Posted on 02/27/2008 8:24:39 PM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
don’ know but to even go there is assinine.
Hillary and Bill are running an unconstitutional third term. Let’s call it a draw.
There is nothing illegal about McCain’s citizenship. Nothing that a new identity couldn’t fix. Let’s give him someone else’s SSN and pretend that he’s just like anyone else who steals an identity. A hardworking American.
Of course he is. The slimes is just getting desperate
This is an attempt by the Times to offset the “foreign” question of Obama...it’s so transparent that I can’t believe they would be this stupid. McCain’s father was MILITARY!!! Are they trying to say that children of military men stationed in Germany or Japan are NOT American-born????
THe timing seems rather suspect...considering Obama’s African garb...why not make it seem like McCain is ineligible...
Not to mention that the Times ENDORSED McCain...
They are totally tanking big time!!!
I thought it was higher than that, but it doesn't matter anyway, when someone is only running for office.
I say if you were not “naturalized” through immigration laws, you are a “natural-born” citizen.
OK, so I may end up voting for the dirtbag anyway.
It was a part of the US at the time he was born. He’s legit.
He was schooled in Indonesia as a yute where he was listed on paperwork as a muslim (his campaign can’t explain it, they just say that the information listed was in “error”) and attended mosque with his father.
No he was born in Honolulu, HI. He did live in Indonesia as a child when his mother moved there with his stepfather
This is why Flyover America gets for voting for the Nyet Times’ GOP pick. They didn’t want the GOP guy to win, they wanted to pick OFF the conservative candidates and get them out of the race.
The NYT’s last effort, the affair-with-the-lobbyist story, has been credited with putting him over Obama in the national generic polls Rasmussen is running. Right now McCain is probably praying the Times can do a story like this every day between now and November.
Yes he was born on US soil. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and he was born in 1961
Yes he was born on US soil. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and he was born in 1961
I hope you are wrong (as do you, I am sure). At the rate they are going, who will believe them? They have made such fools of themselves with #1 and #2, will anyone be paying attention to #20?
I don't know what I can say about the New York Times that hasn't already been said here. They are certainly expanding their reputation for being anything but objective journalists. ("Objective journalist" has become an oxymoron in my lifetime. Such people used to exist.)
This is a non-issue. Why even push it, in the media or elsewhere.
What a stupid thing to even bother bringing up. It’s almost as bad as the “Obama’s a muslim sleeper” crap.
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.