Posted on 02/27/2008 6:12:38 PM PST by Kay Ludlow
I can’t believe I posted this twice.
It must to be a Panamanian thing.
“why does the NYT raise this issue now?
OH..Yeah,,he is now the man.”
The New York Times doesn’t even pretend to be fair anymore. Their miserable little paper can continue its downward spiral, much to my satisfaction.
“The Constitution says..”
Who cares what the Constitution says. It’s a living, breathing document per the New York Times, love.
“Tonight @ church this lady was telling me how she couldn’t vote for McCain because he is pro choicse “
You can pretty much count on the American voter to be uninformed. It’s a given. Not only does your average voter not know exactly where he or she stands, on the issues they do stand for, they all too often can’t even explain fully why. And so we plunge into the 21st-century...
>>>>>His father and grandfather were both Admirals. I assume that means they were American citizens.
IIRC his grandpa was CO of the Atlantic Fleet during WWII, his father was CO of the Pacific Fleet during Vietnam.
In any case when the child of American citizens is born abroad (or even if only ONE of the parents is a U.S. citizen), you just stroll down to he local U.S. Embassy and complete the appropriate paperwork.
I saw someone doing this before my very eyes with consular assistance in Asia, and I vaguely remember thinking how easy it seemed to be. The Embassys are not in the business of screwing around with U.S. citizens and their infant children.
Did they not know where he was born when they endorsed him to be the Republican candidate?
The NY Slimes are beyond compare.
Of course legally there is no issue: John McCain is clearly a natural born US citizen who is eligible to become President.
Hillary’s hatching out on a fence post should raise questions also. Even Baaaracks birth shoud raise some questions.
“Some might define the term “natural-born citizen” as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John’s birth in 1936.”
This is all true about the Act of 1790. However, the Naturalization act of 1795 takes precedence over the aforementioned, as it made significant amounts of change. Inside said Act, a “natural born citizen” is defined as one who is born in United States Territory. John McCain was NOT born in US Territory, as it was LEASED by Panama. McCain is a citizen, but not a “natural born citizen.”
Also, the following information was taken from the State Department website (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf):
TL:CON-64; 11-30-95
a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).
b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.
c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
Do not be so quick to dismiss the claim that he is ineligible...
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.