[SnakeDoctor]

Not that you’re necessarily wrong ... but a Law Journal Article is pretty weak support.

SnakeDoc

[patlin]

Ummm, Morse wrote an entire Treatise on the history of US citizenship in 1881.

[David]

It is interesting that he thought so. He would reach a conclusion contrary to my view with respect to McCain.

An infant is subject to the sovreignty of the head of state of the geographical area in which he is born. The conflicting sovreignty was one of the the foundations of the Natural Born requirement in the US Constitution.

At this point, given the politicization of the courts, you cannot be certain how any of these issues would come down on a given set of facts.

In the current setting, I think in a suit seeking to enject Obama for failing to meet the test because of his failure of the place of birth test, I think the Supreme Court would likely decide that McCain flunks also because he fails the same test for the same reason.

I would grant you that the Obama result would be clearer than McCain although the fact that McCain also has a problem with his citizenship (the statute under which he claims was enacted several years after his birth and is not retroactive) combined with the place of birth problem, makes it likely that McCain would be held ineligible also.

Note that many of the European countries treat offspring to the second generation as citizens. Thus the grandchild of a person born in Sweden is a Swedish citizen eligible for a Swedish passport.

[parsifal]

True. and it looks to me like this is more about the jus sanguis prong of NBC anyway, which is why McCain is an NBC. But, it is hard to explain things to them because they are just on a “language hunt” which they pretty much screw up and get out of context.

Its like One L’s doing their first online research, and they start citing “trespass” remedies out of the Timber and Forestry section of the statutes. They can’t figure out the potential damages because there aren’t any trees involved in their fact pattern.

So they come up with, “Mary Lou is not liable to Sally May in trespass for burning down her house during an unauthorized entry onto the property to have a party because no trees were harmed during or a as a result of the entry. Had trees been damaged, then....”

But these guys are even worse than One l’s ,because even after you point out their boo boos, they don’t believe you.

parsy, who has been thru it with them