Posted on 02/28/2008 3:40:11 AM PST by SkyPilot
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
That’s illegal according to section 1401.
Not merely a paper fix... it was in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the law, albeit by disjointed means. Cheney had represented, grown up in, and maintained a residence in Wyoming. He could “fix” the situation by registering to vote in Wyoming, because his registration was what said he lived in Texas as opposed to Wyoming. Since he was legal to vote in, and even represent, Wyoming, there’s no way the fact that he also lived in Texas violated the notion that both President and Vice President couldn’t represent the same state. And that was what the law was about... representing two separate states.
You can thank Jimmy Carter for that one...
Jure solis is only relevant if the parents are not US citizens. Otherwise jure sanguinis is natural-born as established in section 1401.
well, as Johnny Carson used to say, “I did not know that!”
thx for the schooling.
We agree on the law, right? I’m just getting myself educated on these legal terms...
Same here, but it's the law that counts (section 1401), not the jus solis argument. The law is clear in 1401 that McCain is natural-born, so 1403 doesn't enter into the picture at all. 1403 was a mop-up to cover people who were not covered in 1401.
>> 1403 was a mop-up to cover people who were not covered in 1401. <<
I agree. I’ll even go further and suggest it was “a mop-up to cover people who were not clearly covered in 1401.”
I'd rather not...
“Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. “
Is this sentence ACTUALLY written in the cited law, or your interpretation? IF IT IS NOT, this very law (and other similar statutes) constitute the basis for an opposite CONCLUSION.
The New York Times is a vile propaganda organ. Do not imagine that they are stupid, or incapable of subtle trickery. We need to be careful how we react to this article. Otherwise, we will be playing into their hands.
This article is from the “International Herald Tribune”.
{thread hijack warning}
But yet they want to consider anchor babies US citizens.
“Obama was not born abroad.”
I apologize for the rude sound of this question, but how do you KNOW that? We have (at least) two claims by Obama:
1. 1961, in Hawaii
2. 1965, (approximately) where?
Has ANYONE seen an actual birth certificate?
The whole point (of the NYT article) may well be to get us to deny their allegation, with much hand waving and dust throwing, so that, when (if) the issue of Obama’s status as “natural born” is raised, the arguments and claims we have used can be used against us.
DG
True, but he cannot be president.
You are wrong in your assumptions.
Yes he can run for President, he is a U.S. citizen at birth, thereby a natural-born citizen. natural born citizen never meant 'born on U.S. soil only' it meant any individual born in the United States AND anyone born to U.S. Citizen parents abroad.
No but a ruling by the Supreme Court sure as hell can and does, i.e. the living constitution argument.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 159g. Acquisition of lands
As used in
this subsection with respect to a property owner, the term
"immediate family" means the spouse, brother, sister, parent, or
child of such property owner. Such term includes a person bearing
such relationships through adoption and a stepchild shall be
treated as a natural born child for purposes of determining such
relationship.Clearly, this reference has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. If anyone knows of another reference which I have missed, PLEASE cite it here!
If there is none, then the “USC based” arguments raised here have exactly the opposite effect. This is not a little point.
DG
A military base on foreign soil still is considered as US soil.
This is just a liberal ploy just as the 2nd amendment doesn’t give the citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It will be upheld by the supremes if it gets that far. Personally I think the first court that hears the case will throw the case out. It is nonsense!
It's illegal according to your interpretation of section 1401. That's nice, but your opinion doesn't trump that of law enforcement, the judiciary, and the legal profession.
That may depend on which court hears it.
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.