Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 08:05 AM
Original message
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=5&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1215867783-oKLBmw5uJSVkPeLu8Iasmg

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”


The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. I always thought that "natural-born" meant, and clearly so, "on American soil."
Edited on Sat Jul-12-08 08:40 AM by WinkyDink
That would include, say, embassies. But otherwise NOT in any foreign land, regardless of one's parentage.
He is Constitutionally INeligible.

OTHERWISE, the Founders---acutely cognizant of their language---would have used the single word "citizen".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. No, that's not what it means
It means only you were born a citizen, as opposed to becoming one through naturalization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. nope. you thought wrong.
easy mistake to make. But natural citizens are those born a citizen, regardless of where they were born. And its possible to be born a citizen outside "American soil"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamahaingttta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think he's eligible.
He may be the worst person for the job, but he's eligible.
This argument is going to go nowhere...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diamonique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I agree. He's eligible. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. 'Natural born' means you acquire citizenship at birth from an American parent....
I know. I am one. I was born overseas to an American father who promptly registered me with the American Consul where I was born. The American Consul then amended my father's American passport to include me.

I still have that passport and have used it to prove my natural born citizenship - which my father often told me made me eligible to become President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is exactly the opening the Republicans
could use IF they wanted to get rid of McCain. I think it would a complete disaster for them though. Republican voters and supporters of McCain would be livid and would see the ouster for exactly what it was. It's not like news of his birthplace is new -- we've known about it for a long time and the Republican already argued that it didn't disqualify him because it was a military installation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC