Posted on 10/23/2008 10:32:41 AM PDT by David
Really simple. Let's hold your hand. Reason you would have a case or controversy that would be a justiciable legal argument is because both are not qualified. If you start the argument with respect to only one, you don't have a case because the one you start with might not be elected.
Further, the bottom line, however much you may not want to hear it, is that the consequences of electing an ineligible President and installing him in office will apply whichever one of them is elected.
I would be happy with a do over.
Or a Palin vs. Biden and let them select VPs.
McCain was an infant when both parents were in the Panama Canal Zone - therefore he could not swear his citizenship and was automatically awarded U.S. citizenship because both his parents were citizens.
Obama does not have that argument - even his mother was underage regarding her U.S. citizenship status. Over the past months is the question of her own eligibility because of age. Originally it was said she was 16 when she produced Obama but over the months it has become 18 (closer to legal eligibility and citizenship choice I guess). She became an Indonesian however when she married Soetoro.
The whole scene is a sham and if this is the kind of person you find acceptable as POTUS - there is nothing else to discuss.
Interesting. If you read it that way then Boris Johnson, Conservative Mayor of London and former MP for Henley, is eligible to be elected President of the US.
My link was actually in support of your statement.
ping
No. He isn't natural born no matter how you define the term.
Apart from Constitutional rulings - I would always consider McCain more potentially suited to the Presidency by asking one question of both candidates:
What has McCain done for the USA?
What has Obama done for the USA?
Absolutely no contest!
This is my first vote as a citizen and am not mucked up with historical hurts and slander and wishes and votes of the past - I studied the candidates for two years to prepare myself - both nationally and state and locally.
I guess I function on the importance of truth and honesty...and a large commitment to the people of this nation...
You can only hold lies together for so long. Some day you have to make them real.
So why didn't Colon Powell endorse him?
I don't think so. I think there is just a developing consensus that the Constitution is just another dead letter legal document.
That is what concerns me.
I intend to cast the most effective vote possible against Obama, even if that means voting for McCain. But one of my points here is that everyone should be prepared for the proposition that if McCain won, there would be the same kind of legal challenge you would expect if Obama wins.
So - is this a veiled threat to the public that if an issue is made of Obama’s eligibility status - the same issue would be introduced regarding McCain?
Absolute farce....
Read the Tokaji article. (paste the url in the open window--it is correct) Likely going to be legal challenge whoever wins the election.
Unless you can point to a legal finding defending this statement, I am going to assume this your own opinion and assertion. You can find U.S. citizens born on military installations all over the world. This assertion is patently untrue.
Look, I have given you a fine law review article by a well known professor who is expert in this kind of issue. You may not like his view. But it is, in my view, an accurate statement of the historical legal authority on the words that appear in our Constitution.
I can tell you that at the time I was in Law School; at the time I was actively involved in politics; and I think as of today--that statement represents the generally held view by most Constitutional lawyers.
The view in the DC bar is that Tribe and Olson were hired by the Republicans to support their view on McCain. And obviously, you may not recognize this, lawyers are hired to advocate their client's legal position.
Bottom line--if this gets to the Supreme Court, the historical legal precedents indicate that is how they would come down--but who knows. Good lawyers will argue both sides and we then find out.
But off hand, I can't think of what the fact that there are "U.S. citizens born on military installations all over the world" has to do with it. Congress has put the fix on any doubt that they are citizens of the U S when they are born; but that does not free them from sovereignty of the government of the geographical area where they were born and thus they are not eligible to be President of the U S.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.