Oh this is Just Plain Silly

Come on for the NYT to argue that John McCain is not eligible to run for president (or so I have heard discussed on the radio this morning) is just plain silly.

Any one who has served in the armed forces is stationed overseas and is expecting a child for their family knows darn good and well that, that child will be born as a US citizen with all rights accorded there-in.As a PN I knew that for the purposes of being born while staioned on a United States base on foreign soil, that base was considered US soil.

I swear sometimes our hate of the GOP gets in the way of our common sense.

SHEESH!!

Come on NYT you can do a lot better than this.

Take a page out Barack's play book and at least show a little respect for his service to his country, even if you do have disagreements with his policies (as do I).

Barack know how to handle this, the NYT looks like it is on a vendetta.

:wtf:

...must be at least marginally sane? McCain is barking crazy. That alone should be enough to disqualify him!

or have you been in a drug induced coma for the last 8 years...chimpy is crazier than a shithouse rat! :crazy:

that McCain has policies that at in the dog manure pile. But I still think that to argue that he is constitutionally ineligible to run for president is quite the stretch.

Off course it may just be the navy admin type in me that leads me to think this way.


:toast:

it all hinges on the words in the constitution "natural born citizen"...I'm not saying it's a great argument, but since it has never been challenged in the courts or congress, the term has never been defined. If the wingers want strict constructionist (e.g. retrograde) judges, they should raise holy hell...

and the only way it can be challenged is in the courts...

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 born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

sP

However, it's still seen as a question mark because it's never been tested in the courts. Maybe we should ask the Supreme Court to rule on it just to finally establish precedent.

As far as I'm concerned, he meets the natural born citizen requirement.

unless there is a plaintiff and a defendant...I don't know that though. I would be very surprised to see a ruling on this issue until such time as someone gets into office that is even remotely questionable. And then, the plaintiff, has serious fears regard losing and the sour-grapes argument that, "You just couldn't stand to lose so you pulled this out of your arse..."

sP

Are you referring to a Personnelman in the Navy? They recently switched the title to PS (Personnel Specialist.) The NYT brings up an interesting twist but I don't think they are showing any disrespect. After all they endorsed him the gop nomination.

Personnelman from 1973 - 1990 (I loved the job in and off it's self, met some real jack ass officers though).

Not only that I was a bubble head in the mid 70's (Submarines)

So I used to call my self a pretty neat first class super sailor (PN1(SS))

I forgot about their endorsement.

:hi: