do? Bleed on me?"
February 27, 2008 - 01:24 ET by UnsaneLet me get this straight:
You have been presented with actual laws courtesy of the research of Jack Bauer and Queen Mum.
I have demonstrated how those citizenship laws have a direct impact on two close relatives, and thus shown how those laws are put in force.
And I am in denial?
Actually, I like seeing you whine "you're in denial". It really means that either you lost the argument, or that you are being forced to critically think (which either you refuse to do or are incapable of doing), or both.
And no, there is no deflection going on here. I guess I need to find a way to put this into a kindergarten-level coloring book...
My mother was born to German citizens in Germany, therefore she was born a German citizen. She cannot run for President.
My oldest sister was born in a U.S. military hospital in Germany to two U.S. citizens, and because she was born to two U.S. citizens, the law is clear: she is a U.S. citizen. Therefore, on that basis alone, it does not matter where in the world the birth took place. She is a U.S. citizen and was born one; no matter how hard you try to word-game, you cannot trump my experiences in this matter.
I feel as if I am King Arthur fighting the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
7 FAM 1116.1-4
February 27, 2008 - 19:19 ET by BritcomCan you not see that persons born on military installations receive their citizenship via artificial means and not natural birth on US soil. No person born on a military installation on foreign soil meets the criteria for "natural born United States Citizen". Military installations in Germany are not part of the United States. The State Department says so, not I.
To Wit:
The argument you keep making is the Jus Sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ) argument. Jus Sanguinis is a European concept not an American one. The US operates under Jus soli (the law of the soil) which is based in English Common Law which is the basis of the laws of all of the 13 American Colonies and 49* of the States and of the Constitution and the Federal Code. European (Roman) Civil Law has no application at the Federal level in this country unless it is specifically penned into law by Congress and signed by the President, and even then it cannot blot the "natural born" clause from the highest law of the land, the Constitution without going through the Amendment and ratification process. The laws of Congress are fleeting and can change, but the Constitution may as well be written in stone.
The 14th Amendment states that there are two ways to become a US Citizen, Birth and Naturalization. Citizenship through one's Parents is a form of Naturalization.
*[the odd State out is Louisiana which operates at the state level under the Napoleonic Code, which is based on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common Law]
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
The Department of Redundancy Department
February 27, 2008 - 21:47 ET by Unsane"Despite widespread popular belief...?"
You are only beating your head into a brick wall. My oldest sister was born in a U.S. military hospital in Germany. As she was born to two U.S. citizens, she herself is a U.S. citizen. Because of that, WHERE she was born is 100% immaterial and irrelevant. The end.
Last time I checked, I didn't see a program in place to fly home expectant mothers of diplomats and military personnel home to the United States to give birth on U.S. soil. Why? Because that is unnecessary; again, I cite my oldest sister's experience.
You will not trump my direct personal experience in this matter. (Not to mention, you need to hang out with more military brats, who again understand this whole concept cold. Hell, they make light of it on some otherwise awful AFN commercials.)
If you want your populist hero to win so badly, instead of wasting your precious time on a subject you have been beaten on over and over again, you MAY want to convince him to be a conservative rather than a populist.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You are beating a dead horse
February 28, 2008 - 02:00 ET by Britcom"Despite widespread popular belief..." is a direct quote from the US State Department document I referenced. (in other words, I didn't write it)
I think you must be narcoleptic, you miss half of the things I write and never seem to read the reference material linked to.
Now explain to me how you think your sister's citizenship is pertinent to the POTUS argument at hand. Unless I am mistaken your sister has never been a candidate for POTUS. The "natural born" clause does not apply as a qualification for US Citizen, it is a qualification for the Office of President. This whole article is about the qualifications for President, not for Citizenship. You just can't ignore the qualifications you don't like, that would be... well... unsane.
Two qualifications for President must both be met; the first is Citizen, the second is "natural born". Why does this very simple concept vex you? Is it because you are convinced that no one receives their citizenship by virtue of being born on US soil alone? Are you not aware that pregnant illegal aliens, with no US relatives whatsoever, regularly cross our southern border just so their baby can become a "natural born" US Citizen? Once the baby is born on US soil s/he is automatically a Citizen under the Common Law precedent of Jus Soli. That child can never have his/her US citizenship revoked.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Soil Not Part
February 28, 2008 - 11:35 ET by CGattonThere is nothing that equates "Natural born" to "Born on the soil." Rather the equality is "Born a citizen" is equivalent to "Natural born."
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Keep on crying
February 28, 2008 - 12:12 ET by UnsaneWhine all you want about beating a dead horse. I have to keep beating the drum because of your absolute refusal to accept reality (which unfortunately is becoming your permanent trait).
I think you must be narcoleptic, you miss half of the things I write and never seem to read the reference material linked to. One, as I can only visit the Net for 30 minutes at a time where I am presently located (to allow all the troops their turn), even if I wanted to, I can't check your links. Two, because of your notorious inability/refusal to evaluate sources and to critically think, anything you post as a link is immediately suspect. Three, I don't trust most Internet links because I cannot evaluate the source myself.
Now explain to me how you think your sister's citizenship is pertinent to the POTUS argument at hand. And you whine that I miss half the things you write??? You miss 100% of the things I write. It's an easy kill if you bother reading objectively. Both my older sister and McCain were born under similar circumstances for similar reasons. My sister is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth as is McCain, as are thousands of other brats. Unless I am mistaken your sister has never been a candidate for POTUS. Why that even matters I have no idea. The "natural born" clause does not apply as a qualification for US Citizen, it is a qualification for the Office of President. This whole article is about the qualifications for President, not for Citizenship. You just can't ignore the qualifications you don't like, that would be... well... unsane. Read again, word-gamer. Since McCain was born to U.S. citizens, he is a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Thus, he fits that qualification. As does my older sister. As do thousands, if not millions, of other children of diplomats, military families, and other professions.
You CANNOT READ what you want to read and believe what you want to believe in the face of reality and expect me to take you seriously.
Two qualifications for President must both be met; the first is Citizen, the second is "natural born". Why does this very simple concept vex you? To be a NATURAL BORN citizen of the United States, you either must be born on American territory, OR to two U.S. citizens, OR both. Why does THAT simple concept vex YOU? (Because YOU SO ACHE to see Huckabee win, and you know that he can't, so you have to try something completely disingenuous and full of holes.)
Is it because you are convinced that no one receives their citizenship by virtue of being born on US soil alone? Where did I say this? In fact, I seem to recall that I mentioned that citizenship is conferred by birth in the United States, OR by the law of the blood, OR BOTH. But what does it matter, you only read what you feel like reading anyway (and if it even slightly challenges your view of reality...forget it). Oh, and NOW you want to talk about what qualifies for citizenship? I thought this was ONLY about disqualifying Presidential candidates you don't like because your Populist Hero CANNOT win...I mean, only about Presidential qualifications!
Are you not aware that pregnant illegal aliens, with no US relatives whatsoever, regularly cross our southern border just so their baby can become a "natural born" US Citizen? REALLY? Why, having lived in TX most of my life, I NEVER knew that!!! (sarcasm off) Once the baby is born on US soil s/he is automatically a Citizen under the Common Law precedent of Jus Soli. That child can never have his/her US citizenship revoked. Are you not aware that NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN THE WORLD, as long as you are born to two U.S. citizens, YOU ARE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?
If that were not the case, how come the military and the State Department, among other agencies, routinely airlifting expectant mothers (spouses/employees thereof) to the United States in order to become citizens? Think about that...that is, if critical thinking won't kill you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Alright, now it is becoming
February 29, 2008 - 00:04 ET by BritcomAlright, now it is becoming clearer to me why you don't follow my argument, you don't trust the internet. The US State department (not I) says,
To prove that this is a real quote from a real government document, You may go to the following United States Department of State web page:
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22712.htm
On that page you will find a the following link to a PDF document:
1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
Download and open that document and go down to the paragraph marked:
Below that paragraph, Sub-paragraph "c." contains the above mentioned quote that I have reprinted here.
also the definition of "in the United States is here:
The 14th Amendment shown here
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=389
on the Library of Congress web site states:
Now look at this SCOTUS case for comparison:
Rabang v. Boyd >>
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Again
February 29, 2008 - 16:11 ET by UnsaneI follow your argument. Since you simply refuse to read what I type (because you know it will shatter your illusions), you don't understand I know it is full of crap due to my own personal experiences, as I have TWO blood relatives whose lives are directly impacted by laws pertaining to citizenship.
Not to mention you are, in your zeal to disqualify McCain because your Populist Hero cannot win otherwise, ignoring the very real experiences of those in this thread who have had children in Italy, Japan, and Spain, among other places. Perhaps your issue is with reality. It would explain some of your other nuttier beliefs you have shared elsewhere on other threads.
If you can be bothered to CRITICALLY THINK, answer my question: if becoming a citizen of the United States required birth on U.S. soil, please explain: why aren't expectant mothers constantly being flown home from all corners of the globe to ensure their children's citizenship?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Your question is irrelevant
March 1, 2008 - 03:29 ET by BritcomOnly a person seeking the Presidency has to meet the natural born requirement clause. I know you desperately want to obfuscate that issue, but your whole point is moot now that it has come to light that McCain is hiding the truth about his birth place.
He claims he was born in a hospital that wasn't built for at least five years after his birth. It appears McCain is lying to cover up his real birthplace. Do we really want to support a man who tells us he is a US Citizen, but can't tell us where he was born? Who is John McCain? And why should we trust him with the highest office in the land?
I can already see that McCain has started the nose dive of his next plane crash and he wants to take the GOP down with him.
John McCain is not a Rino, he's a Mole.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Again
March 1, 2008 - 08:24 ET by UnsaneOnly a person seeking the Presidency has to meet the natural born requirement clause. I know you desperately want to obfuscate that issue, Whatever makes you feel better, I guess. McCain, a Navy brat, was born in the Canal Zone to two U.S. citizens. Therefore, at the time of his birth, HE is a U.S. citizen. Thus he meets the qualification to run for President. (Much as people like my oldest sister, who was born under similar circumstances, a point you constantly ignore.)
And, because McCain's parents were both U.S. citizens, they could have had little Johnny in Panama City, Colon, or Santiago, Chile, and it wouldn't have mattered. He is a citizen by the virtue that both of his parents were citizens. Maybe if you stopped blaming me for your own refusal to accept reality...
Oh, and the fact that you whined about how irrelevant my question is only demonstrates further that you absolutely refuse to do what most adults do: critically think. I suspect refusal, because I think that you know the answer, and that the answer will shatter your whole theory. Therefore, you try to evade my very simple question by whining about how irrelevant it is, when in fact the answer is 110% relevant to your dubious thesis.
You are quickly becoming a bigger Conspiro on here than even ThoughtPolice.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
At this point your loony
March 1, 2008 - 16:00 ET by BritcomAt this point your loony devotion to citizenship by virtue of parentage has been thoroughly and definitively debunked. Citizenship is granted by place of birth within the United States, and by statutes that cover certain specific exceptions.
Citizenship through parentage (called Jus Sanguinis or Citizenship by blood) is, and (in the US) always has been, a philosophy propounded by Racist Confederates who tried to use it to keep natural born blacks from enjoying the rights of citizenship by reasoning that they had no blood relatives who were US Citizens and that their place of birth was irrelevant. The Congress and the People thoroughly rejected the Jus Sanguinis argument when they overturned the Dred Scott decision with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which recognizes only location (called Jus Soli or Citizenship by Soil) and naturalization (Citizenship by Decree) as methods of obtaining Citizenship. The Citizenship by blood argument was there and then overruled.
If you wish to argue that McCain has natural born citizenship because he has citizen parents, that is intellectually dishonest, legally ignorant, and amounts to an attempt to invalidate or ignore the 14th Amendment.
Persons who were born abroad to US Citizen Parents and received US Citizenship, did so by special exception written into the law by congress. That is Citizenship by Decree (naturalization), not by the Soil. They are Citizens, but the Constitution makes them second class citizens with respect to becoming President. They don't qualify for it.
Now if you want to argue that a certain place abroad is in fact US Soil, we can know that by it's incorporation status. Be it State, Territory, Possession, Outlying Possession, Insular Area, Jurisdictional Zone, Military Reservation, or Diplomatic Office, if it is incorporated into the United States, then it is so by Act of Congress, if no Act exists, then it is UNincorporated and not part of the United States proper. Arizona Territory (birthplace of Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater) WAS incorporated, so that argument is not pertinent to McCain's case since McCain wasn't born within a hundred miles of incorporated US Territory, much less a State.
If you want to say that McCain is a Jus Soli Citizen, then lets see his birth certificate and lets find that place on the map. Then lets see if any act of Congress incorporated that place before the time of his birth there. If none exists, that leaves us with only two conclusions either he is a naturalized US Citizen or he is a US National. Neither status qualifies him to hold the office of President.
So now we are presented with John McCain who's level of citizenship/nationality status is in question, and even his birth place is now in question since it is apparent that he continues to lie about what hospital he was born in presumably so that he could say he was born in the US Military Hospital at Coco Solo (which didn't yet exist in 1936, the nearest hospital was in Panama proper) and now we have John McCain one day claiming he is a conservative and the next day claiming he is a liberal, then one day he hates Christian Pastors, the next day he likes them, then one day he wants an open border, the next day he wants a closed border, one day he is photographed embracing his Vietnamese captors, the next day he says he hates the g**ks. The man's picture is in the dictionary next to the word "untrustworthy". I would rather have the Dog Catcher from Two Egg, Florida as President than this man.
--
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Brit
March 1, 2008 - 16:01 ET bythe ammendment is an addition, an add-on and is in no wise written as an exclusive change. Basically it is to include the freed slaves and their off-spring as citizens in addition to the offspring of citizens in the natural born catagory
No Poofdas
Again
March 2, 2008 - 13:20 ET by UnsaneAt this point your loony devotion to citizenship by virtue of parentage has been thoroughly and definitively debunked. The ONLY thing you have debunked is my belief that you critically think...or read...wait, you did that LONG ago. It really is too bad for you that I have a blood relative that was born outside the United States, and became a citizen simply because she was born to two U.S. citizens. Citizenship is granted by place of birth within the United States, and by statutes that cover certain specific exceptions. And you CAN'T argue this subject, as I have seen my oldest sister's birth certificate as direct evidence.
Since your candidate CANNOT WIN, you HAVE to believe this nonsense to have ANY hope and it's pathetic. Quick, Britcom, what did Santa bring you last Christmas? Expecting anything from the Easter Bunny later on this month.
Citizenship is granted by place of birth within the United States, and by statutes that cover certain specific exceptions. I guess you hate the military then. Military families have been having children overseas for decades now, and ALL of those children have been born U.S. citizens, as cited repeatedly by myself and others here. And no, throwing a bigger tantrum and word-gaming that much harder simply will not reverse that fact.
If you want to say that McCain is a Jus Soli Citizen 100% irrelevant, because his parents are U.S citizens. My God you are f#!$ing dense!, then lets see his birth certificate and lets find that place on the map 100% irrelevant because his parents are U.S. citizens.
Now, explain to me why I should vote for your Populist (NOT a conservative) Hero. I was not impressed with his foriegn policy proposal (penned by Huckabee himself) laid out in Foreign Affairs.
Also, you can answer my original question any time now.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Britcom, you ignorant twit ...
March 1, 2008 - 18:43 ET by QueenMumMcCain was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station. To suggest that, because a hospital may or may not have existed at the time, there is some question as to this fact, shows a bit of youthful naivete. Not everyone born at that time was necessarily born in a hospital. One would presume that an American airbase would have medical facilities and or personnel and that the military personnel on that base would avail themselves of such facilities. A building called a hospital is not necessary for birthing babies. The existence or non-existence of a hospital proves/disproves nothing.
I am Queen Mum and I approved this message.
Britcom is still on this?
March 1, 2008 - 18:50 ET by PopularTechThis is beyond pathetic and really shows the lack of knowledge Suckabee supporters have.
John McCain's citizenship will hold up in a court of law to be president and with public opinion.
No you are not going to convince more people to vote for Suckabee because of this. Give it up.
I found this months ago and did not bring it up because this is as dishonest as trying to claim McCain did not really serve in the military.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I guess the Huckabee campaign is like a cult.
March 1, 2008 - 18:56 ET by Free StinkerI guess the Huckabee campaign is like a cult.
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Why should I give it up?
March 2, 2008 - 04:24 ET by BritcomIt's working. McCain had to take time to address my question. He was patronizing, but he addressed it publicly.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
I know you are, but what am I? Nnnnnnnnn!
March 2, 2008 - 04:06 ET by BritcomMy information comes from someone who was there. In 1936 Coco Solo base was a small outpost with no hospital since there was a functioning hospital in the nearby town of Colon Panama (outside the Zone) An on base Hospital was not thought necessary until the attack on Pearl Harbor. A few days later FDR signed an executive order to create one on land annexed to the base. During the time McCain was born, American babies were generally delivered in the Hospital in Colon. McCain was most likely born there, but you are right, he could have been born at home, he could have been born on a ship at sea or in the harbor. We just don't know.
Come to think of it, how much do we really know about John Sidney ('poor judgment') McCain?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Britcom, if you don't
February 28, 2008 - 12:14 ET by motherbeltBritcom, if you don't believe unsane, believe this:
my two sons were born in Spain, on a Spanish military installation. Their births are recorded in the town of Torrejon de Ardoz. Their birth certificates are written in SPanish.
They are US citizens. Their certificates from the US Government say "Certificate of the birth abroad, of a US citizen."
That is specific. It means that they were BORN citizens. A citizen was born abroad.
Which part of that do you not understand?????
Check the UPDATE I posted to the topic.
February 28, 2008 - 03:59 ET by BritcomThe media has taken notice of this issue.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Whomever said there are no
February 24, 2008 - 17:30 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWhomever said there are no stupid questions has just been proven wrong.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
All law must adhere to the
February 25, 2008 - 15:08 ET by QueenMumAll law must adhere to the Constitution. But not all U.S. Law is contained in the Constitution. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the Legislative Branch?
"Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example."
Further:
"Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president."
Note in particular, the following:
"However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(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."
Source: U.S.Constitution.net
If you wish to be literal, the actual wording in the Constitution regarding who is eligible to be elected President precludes anyone born after the Constitution was written:
From Article II, Sect. 1:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
P.S. IMO, Ron Paul is a certified ignorant nutjob and a sore loser.
Power to the people!
McCain is a Natural Born Citizen of Panama
February 25, 2008 - 16:53 ET by BritcomUSConstitution.net is not a government website. It is just a website run by some guy in Vermont. The conclusion he draws about section 1401 is quite a stretch. 1401 encompasses the whole of the world outside the US and its possessions.
Since the Panama Canal Zone WAS a specialized jurisdictional possession (sovereignty of the soil was not transfered to the US as part of the treaty but governmental jurisdiction was leased to it (Guantanamo Bay is a similar example)) 1401 is not applicable and 1403 (which specifically names the Panama Canal Zone) IS applicable because John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in Coco Solos. Therefore he is both a Natural Born Panamanian Citizen AND a US "declared" Citizen.
A US "declared" Citizen is not identical to a US Citizen at birth, nor is it identical to a Natural Born Citizen of the US; the latter being the criteria that qualifies a person to hold the office of President according to the US Constitution. (including John Jay's own explanation for his submission of that language.)
Further explained below >>
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Britcom: The “birth
February 25, 2008 - 18:30 ET by QueenMumBritcom: The “birth certificate” didn't exist at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution. This country didn't have territories and military bases in other countries, nor “such District (not exceeding ten Miles square): Article I, Section 8. [17]” which is today's federal District of Columbia. The Constitution at that time was only dealing with 13 States, each which had its own Constitution, but which was considered the “country known as the United States. So if you're going to go back to the 18th century to define "natural born", then you must also disallow any and all candidates who were born in any State other than the original 13.
Is the Cornell Univ. School of Law a credible site in your eyes? The wording of 1401 is pretty straightforward. One should always be skeptical of an argument that involves too much twisting of the law.
McCain was born in Panama to a member of the U.S. military who was a U.S. citizen at the time. Additionally, his mother was a U.S. citizen. 1401 applies. 1403 was established to specifically address the case of children born to U.S. citizens who were working on the canal and may have been residing in Panama for extended periods of time. I refer to this source which may more clearly make my case. If you choose to believe otherwise, there's nothing more to be said.
Now, do you feel like you've won the debate? If so, I suggest you see about mounting a serious challenge to John McCain's eligibility to serve as President of the U.S.
Power to the people!
Section 1401 regarding possessions
February 26, 2008 - 08:40 ET by BritcomSection 1401 draws a circle around "the United States and its Possessions" and applies itself to everyone OUTSIDE that circle. The US Possessions, including the Panama Canal Zone, are within that circle, therefore 1401 has no application to the Zone since it does not make itself applicable to US possessions.
This means that only 1403, which refers directly to the Panama Canal Zone by name, has application.
...
I need not pursue the matter with the McCain campaign since I have it on good authority that the Dems are already planning to file suit at a politically opportune moment on this very subject.
...
Sections 1401, 1403, etc. tell us what constitutes a US Citizen, they do not have effect on Article II of the Constitution (the qualifications for the office of President). There would have to be an amendment to the Constitution for the "natural born Citizen" clause to be nullified.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
So does this mean that the Hucker, will be the alleged candidate
February 27, 2008 - 01:41 ET by upcountrywaterWhen the republicans hold their convention?
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
The magic number of deligates
February 27, 2008 - 02:45 ET by BritcomIt probably depends on if anyone gets the magic number of delegates. If no one gets the magic number of delegates in the first round of votes, the delegates may then vote for any candidate left in the race. Huckabee and Paul are still in the race at this point. If they hold out till the convention, who knows who the delegates will pick. If McCain goes all the way and wins the general election, he can't take office, so whomever his vice president is will be president. You could have somebody you never heard of win the election.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
The real motivation
February 27, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Unsane...and there it is. Britcom's heroes cannot win (primarily because one is a populist and one is a reactionary, NOT conservatives), so he has to hang his hat on hoping and praying he is right. And he BELIEVES he is right, in spite of the laws quoted here and the experiences of others shared here that give the lie to his belief. Sad.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Choices, choices
February 27, 2008 - 23:52 ET by BritcomWhich of the other three candidates would you would prefer that I support; one of the Communists or the Mafia Kingpin?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
A thief, or a moral coward?
February 28, 2008 - 12:16 ET by UnsaneWhoever casts a vote for Obama or Clinton is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever aids them in getting elected by sitting at home, crying, writing in a candidate, going third party, etc., is a moral coward.
I don't care for McCain either, but nor am I a thief or a moral coward. Which are you?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I hope you still feel that way when Huckabee gets the nomination
March 2, 2008 - 04:32 ET by Britcom:?)
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Eh?
March 2, 2008 - 13:22 ET by CGattonROTFLMAO!!!!
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
:?)
March 24, 2008 - 23:20 ET by BritcomYou laugh, but you know John ('I hate the g**ks') McCain can blow himself out of the water at any moment with one of his insane fits of temper. I think that head injury he had knocked something loose.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Not a conservative
March 2, 2008 - 13:24 ET by UnsaneHuckabee won't get the nomination, because he is not a conservative.
And you know this, or else you wouldn't have brought up this whole silly issue.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
John ('I'm a liberal') McCain is far to the left of Huckabee
March 2, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Britcom---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Keep reaching
March 4, 2008 - 06:54 ET by UnsaneHuckabee is naive in foreign policy. He has raised taxes as AR gov and has made it plain that if he had his way he would do everything in his power to screw the poorest among us (instead of good ol' tax simplification).
Huckabee is not a conservative.
I'm no McCain fan, but I rank him above Huckabee. (I voted for neither in the primary.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
dp
March 5, 2008 - 13:22 ET by Britcomdp
Spawn of Hitler
March 5, 2008 - 13:24 ET by BritcomUnsane: "...if he had his way he would do everything in his power to screw the poorest among us (instead of good ol' tax simplification)."
This is a blatent falsehood of such magnitude that it literally boggles the mind. Congratulations on surpassing even Adolf Hitler in his capacity to concoct the BIG LIE.
Old Time Communist Karl Marx's Income Tax (advocated in Marx's 'Communist Manifesto') is an utterly indefensible relic of the 20th century's fascination with socialism and is the worst kind, and most regressive, of big government tax schemes imaginable and is the bane of the modern capitalist republic, but don't let that fact stop you from defending it with every ounce of breath that you can muster.
Mark my words, anyone who will defend an Income Tax, and the jack-booted Gestapo necessary to enforce it's collection, is no conservative, is no patriot and deserves no less than to be found guilty of crimes against America, water-boarded, deported, and forced to live out the remainder of his days in a sweltering 3x5 cage on a tropical Caribbean enclave.
---
Communist vs Statist '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Nitcom's temper tantrum
March 6, 2008 - 00:55 ET by UnsaneThis is a blatent falsehood of such magnitude that it literally boggles the mind. Congratulations on surpassing even Adolf Hitler in his capacity to concoct the BIG LIE. How? Economists tend to agree that consumption taxes (national sales taxes like what your Populist Hero advocates) are the most regressive taxes available; meaning, they disproportionately hit those with the least ability to pay them. Now, let's go on to the rest of your temper tantrum.
Old Time Communist Karl Marx's Income Tax (advocated in Marx's 'Communist Manifesto') is an utterly indefensible relic of the 20th century's fascination with socialism and is the worst kind, and most regressive, of big government tax schemes imaginable and is the bane of the modern capitalist republic, but don't let that fact stop you from defending it with every ounce of breath that you can muster. First you compare me to a Nazi, then you compare me to a Communist? Wow. I would be offended, but you are too busy displaying what a political idiot you are for me to be offended. Income taxes, socialistic? In their current form, yes they are, but my aim is to make them much less complicated, and very-unsocialistic, which CAN be done. (Hence my support for Steve Forbes in 1996.) And as for the bane of the modern capitalist republic (you DO know that capitalism is an economic model, do you not?), I would say that's what Huckabee's beloved Unfair Tax is. (Once you have to call your tax plan "Fair", chances are extremely high it is not...) When you start charging me 23% on top of the 8.25 I ALREADY pay in sales taxes, I react by slamming my wallet shut. As the consumer is king in the economy, once you get enough people to slam their wallets shut, guess what starts to happen to all sorts of jobs that directly tie in to consumer spending???
Mark my words, anyone who will defend an Income Tax, and the jack-booted Gestapo necessary to enforce it's collection you obviously have never seen what happens to stores and businesses who fail to pay their sales taxes. I have. And congratulations: by throwing out two Nazi references, you show me that you have Leftist tendencies: you argue like Leftists, is no conservative people who support Huckabee aren't conservatives, I'll say that. And what say you of people like Steve Forbes who wanted to radically simplify the income tax?, is no patriot you better think of me on Veterans Day, you ingrate and deserves no less than to be found guilty of crimes against America for simply acknowledging the 16th Amendment? Sheesh, water-boarded, deported, and forced to live out the remainder of his days in a sweltering 3x5 cage on a tropical Caribbean enclave. Awwww, is someone a wittle upset that his Populist Hero quit on him???? What a petulant little baby you are.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Hah, I laugh at your smarminess
March 6, 2008 - 03:21 ET by BritcomFirst off act your age, not your shoe size?
Second, a sales tax IN LIEU of a personal and corporate income tax is not burden on the poor since virtually nothing the poor will buy would be taxed and the pricing structure will drop as the corporate income tax is dissolved. All ships rise and fall and what-not. This becomes a net benefit both through trickle down, and manufacturing, wholesale, and retail cost reductions. Add to that the rise in wages and living standard created by the repatriation of a trillion dollars worth of offshore banking deposits. This alone could supercharge the economy and benefit the working poor immensely.
Third, Duh...Hitler and the Nazis were leftist socialists, not conservatives. The Nazi party's name in German is: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, (you should know this) which means: The National Socialist German Workers Party. Nazism and Communism are both leftist and there isn't a dimes worth of difference between them.
Fourth, Communism is also an economic model, a really bad one.
Fifth, I personally am an ultra-rightist and anyone who will pull the lever for a McCain is a centrist... at best. The GOP has hustled me and the rest of the Christian Conservatives in the party out the side door in their zeal to elect a CFR approved candidate. Don't look for me on election day, I don't vote CFR.
Sixth, stores don't pay the sales tax, the customers do, the store merely has custody of the taxes until they are sent to the state. If they don't send it, that is theft, not tax evasion. Theft is handled by your local elected Sheriff, not the unelected national Gestapo.
Seventh, Benedict Arnold was a veteran; that alone is not enough to qualify for patriot, there must also be loyalty to the Constitution and fidelity to the people who wrote it.
Eighth, Huckabee didn't quit, he finished the race and came in second; Romney quit. I cannot be blamed for McCain's next disaster, everyone knows I have never supported McCain for a moment and I will not defend whatever insanity he comes up with next. I did my best to stop the GOP from shooting itself in the head with McCain, and I won't feel guilty when it pulls the trigger.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Is John McCain Married to the
Nitcom, scumbag extraordinaire
March 6, 2008 - 05:46 ET by UnsaneSeventh, Benedict Arnold was a veteran; that alone is not enough to qualify for patriot, there must also be loyalty to the Constitution and fidelity to the people who wrote it. This MUST be addressed first. I have pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States on FOUR occasions. I am currently gritting sand in between my teeth in the desert to defend the Constitution and your right to get on the Internet and whine. And YOU have the audacity to compare ME to Benedict Arnold? What a f#$king scumbag you are. Any respect I may have had for you, you just pissed away.
Of course, you won't dare do that in my face; you'll just bravely call me a traitor in the comfort of NB because you and I both know what the consequences of you doing that to me personally will be.
I HATE making an issue of my service on NB because I hate even seeming like I brag about anything I am personally very humble about. But there it is, you put me in the position. You think long and hard about me and the troops under me this 11 November, scumbag.
First off act your age, not your shoe size? Prince, is that you? Or is that "the artist"?
Second, a sales tax IN LIEU of a personal and corporate income tax is not burden on the poor since virtually nothing the poor will buy would be taxed you obviously know nothing about the poor or why they are poor and the pricing structure will drop as the corporate income tax is dissolved only to rise again as the sales tax is passed on to consumers. Study some economics sometime!!!. All ships rise and fall and what-not. This becomes a net benefit both through trickle down, and manufacturing, wholesale, and retail cost reductions Except when said businesses are charged the sales tax to buy what they need to manufacture (etc.) and passed that on to consumers. Add to that the rise in wages and living standard created by the repatriation of a trillion dollars worth of offshore banking deposits. Japan has one of the largest savings rates in the world. their economy should be #1 5000 times over if that logic held. But it is not. This alone could supercharge the economy and benefit the working poor immensely. Yep, until the consumer - who unfortunately for you, drives the economy - looks at 31% sales taxes and higher prices passed on by sales taxes incurred at various levels, and responds by slamming their wallets shut. What happens when those who drive the economy slam their wallets shut? Why, the economy DECLINES, and then the problems begin.
Much better to hit everyone at 17% with no deductions or exemptions at, say $36 K a year and up...and not charge taxes on any investment income.
Third, Duh...Hitler and the Nazis were leftist socialists, not conservatives. The Nazi party's name in German is: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, (you should know this) which means: The National Socialist German Workers Party. Nazism and Communism are both leftist and there isn't a dimes worth of difference between them. Incorrect. As the Nazis permitted the ownership of private property, they are not the same as Communists. Though their system in the end looks the same as Communism, the path they choose to get to that point is via the Right.
Fourth, Communism is also an economic model, a really bad one. Interestingly, you have associated me with Communism and Nazism in the same post. Which only shows me your political idiocy.
Fifth, I personally am an ultra-rightist and anyone who will pull the lever for a McCain is a centrist... at best. The GOP has hustled me and the rest of the Christian Conservatives in the party out the side door in their zeal to elect a CFR approved candidate. Don't look for me on election day, I don't vote CFR. Ah, you are one of those idiots who are afraid of a club of pencil necked geeks and pointy headed intellectuals who don't have the acumen to take over a phone booth. Hahahaha! Besides, apparently you DO vote CFR. Your Populist Hero wrote a (bad) foreign policy article in a recent edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the (GASP!) EVIL CFR!!!
I don't like McCain, but neither Romney, Thompson or Giuliani won. And I sure as all hell REFUSE to watch a bunch of Socialists take over the country. My voting for McCain will be done with not an ounce of enthusiasm, contrary to your beliefs.
Sixth, stores don't pay the sales tax, the customers do, the store merely has custody of the taxes until they are sent to the state. If they don't send it, that is theft, not tax evasion Moron, that IS tax evasion, and the state swoops in, impounds the property, locks up the store, and the employees are left to go looking for work. But then, you apparently have never seen what happens to a store that fails to pay the sales taxes. I have. In one case, I was the store's last customer for the month, because the state was right behind me shutting the place down. Theft is handled by your local elected Sheriff, not the unelected national Gestapo again, arguing exactly like a Leftist ("WAAAAH!!! NAZI! NAZI!! NAZI!!!") In Texas, it sure wasn't the elected Sheriffs who shut down the stores. There is a state agency that does all of this. I know people who work for them. Besides, your local elected Sheriff can be every bit a prick that the tax courts can be. But i don't expect one as dumb and naive as you are to understand that.
Eighth, Huckabee didn't quit, he finished the race and came in second how did that commercial go back in the day? You don't win silver, you lose gold? ; Romney quit i voted for him anyway. I cannot be blamed for McCain's next disaster, everyone knows I have never supported McCain for a moment and I will not defend whatever insanity he comes up with next. I did my best to stop the GOP from shooting itself in the head with McCain, and I won't feel guilty when it pulls the trigger. So, because Your Populist Hero didn't win the nomination, you are comfortable with Socialists taking over? And you call yourself an "ultra rightist".
Crawl back under whatever rock you emerged from and stay there.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"...you and I both know
March 6, 2008 - 20:33 ET by Britcom"...you and I both know what the consequences of you doing that to me personally will be."
I think not. At ease soldier, and stow that attitude.
---
Politics is a contact sport, not a blood sport.
The sales tax will not be charged to resellers, only end consumers. The corporate income tax is currently being passed along to consumers. The sales tax would end that.
The Constituion has no provision for an IRS Police agency. The highest law enforcement officer in the United States is the Sheriff of the county one is in. Everyone else operates under his authority. That is why he is elected. If you get a bad one, you can vote him out.
Huckabee is not a member of CFR and he has no control of what the CFR prints in their version of MAD magazine.
If you elect McCain, you ARE voting for a socialist. It matters not if the candidate has a (D) or an (R). Hillary & Obama are Communist Socialists and McCain is a Statist Socialist. Both are unacceptable.
Socialism is not a doctrine of the right, be it Nazi Socialism, or Communist Socialism. The Nazis concentrated power in the national government, nationalised private business and enslaved the population and killed those who opposed their rule. That is leftism.
Being an ultra-rightist, I don't see any difference between the three candidates left. McCain is not even the slightest bit better then the other two. To vote for him would only encourage the GOP to nominate more of his kind in the future. They must be made to understand embracing McCainism is the third-rail of Republican politics.
It is you who does not seem understand that using the word Populist is the same as using the word Fascist or the word Nazi. You are in effect calling Huckabee a Fascist, something that doesn't fit Huckabee's record, but DOES fit McCain's. You must wake up from this and see the truth that McCain is a traitor and a Mafia Kingpin. Don't cover for him just to please the party. Expose him and teach the party a lesson.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?
Idiotcom strikes again
March 7, 2008 - 04:12 ET by UnsaneI think not. At ease soldier, and stow that attitude. Negative, scumbag. You are the one who questioned my patriotism and equated me with being a traitor. And I am no soldier (three more guesses...)
The sales tax will not be charged to resellers, only end consumers. The corporate income tax is currently being passed along to consumers. The sales tax would end that. Obviously you have never run a business. I worked for a landscaper once upon a time for extra cash. Whenever he bought paper or pens with which to track his business, he paid sales taxes for them. Also, for equipment, fuel, supplies, and on and on and on. I don't remember the owner ever saying "Out of the kindness of my heart, I won't factor in sales taxes into my pricing." Nope! We factored the TOTAL COST of our equipment and overhead into the price of our service, and that INCLUDED sales tax. Your argument is about as stupid as arguing that apartment tenants don't pay property taxes - they DO, just not directly.
And it looks like you want said business owner to jack up his proces an additional 23% ON TOP OF the 8.25% we ALREADY have to charge. No thanks. He LIKES being in business.
The Constituion has no provision for an IRS Police agency. Well, how do you expect taxes of any sort to be collected without the fear of punishment? The State of Texas doesn't send Valentine's Day cards to businesses who owe back sales taxes as you seem to think. They impound the business and everything therein - and if you think the IRS is bad, you'll love to see those guys in action. (Besides, if I had my way, the IRS - which there will still be, in one form or another, contrary to whatever dream world you live in - would consist of 100 people at most, with no regional offices. And if people didn't pay their 17% income tax starting at $36 K a year as I described above, their crime would be as much stupidity and laziness.) The highest law enforcement officer in the United States is the Sheriff of the county one is in. Show me where that is written. Everyone else operates under his authority. Really? The HPD police chief will be surprised to hear he works for the Harris County Sheriff. I'll have to let him know. That is why he is elected. If you get a bad one, you can vote him out. Makes no difference. All local law enforcement types are pricks, I've dealt with enough to know that fact. In fact, the few times I have worked with federal law enforcement officials you have such disdain for, I have found them to be extremely professional and quite easy to get along with. I am especially impressed with the Secret Service.
Huckabee is not a member of CFR and he has no control of what the CFR prints in their version of MAD magazine. Wrong! Sorry! Your POPULIST HERO penned an article by invitation, along with most of the other candidate, for Foreign Affairs magazine!!! Don't believe me? Go ask his campaign! I have HIS ARTICLE that HE WROTE in the mag and I can freely quote from it chapter and verse if you wish! And that is a magazine published by the most feared collection of powerless nerds in the world, the EVIL CFR!!!
If you elect McCain, you ARE voting for a socialist. It matters not if the candidate has a (D) or an (R). Hillary & Obama are Communist Socialists and McCain is a Statist Socialist. Both are unacceptable. A what? Huh??? Little boy, you are making less and less sense. Again, I don't particularly care for McCain, but what the hell am I supposed to do? I can't vote for myself as I don't qualify for office - yet. Besides, I have yet to hear McCain nakedly promote a Socialist agenda the way that Obama and Clinto have. (I disagree with much of what he said, but as we don't live in a parliamentary system of government, we have what we have.)
Socialism is not a doctrine of the right, be it Nazi Socialism, or Communist Socialism. The Nazis concentrated power in the national government, nationalised private business and enslaved the population and killed those who opposed their rule. That is leftism. Except that they allowed private business to operate and own their property. Nationalizing industry is a sure-fire way to lose your support among businesspeople. Again, you are incorrect. Whereas Communists have no use for private property (Leftist), the Nazis tolerated it, as long as you did what you were told (Rightist). And oddly enough, the oppressive machinery of Nazism wasn't turned against the German population in general until the war's end...that machinery was saved for political enemies, ethnic minorities, and of course the Jews. That doesn't make them any less evil, of course.
Being an ultra-rightist and in large measure a complete reactionary, I don't see any difference between the three candidates left. McCain is not even the slightest bit better then the other two. To vote for him would only encourage the GOP to nominate more of his kind in the future and that's because you are a whining crybaby who won't do more to campaign for candidates for your liking. I asked you repeatedly to tell me why I should vote for your Populist Hero, and you refuse to explain to us voters why we should! . They must be made to understand embracing McCainism is the third-rail of Republican politics. Participate more in the primaries and campaign for the reactionaries and populists you like, crybaby.
It is you who does not seem understand that using the word Populist is the same as using the word Fascist or the word Nazi. Nope! Try again. And you're one to lecture ME on the use of words like "fascist" or "Nazi"!!! You FREELY use them in a demonstration of Godwin's Law!!! You are in effect calling Huckabee a Fascist, something that doesn't fit Huckabee's record, but DOES fit McCain's. Try READING what I type from time to time. I AM calling Huckabee a Populist, because he is one. He HAS raised taxes as governor and let people out of jail that shouldn't have. In a printed forum sponsored by the CFR (Foreign Affairs), he has printed out some of the most naive foreign policy I have seen this side of Ron Paul. Time for you to simply face the truth, painful as it may be to you.
You must wake up from this and see the truth that McCain is a traitor and a Mafia Kingpin. A tenant of the Hanoi Hilton, a traitor? You are a very sick individual. And a Mafia Kingpin? You need to learn to stay away from the kook websites, to learn how to evaluate sources, and to stop believing everything you hear on the Internet.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
That's Mr. scumbag to you Homer
March 7, 2008 - 06:55 ET by Britcom---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?
Unsane
March 2, 2008 - 04:47 ET by RESTLESS 1More than a thief, such a person is a defeatist. My candidate (George Allen), was done before he even started. I have not whined about this whatsoever. Texas has a late primary. I am left with few viable choices. I may write in a candidate in the Texas primary, but I will vote for the Republican nominee in the general. Meanwhile, all of the house seats are up and 1/3 of the senate. Perhaps we should be turning out attention there?
Btw, Spurs had a big win over Dallas, and squeaked by Milwaukee tonight. Still undefeated since the all-star break baby. Phoenix melted down tonight against Philly. So much for Shaq gettin them to the promised land. My prediction, a rematch of Detroit and San Antonio in the finals, and alas, nobody will be watching.
Btw, Spurs had a big win
March 2, 2008 - 05:33 ET by MrShyBtw, Spurs had a big win over Dallas, and squeaked by Milwaukee tonight. Still undefeated since the all-star break baby. Phoenix melted down tonight against Philly. So much for Shaq gettin them to the promised land. My prediction, a rematch of Detroit and San Antonio in the finals, and alas, nobody will be watching.
Iiiiiiiii don't know there, Restless, not so fast... Any team with Kobe and Phil, and now Pau and a great supporting cast, scares me. Them or the Spurs. No one else in the West does, though (poor, stupid Suns :p) And yeah, Detroit should be angry and hungry enough this time to not collapse against inferior teams on the way to the finals.
So, we could see a 2004 rematch or a 2005 rematch. Whatever the outcome, I do not want to see the Lakers win it all. No. No. No. Let's keep Mr. Jackson at a modest 9 championships, please.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy
March 2, 2008 - 10:19 ET byare y'all leaving someone out?
No Poofdas
Botg
March 2, 2008 - 10:26 ET by MrShyYeah, well, the boys in green are good, don't get me wrong, and they'll duke it out with Detroit, but with all of Detroit's playoff pedigree, I'll be surprised if they don't go to the finals this time.
Cleveland is certainly better now after the big trade, and if LeBron goes off you can't count them out.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy
March 2, 2008 - 10:35 ET byand we still have to finish the season
No Poofdas
I assume you are referring to Republicans
March 2, 2008 - 05:40 ET by JerI assume you are referring to Republicans who would vote for Obama or Clinton.
Jer
You assume wrong
March 2, 2008 - 13:28 ET by UnsaneLast time I looked at my post, I used the word "Whoever". Doesn't sound like I am qualifying, does it?
I will say that the latter portion of that post is most likely aimed at Republicans (i.e., whiners who won't vote McCain and sit at home because Huckabee lost).
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Well, the last time I
March 2, 2008 - 14:56 ET by JerWell, the last time I looked at your post, you were using the word "Whoever" with respect to both the former and latter portions of your post. And, you acknowledge that the latter portion was "most likely aimed at Republicans".
But, knowing how your inclination for supercharging your rhetoric sometimes occludes good judgment, I now realize my assumption was unfounded.
Jer
What do you want me to say?
March 4, 2008 - 06:59 ET by UnsaneBut, knowing how your inclination for supercharging your rhetoric sometimes occludes good judgment Jer, you are one of my favorite Leftists here, as you surely take rational approaches to debate. Hence I'll break it down for you.
I WISH I was supercharging rhetoric. Have you been listening to what Obama and Clinton have been saying? Their desire to steal from the producers of America for no other reason beyond the fact that they are rich, is NAKED. Also, they wish to have the American people orbit the government, NOT the other way around, and their wish is best accomplished by stealing from America's productive population to coddle the lazy.
As such, I stand by my statement. Whoever casts a vote for either of those Socialists is nothing more than a common thief. Thievery is thievery, no matter if the patina of legitimacy by law is lent to it.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Well, Unsane...I have
March 4, 2008 - 17:35 ET by JerWell, Unsane...I have great respect for your views and expertise--especially in matters of foreign policy [and Russian female tennis players].
But, what do you want me to say...you're accusing me of being a "common thief" if I cast a vote for Obama.
Jer
BTW, maybe "left-leaning", but not a "Leftist". There is a difference.
Jer
March 5, 2008 - 01:43 ET by UnsaneYour post is quite worthy of a response, but unfortunately it requires one of some length and will, by necessity require a philosophical discussion between us. It also goes well beyond the scope of this thread.
Therefore, I ask that you look out for such a response I will address to you on one of the forums. It will take awhile, but visit here often.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane...Will do.
March 5, 2008 - 01:54 ET by JerUnsane...Will do.
Jer
In the process of
February 26, 2008 - 12:34 ET by QueenMumIn the process of researching the issue, I've come to the conclusion that the crux of the matter is the meaning of "natural born". Does the term "natural born" establish a geographic parameter? Or does it simply mean one who is "born" into U.S. citizenship according to any and all related statutes? My conclusion is that the latter is the case. McCain is a natural born citizen in that, at the time of his birth, he was covered by statutes which define him as such. Although he was born outside the geographical borders of the U.S., he was born a citizen. I don't believe a Constitutional Amendment is necessary or prudent.
Power to the people!
"No person except a natural born Citizen...
February 27, 2008 - 02:07 ET by Britcom"No person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President [of the United
States.]"
Let's break this down, shall we?
"No..." means universal exclusion,
"...person..." means any individual or entity,
"...except..." means an expressly limited exception,
"...a..." means a quantity equaling one (1),
"...natural..." means not by artificial, or man made means; or equally not as a result of legislation, statute, declaration, or any type of artificial construction,
"...born..." means the act of coming forth upon the Earth and separating from ones mother, thereby achieving the status of individual natural person-hood,
"...Citizen..." means a person owing loyalty to and entitled to the protection of a given State,
"...shall..." means something that will take place or exist in the future,
"...be..." means to remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed,
"...eligible..." means qualified or entitled to be chosen,
"...to..." means for the purpose of,
"...the Office of President..." means the position of Commander in Chief,
["Of the United States" is assumed since the document deals exclusively with the United States.]
United States means all of the several States and all of the incorporated territory but NOT any of the UNincorporated territory or possessions or insular areas or foreign installations or offices, and none of the lands, territories, states, countries or possessions of foreign nations or kings.
Incorporated territories and states cannot be forcibly separated from the United States by legislative or executive action.
Unincorporated territories or possessions are the domain of Congress and can be ceded or given independence at any time.
The Canal Zone was an UNincorporated possession of the United States and was returned to Panama, therefore those born within it in 1936 were US Nationals, not Citizens, unless they had Citizen parents, but that citizenship was bestowed by quasi-Jus Sanguinis (by blood, through statute), not by Jus Soli (natural birth place).
Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) did not exist in England the time the American Colonies became independent, but Jus Soli (right of soil) did, so American Common Law (derived from English Common Law) does not recognize Jus Sanguinis (derived from Roman (European) Civil Law) and it was never made a part of the Constitution so mere statutes (even though they may be similar in nature to Jus Sanguinis) have no effect on the Constitutional qualifications for President because statutes and law cannot modify the provisions of the Constitution; only amendments may modify the Constitution, but the Constitution does recognize prior English Common Law precepts.
Conclusion: John McCain was a natural born inhabitant of the Panama Canal Zone which logically precludes his having been natural born in any other location. His Jus Soli (right of soil) is dual Panamanian National and US National. His quasi-Jus Sanguinis US statutory provision is US declared Citizen through his parents Citizenship.
Result: John McCain is a US National and a quasi-Jus Sanguinis statutorily declared US Citizen, but NOT a Jus Soli "natural born Citizen" since he was not born on incorporated territory of the United States. His birth was on sovereign Panamanian soil in an unincorporated US jurisdictional possession (the Panama Canal Zone).
He therefore does NOT meet the Constitutionally required qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will not administer the Oath of Office upon him.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
Word-gaming
February 29, 2008 - 16:18 ET by UnsaneResult: John McCain is a US National and a quasi-Jus Sanguinis statutorily declared US Citizen, but NOT a Jus Soli "natural born Citizen" since he was not born on incorporated territory of the United States. WHAT PART OF "SINCE BOTH HIS PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS, HE WAS BORN ONE, AND WHERE HE WAS BORN IS THEREFORE 100% IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT" do you NOT understand???
This whole thread is a monument to your illiteracy. All the word-gaming in the world will not help you here.
Instead of wasting your time on this subject I clearly know much more about than you, why don't you tell me why I should vote for your Populist Hero. (Too late, I voted for Romney already...but humor me.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane...
February 29, 2008 - 17:32 ET by BritcomAll bets are off, I have discovered that the Hospital McCain was supposedly born in, did not exist in 1936, it was build at least 5 years after his birth, the nearest hospital was in Colon, Republic of Panama (i.e. Not in the Canal Zone, and not on a US military base)
Apparently, we were lied to.
Link >>
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
There may in fact have been
February 29, 2008 - 17:55 ET by JerThere may in fact have been no hospital in 1936, but its existence or non-existence is not established by the linked document. It merely specified an area which would be under the control of the U.S. Navy while still subject to Canal Zone jurisdiction.
Jer
McCains Birth Hospital
February 29, 2008 - 18:15 ET by BritcomI learned from other sources that the Coco Solo land did not have a hospital on it before 1941. More information will be forthcoming as the story develops. If any one wants to refute this story, they just need to show documentation that the hospital existed in 1936. If it did, there should be hundreds of patients and doctors and nurses and support staff who could confirm this. I find no record of this, but I do find that many people including Americans were born and received treatment in the hospital in Colon. Surely some of them would have gone to Coco Solo if it existed.
McCain might also be able to clear this up if he were to release his birth records. He doesn't seem to want to do that.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Don't know why I keep
March 1, 2008 - 18:29 ET by QueenMumDon't know why I keep coming back to this thread. Must be cabin fever.
Anyhoo, McCain was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station. To suggest that, because a hospital may or may not have existed at the time, there is some question as to this fact, shows a bit of youthful naivete. Not everyone born at that time was necessarily born in a hospital. One would presume that an American airbase would have medical facilities and or personnel and that the military personnel on that base would avail themselves of such facilities. A building called a hospital is not necessary for birthing babies. The existence or non-existence of a hospital proves/disproves nothing. Your argument is deteriorating, Britcom.
I'm sure that McCain's birth records are readily available since he would have been required to present them at the time of his entering the military, etc. Where did you get the idea that McCain has refused to release his birth record? To whom?
I am Queen Mum and I approved this message.
McCain's birth records
March 2, 2008 - 04:39 ET by BritcomI'm sure that McCain's birth records are readily available...
Let me know if you can find them.
Where did you get the idea that McCain has refused to release his birth record?
It was mentioned on MSNBC, I believe, that McCain had refused to release his birth records during his last Presidential bid. I haven't found any update to that this time around, so I assume that they are still not availiable.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
So because neither you nor
March 2, 2008 - 12:50 ET by QueenMumSo because neither you nor I can personally "find" McCain's birth certificate, this proves what, Nitcom? His birth certificate is a matter of public record. He would have been required to present it in order to get a driver's license, a marriage license, join the military, and likely to run for office. The idea that he would "refuse to release" his birth certificate is just plain nonsense. But then, you "believe" that it was "mentioned" on MSNBC at some point in time. And we're supposed to be convinced that this is evidence of some sort of cover-up? Puh-lease!
I am Queen Mum and I approved this message.
It's a story
March 5, 2008 - 13:40 ET by BritcomQueen (of the kindergarten) Mum.
I am not here to convince you. I just report the news. If you can disprove the story, I'll retract. Otherwise, it stands.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
If it's on the Internet, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
March 1, 2008 - 08:28 ET by UnsaneI trust your links as much as I trust your ability to evaluate sources.
Which is to say, none.
Immaterial. The fact that his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth makes him one at birth. The end.
Instead of this song and dance, why don't you tell us why we should vote for a lousy candidate like Huckabee?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Britcom, would "natural
February 26, 2008 - 12:59 ET by KarmaBritcom, would "natural born" include those brought into this world via C-section?
Yes, it would...
February 27, 2008 - 02:32 ET by Britcomsince the word "natural" modifies the word "Citizen", not the word "born", and this is a legal document we are discussing, not a medical one.
A better question might be: if an Australian couple create an embryo via invetro fertilization in Singapore and ship the frozen embryo to Hawaii to be implanted in a Hawaiian surrogate mother, after the baby is born back in Singapore, is the baby Australian, Singaporean, or American? That's a tough one.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
If the Hawaiian surrogate
February 28, 2008 - 13:18 ET by stratmanIf the Hawaiian surrogate mother is an American citizen, then the baby is an American citizen. Whomever delivers this baby is the key principle, not just the genetics of the baby. Just as a baby born of two illegal immigrants on US soil is an American (anchor) baby, so would the implanted embryo in an American woman be of an American citizen and, therefore, be an American citizen at birth. Any other interpretation would require a SCOTUS decision to further ammend or clarify what the Founding Fathers' and their heirs' perception of Motherhood and Citizenship meant.
I don't know the particulars of other countries' citizenship parameters and care less at this moment.
RRAM Tough!
It's a mildly interesting
March 1, 2008 - 08:42 ET by Jack BauerIt's a mildly interesting story that going around in circles on this thread.
Most of the external opinion I've seen commented upon seem to think it has little merit, though all admit that is has never been adjudicated...
But let's just say that at some point between now and November someone does manage to get this before the federal courts...
I'm assuming Washington D.C....
is there even the remotest possibility that it could reach the SCOTUS this year?
And even if it does, is it not likely that given the concept of Ex Post Facto (After the fact) any definitive ruling would not be restrospective and therefore not apply to McCain anyway?
I have no idea -- but I'm getting bored with the repetitive nature of they posts now.
dp
March 5, 2008 - 13:29 ET by Britcomdp
Well, I am glad you found
March 2, 2008 - 02:54 ET by BritcomWell, I am glad you found it even mildly interesting. You are right about the round robin, my fault for indulging Unsane too much.
I believe that ex post facto only applies to newly written laws, not interpreting the old ones, so if the SCOTUS rules on this issue, it will bind McCain from that moment whatever their ruling. I believe they did rule, or intended to rule, on Goldwater's bid. But if they do rule, I hope they get all of the documents, not just the bogus info McCain has been telling people for years.
At this point I am shocked at how many people here think natural born Citizen can mean anywhere in the world. I can't figure out where they come up with stuff like that. Dred Scott has been overturned for a century and some people are just hearing about it now and what it means. I can't tell if they just don't understand, or they don't want to understand because it might collapse their concept of reality.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Britcom: For What It's Worth...
March 2, 2008 - 04:02 ET by JerBritcom...I don't have the link handy, but yesterday I read the remarks of [I believe] a Constitutional Law professor who had studied the presidential "citizenship" requirement issue extensively over the past twenty years and, more recently, its application to McCain.
Bottom line: She admitted it's a very complicated issue... the answer is not a "slam dunk"...but, if she were sitting on the Supreme Court, she would probably rule in favor of McCain.
Jer
a very complicated issue
March 2, 2008 - 04:48 ET by BritcomYes, I saw Napolitano say virtually the same thing. I would certainly be interested to see what the Supremes would have to say on the subject.
I think they might want to look into it before Chief Justice Roberts administers the Oath of Office to McCain (assuming he wins, which I don't assume).
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
If you look at "original intent"
March 5, 2008 - 13:33 ET by sarcasmoI think McCain wins. The Founders were concerned about loyalty. I'm not a fan of him, either, so it's not pleasant to have to say this, but I think the Founders would say this particular avenue of argument is a loser.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
There's is a section in the
March 2, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Jack BauerThere's a section in the Constitution refering to Ex Post Facto relating to the concept of applying recently enacted criminal law retrospectively.
I was thinking more in the sense that the SCOTUS would surely be ruling on the definition of natural born as enumerated in the Constitution. The way Roe v Wade was decided on what 9 justices proclaimed out of thin air what the right to privacy meant.
Given that this may only occur after the election in which, say, a President McCain prevailed.. is it likely they would make an after the fact decision to remove him from office; even if they ruled that the Constitution did, in fact, mean that the circumstances of his birth, should, after all, have precluded his candidacy.
Wouldn't that provoke a seismic Constitutional battle that would rock the country?
McCain to SCOTUS...I am the duly elected President of these here United States, you are not... go "blank" yourselves.
See where I'm coming from here?
My refernce to "mildly" interesting was only in relation to the circular arguments from all of us here who are not Constitutional scholars. I include myself.
Our opinions are stated quickly in the the first couple of posts, but as even those who ARE scholars have disagreed, I just felt it was getting pointless to rehash what are ultimately unqualified assertions.
Hence my attempt to shift it to more general conjecture on what might occur should A. or B. transpire.
Jack
March 2, 2008 - 15:56 ET by BritcomYes, I agree on all points. I think it is important to get a ruling on this issue before the election to avoid the constitutional crisis you illustrate. If however the issue were ruled upon after the election (and McCain is ineligible), then whomever McCain's Vice-President is would become President. To avoid the question all together, we still have the opportunity to pick someone who has none of these divisive and murky constitutional issues.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
This just in ...
March 1, 2008 - 19:28 ET by QueenMumObama supports McCain's candidacy. Well, sort of.
I am Queen Mum and I approved this message.
Hey Queen...When I heard
March 1, 2008 - 19:40 ET by bigtimerHey Queen...
When I heard about McCaskill jotting down a quick amendment law or whatever it is they end up calling it a couple of days ago...I thought to myself...this will be one of the speediest things to go straight through the Senate that has ever been...now Obama is co-sponsoring this....
I am so not surprised.
If all were present when the vote takes place it would most likely be 100/0 ...
Btw...I approve of your new tagline...I love it...LOL!
Hoo boy, bt! Finally
March 2, 2008 - 15:24 ET by QueenMumHoo boy, bt! Finally something Obama can put on his resume'. ;)
I am Queen Mum and I approved this message.
McCain's Panama Birth Prompts Eligibility Probe...
March 3, 2008 - 13:46 ET by BritcomSource: Times (UK)
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Makookoo for Hucklepuffs!
March 5, 2008 - 23:26 ET by Free StinkerMakookoo for Hucklepuffs!
What about the HillBilly's illegal third term?
March 15, 2008 - 20:35 ET by j17ghsAnyone who cares about the constitutionality of McCain's birthplace must be livid about Billy Boy campaigning for a third term; check that out in your constitution!
Also, BO could well be considered as a foreigner. His mother just happened to whore around with a salesman from Nigeria in Hawaii before taking little BO to his stepdaddy's hood in Muslimland. BO certainly wasn't raised in the black America tradition growing up in Indonesia.
BO's father
April 13, 2008 - 17:01 ET by CiampinoNot Nigeria, it is Kenya.
Recently further discussion flared up on this subject.
June 28, 2008 - 16:07 ET by BritcomThe recent discussion took place in another thread here on NewsBusters and added more and greater detail on the issues surrounding John McCain's birth place and what it means.
The link to the discussion is below:
FLASH!: McCain's Birth Certificate Posted on the Web. PANAMA!
---
Lets fix the Supreme Court for good!
Communist vs. Statist '08
Obama's has a more SERIOUS Birth Certificate problem
June 28, 2008 - 16:28 ET by JayTeeObama's Birth Certificate looks like a Forgery, According to a Senior State Official in Hawaii....
It's raises MORE questions than McCain's ....
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Interesting.. perhaps this whole election will prove to be bogus
June 28, 2008 - 18:59 ET by Britcom---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&
Well...let's
June 28, 2008 - 19:04 ET by bigtimerWell...let's see...
Hillary just suspended, so did Romney....
We couldn't be that lucky...
Nope...when pigs fly most likely.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
JayTee... Wow, what an
June 28, 2008 - 19:16 ET by Clear thinkerJayTee...
Wow, what an article.
If this turns out to be forgery, and he is found ineligible to be prez, can his supporters sue the hell out of him for it? And, how many laws he may have broken while trying to pull off this scam?
This election get's better with every day. (better in a bad sort of way)
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
The Old Toricelli Switcharoo
June 28, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Free StinkerIf Obama has to drop out because of a forged Birth Certificate, watch the Dems pull the old Toricelli Switcharoo and put Hillary in his place.
Not the same...Toricelli
June 28, 2008 - 19:37 ET by motherbeltNot the same...Toricelli quit because he knew he would lose when his corruption became public, and they wanted a better candidate. What they did was illegal according to election law, but allowed by the NJ Supreme Court.
If it turns out that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, he would have to step aside because he would not be qualified for the office.
Besides, he has not been officially nominated yet.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Ct... That is why
June 28, 2008 - 19:28 ET by bigtimerCt...
That is why McCaskill and Obama wanted to hurry and pass the law for McCain to be legally a naturalized born citizen...I should look it up...but I remember it well not long back..I never saw anything hurry up so fast in the Senate as that...to aide their so-called enemy to-boot...
I never could figure that out... thought it weird indeed....I posted about some of this earlier back....anyway..now it is plain as day.
I also don't know what became of all of the that bill in the Senate....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt... Holy cow, I had not
June 28, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
Holy cow, I had not heard about this. How long ago was this bill in the senate?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Here you go Ct... I did
June 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by bigtimerHere you go Ct...
I did this just for you...
Plus I found out it passed with flying colors.
Something to think about folks....by the way, when this news came out, Obama was the first to support McCaskill on this, she is his backer in the Senate.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Thanks bt... I appreciate
June 28, 2008 - 20:11 ET by Clear thinkerThanks bt...
I appreciate the effort!
When you first mentioned this I thought the bill was for Obama so I was surprised that it was only for McCain. Unless another one is passed for Obama he may still be SOL.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Well Ct...that was
June 28, 2008 - 20:16 ET by bigtimerWell Ct...that was point...the dems didn't rush to do this for no reason...think about it.
This was one of the few bills they rushed to get passed, they know it will cover Obama, they had to know questions were or are going to come up about this after McCain was named our candidate.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
This is a Load of Unsubstantiatable Crap
July 13, 2008 - 00:51 ET by blogonatorFrom law.justia.com...
Federal law states that "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective
date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is
declared to be a citizen of the United States".
The certificate is only a piece of paper. It doesn't substantiate anything. McCain's birth came after 1904 when the zone was created, and his parents were probably operating out of the zone, even if his mother popped before they got back into it. It doesn't matter, as if it was a U.S. sanctioned mission, other laws make him a natural born citizen anyway.
Whether or not McCain was actually born in the zone, he is recognized as being so, thus this is a moot point, unless any of you have a time machine. That said, if the Federal Court, the House, and the Senate call him a valid candidate, he is. If it wasn't legally feasible, they could make it so anyway.