Replies

You're spinning so hard, you're in danger of leaving the ground, Old Teufel Hunden ... dude.

You've claimed, several times, that "natural-born citizen" has never been defined, and then turned right around, sometimes in the very same sentence, and claimed that it has been, as exemplified by:

You refuse to admit that the same wording used in the 14th Amendment is the same wording used in all laws after the 1790 laws that defined what a natural born citizen is.

McCain was not born stateless, as I noted in the reply of mine in question; the statute from 1937, which is the year after he was born, did not grant him anything but citizenship by the plain wording of the statute, and that plain wording left a certain degree of murkiness about even that, which was not addressed until 1952, making John McCain unquestionably a citizen, at age 16.

Are you claiming that John McCain was born after the passage of this 1952 statute? As confused and deliberately confusing as your commentary to this thread has been, I have managed to decipher that you are not claiming this. But yet, you claim that he's a natural-born citizen, even though he was born in 1936. Not 1937, and certainly not 1952.

Are you honestly incapable of seeing the contradictions in your various claims? They're painfully apparent to me, and I daresay they're readily apparent for any lurkers who have suffered through them right along with me.

Here are a few sources, not even web sources but print media, that discuss McCain's widely acknowledged Constitutional problems, for your enlightenment:

Hulse, Carl. "Senate Says McCain Is Qualified."
The New York Times. 1 May 2008.

Hulse, Carl. "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out."
The New York Times. 28 February 2008.

Liptak, Adam. "A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue."
The New York Times. 11 July 2008.

Associated Press. "McCain: My Citizenship Not an Issue."
USA Today. 29 February 2008.

Associated Press. "McCain Says Citizenship Issue Settled 44 Years Ago."
USA Today. 29 February 2008 (p. A6).

The Denver Post. "McCain Says His Birthplace Isn't an Issue."
USA Today. 29 February 2008 (p. A6).

You are the one that is spinning. You can't even admit that the same statute that makes John McCain borne American, uses the same wording as the 14th amendment. I've got news for you dufuss, born an American citizen means natural born citizen.

"Are you claiming that John McCain was born after the passage of this 1952 statute?"

You really aren't that bright are you? Look up the term Jus sanguinis and you will find that was part of U.S. statute before 1952. The nationalization and immigration act combined many statutes into one act while also extending citizenship to other areas previously undefined such as Guam. But go ahead and keep citing Supreme Court decisions that have nothing to do with U.S. citizenship. You're good at clouding the issue. I'll give you a Supreme Court Case on point, Minor v. Happersett. In it, the courts opinon was written as:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

As I've been saying all along. Chew on that one...