Posted on 07/04/2008 9:10:39 AM PDT by David
I think you’re confusing Sec. 1401 with Sec. 1409, David.
Fine. I'll believe anything. In what respect?
I have both statutes open in front of me--they are really different--in what respect do you think I am confused exactly?
One of the things that is really irritating about dealing with posts here is this. I have been in the business of reading statutes since probably long before you were born. So I go into detail, showing you the subparagraph, all identified to specific effective dates and application to the facts at hand.
Then I get some garbage like I don't know what I am talking about and am confused.
Well I am sure I am wrong from time to time--but if you are really going to post something like this, you ought to say "well you are wrong because". This insulting "you are confused" doesn't make it.
You post nonsense about a statute on immigration hearings that really hasn't got anything to do with the issue (Pub.L. 97-116 amends Sec. 1447 which is the hearings statute and which has no application to any of the issues present here); then tell me I am confused. Who is confused? Give me a break
Well your opinion is wonderful--it is contrary to the opinion of a number of lawyers in the business of arguing cases to the U S Supreme Court but you could turn out to be correct and they wrong.
If you were born between May 25, 1934 and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one lived in the United States before you were born. You didn’t have to do anything special to keep your U.S. citizenship.
This is addressed to the McCain issue?
No doubt McCain is a citizen. Question is whether he is a "natural born" citizen under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the U S Constitution. Although there is disagreement, the usual consensus among the Constitutional lawyers is that he is not because the usual interpretation view is that "natural born" means born in the geographical U S.
I have addressed this issue several times and set out in detail the analysis that gets to that result--I urge you to read it.
That analysis is certainly not a "final word"--the courts might get to a contrary result.
My own predictions about the outcome as to McCain is affected by the pendency of the issue with respect to Obama. If a legal attack is mounted with respect to Obama (there are cases pending in several district courts challenging McCain; none challenging Obama yet as far as I know); existence of challenges to both will occasion a more careful examination of the issue with respect to McCain and in that environment, a political decision would likely disqualify both.
There are only two types of citizens- natural-born and naturalized. No other type of category exists. You are proposing the existence of someone who is an American citizen at birth, but not a "natural born" citizen. That is a completely illogical creation. John McCain was not naturalized, he is qualified to be President.
I'm curious why you think "the usual consensus among the Constitutional lawyers is that he is not." Do you have some backup for this?
There's nothing for the courts to decide here. Even assuming that one or both of them is not a natural-born citizen, unless/until McCain or Obama win the election, there is no legal question before the courts. American courts don't decide a case before there is an actual legal issue before them.
so we wait to see if the man is elected, and then you contest it in court? this is rediculous. It needs to be ferreted out now.
the question is, Are McCain and Obama eligible to become president of the United States? the voters have a right to know this BEFORE they vote..
Essentially, yes. American courts don't rule on something that could potentially happen. There needs to be an actual legal controversy before them. Neither Obama nor McCain have been elected to the Presidency. At this point, asking the courts to rule on their eligibility for the office would be like asking them to rule on the eligiblity of you or me- there is simply no legal question before them.
the question is, Are McCain and Obama eligible to become president of the United States? the voters have a right to know this BEFORE they vote..
I agree that the voters have a right to know, but the courts are not the appropriate place to find the answer.
The original interpretation was that you are "born in the USA geographically" to be considered a natural born citizen. That has been modified over the years, as has been shown on this forum. McCain or Obama may be deemed natural born citizens even if they were not born on USA soil.
So I fail to see where you're coming from with the idea that there is a usual consensus among constitutional attorneys, (Like Obama?) that you have to be born on USA soil. Can you show me your source?
Well, the issue needs to be brought out before the press and left open to the voters to decide. I for one want to know if my candidate is eligible. I think McCain has not hidden anything, and I would suppect welcomes any scrutiny.
Obama on the other hand, is stonewalling the issue. He needs to lay to rest the concerns raised by many people.
I always thought Obama was born to a virgin in a manger in Bethlehem. I mean, that's the impression the media is giving us.
Well you can look at a number of sources that have been posted on the other thread setting out the legal analysis.
But my own sources--well I am a tax lawyer; and I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Court; and I am in DC from time to time where I deal with the legal community; and most of them view me as a right wing republican; so I hear about what the guys who go down to the Court think about these current quasi-legal political issues.
See this particular issue has been around for a long time. Extensive attention was devoted to the Constitutional provision when Goldwater was a candidate--he was born in Arizona territory. The legal challenge was not pursued because there was a political consensus that he would lose which he did; however the view at the time was that he would be likely to be viewed as in compliance with the Constitutional requirement for the reason that the territory of Arizona was now included in the US. That hasn't happened with either Panama or Kenya.
I'm curious why you think "the usual consensus among the Constitutional lawyers is that he is not." Do you have some backup for this?
Well I will turn that around on you--do you know of any legal Constitutional Law authority for the proposition that there are two kinds of American Citizens--two specific classes with defined rights and none other?
A very brief legal answer to that argument is that the "eligibility" rule comes from Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the Constitution--Congress doesn't have the authority to dictate how that provision works because Congress has only one power in connection with Constitutional Law and that is to propose Amendments to the Constitution. If Congress could define blue eyed persons born within 120 yards East of the Yellow river as Natural Born citizens, it could modify operation of this clause. The Court would usually not uphold that kind of action by legislation.
A direct answer to my point about "the usual consensus among Constitutional lawyers . . . " is that I talk to guys who argue cases at the Court and I talk to a number of lawyers in the political area and that is what I think they say.
As to legal authority, I think I have set out somewhere on this thread, a legal opinion that specifically addresses the Constitutional interpretation considerations that I think would lead the Court to that result. And you too can see the articles in the general press--just do a Goggle; at best, there is doubt (because there is no direct Supreme Court decision authority); the guys who express an opinion are of the view, as am I that McCain doesn't make the Constitutional eligibility test to serve as president.
As to your first sentence, no not so.
Everyone concedes that McCain is a citizen under the two parent rule. No Doubt. And I assume you know he was not born in the Zone on the base but instead in Panama in a civilian hospital. His birth certificate is posted on the main thread.
So no, there are not millions of Americans born . . . either because they too, for the most part, have US Citizen parents.
As to Obama, it's different because under the narrow precise rules about how a person born outside the U S to two parents who are married to each other gets U S Citizenship, he flunks. No one has come up with a statutory analysis that makes him a citizen if he was born in Kenya which I believe that he was.
And therefore, I also think he doesn't come close to eligibility to act as President under the Constitution either.
It's not a righteous conduct issue--it's a simple statutory and Constitutional Law question.
David,
I agree with your summary of what you think about Obama. I’m aware that McCain was born in a hospital off the naval base. Anyone who would deny him natural born citizenship is using some archaic interpretation.
Obama has the problem. I think neither the McCain or Hillary camp want to spring this, plus I would imagine that there are detectives and FBI agents behind the scenes looking into this as we speak.
I’ll post this again. This is the law when McCain was born. I think it’s pretty clear. He was a citizen right from birth.
2. May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941
If you were born between May 25, 1934 and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one lived in the United States before you were born. You didn’t have to do anything special to keep your U.S. citizenship.
You could also get U.S. citizenship if only one of your parents was a U.S. citizen, as long as that parent lived in the United States at some time. If your U.S. citizenship came from only one parent, you would have been required to reside in the United States for at least two years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain your citizenship. If the one U.S. citizen parent was your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules applied if your father legally legitimated you.
This is from FIND LAW and posted on FR earlier today.
No. The person in the Supreme Court case was born in Italy in 1906 so he would have fallen under the laws in effect at the time. If Obama was born overseas, and I should point out that nobody has offered any evidence that he was, his citizenship would be decided by the Naturalization laws in place in 1961 and I believe that would be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
I believe your research is flawed. The quote was from the INS Act of 1953, which can be found here. As near as I can tell that was the law in effect in 1961 when Obama was born. According to the provisions found in Act 301 and Act 309, Obama appears to be a natural born citizen even if he was born overseas.
McCain's problem is worse than Goldwater's problem was because in Goldwater's case, prior to the nomination, Arizona had been incorporated into the territory of the United States. Panama has not. Therefore, Constitutional lawyers who read that as the requirement of the natural born rule view McCain as missing eligibility to act as President. My opinion is that is the result the Supreme Court is likely to reach if it gets the case.
You should note that someone thinks enough of that probability to have spent a hundred thousand dollars or so to start a number of District Court cases seeking to decertify McCain's delegates on the grounds that he is not Constitutionally qualified.
So far, no one has done anything to seek that remedy against Obama.
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.