[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Gee, why are they not talking about you know who?

[Diogenesis]

[K-oneTexas]

Isn’t this a Dem/Kerry tactic? Is it de ja vu?

[Congressman Billybob]

Precisely my thought. The question of Obama's constitutional legitimacy has been discussed in media in Israel and England, and in the blogosphere in the US. Yet, somehow, the vast network of fact-gathering which is the NY Times has not noticed that whole subject.

I'm sure they will discover the subject next week, and will cover Obama's birth credentials. NOT.

BTW, the error in the Professor's article which a competent reporter would have picked up is the doctrine of post hoc validity. Sometimes a law is passed not to create a legal fact but to clarify a legal fact from the past.

That's what was done about a decade ago when a lawyer died and they found in his records about a thousand divorce decrees that had never been filed. That meant all those people, many who had since been remarried, were never legally divorced.

The appropriate court then entered a post hoc degree, validating all those divorces from the beginning. What a court can do with the law, a legislature can also do. As I understand the 1937 federal law is it "recognized" the native birth of all Americans born in the Canal Zone after 1904, when Roosevelt began the construction of the Canal.

So, when the Professor's rather obvious error is corrected. there is no question that McCain is a "native-born" American.

Can we move on, now, to the other candidate with a birth-right problem? You know, the Obama guy? The one whose nuts Jesse Jackson threatened to remove? It was in all the papers (but not in the NY Times).

Congressman Billybob

First in the series, "American Government: The Owner's Manual"

[Jim Noble]

Gee, why are they not talking about you know who?

Because he was born in Hawaii.