Posted on 07/15/2008 11:17:51 PM PDT by Red Steel
Here they go again: Today the New York Times ran yet another flaky story questioning the presidential eligibility of John McCain, born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, where his Navy father was stationed.
Back on February 28, Congressional reporter Carl Hulse wrote a big story on the "controversy," even though Hulse himself admitted little was likely to come of it. The Senate later approved a resolution declaring McCain eligible for the presidency.
Law reporter Adam Liptak's story today, which led the paper's National Section, ran under the hopeful headline, "A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue," and detailed findings from a Democratic college professor allegedly showing McCain unable to satisfty the constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen."
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain's eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain's birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a "natural-born citizen."
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain's eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
"It's preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy," Professor Chin said. "But this is the constitutional text that we have."
Several legal experts said that Professor Chin's analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.
"Nothing" but a meaningless, but prominently placed, 900-word story to further chip away at John McCain's stature. (The Times has yet to bring up Internet rumors about the validity of Obama's birth certificate.)
Why else would the NY Slimes keep issuing hit pieces about McCain's birth?
My thought too. Divert, divert, divert. The NYTimes is so transparent.
I find it infuriating that they totally ignore the obviously legitimate questions about Obama’s birth certificate while rehashing this nonsense.
MM
Sounds like they’re just trying to take the pressure off Obama, the hinky circumstances of his birth, and his possible ineligibility for the Presidency.
Two lawsuits, one in California the other in New Hampshire, have been filed against McCain. Both lawsuits are saying that McCain cannot run for president arguing that he is not a natural born citizen.
Somehow it would be no surprise if in researching Prof. Chin's general interpretation of constitutional law one find's the professor to be a "living constitutionalist."
While I think there are reasonable questions in regards to Obama's naturalization status, it's a dead-end. Still the need for the NYT to pursue the McCain status angle shows that Obama's status needs defending.
File the NYTimes article under “repeat the lie often enough”.
Birth certificate?! Heck, Obama won’t even show you his *passport**.
...and the NY Times ain’t asking.
btt
It is an interesting question. How can one be both "naturalized" and "natural born"?
Obviously the Congress in 1937 didn't think John McCain or the others of the same class were natural born. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the law, right?
America’s media critic Andy Martin slams the New York Times for anti-McCain bias
Martin asks, ‘Why is the New York Times covering questions about Senator John McCain’s citizenship, and ignoring glaring gaps in the record concerning Senator Barack Obama’s citizenship and eligibility to be president?’ Is there a double standard? Adam Liptak, are you working on a companion article about Obama’s ‘family secrets?’ Or will the American people, once again, have to rely exclusively on the investigative journalism of ContrarianCommentary.com for the truth during the 2008 campaign?
ANDY MARTIN
>> Obviously the Congress in 1937 didn’t think John McCain or the others of the same class were natural born. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the law, right? <<
Some Acts create conditions, some Acts recognize conditions, and some Acts clarify conditions.
Looks like this one created a condition, henceforth. And it naturalized those that preceded. Didn’t it?
Lets do some investigating into the good professors credentials.
Shoot the messenger?
Was John McCain naturalized by the 1937 Act?
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.