The NY Times Presents: John McCain, Disqualified at Birth -- the Sequel

News Busters ^ | July 11, 2008 | Clay Waters

[Prole]

The fraud surrounding Obama's birth certificate is for real.

Why else would the NY Slimes keep issuing hit pieces about McCain's birth?

[smedley64]

My thought too. Divert, divert, divert. The NYTimes is so transparent.

[MississippiMan]

I find it infuriating that they totally ignore the obviously legitimate questions about Obama’s birth certificate while rehashing this nonsense.

MM

[SuziQ]

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.

[Red Steel]

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.

[torchthemummy]

"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."

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.

[Red Steel]

McCain's Certificate of Live Birth. It looks real doesn't it?

[6SJ7]

File the NYTimes article under “repeat the lie often enough”.

[Southack]

Birth certificate?! Heck, Obama won’t even show you his *passport**.

...and the NY Times ain’t asking.

[The Cajun]

Sounds like we should try to find info on the good Prof. Gabriel J. Chin. I've heard rumors that college academics (especially the law types) tend to be liberal. /s

[Cacique]

btt

[EternalVigilance]

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 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?

[kcvl]

America’s media critic Andy Martin slams the New York Times for anti-McCain bias

http://tinyurl.com/5fvksf

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

[dangus]

>> 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.

[EternalVigilance]

Looks like this one created a condition, henceforth. And it naturalized those that preceded. Didn’t it?

[ChiMark]

Lets do some investigating into the good professors credentials.

[EternalVigilance]

it made John McCain a citizen

[EternalVigilance]

Shoot the messenger?

[EternalVigilance]

Was John McCain naturalized by the 1937 Act?