Posted on 05/02/2010 10:06:04 AM PDT by Menehune56
In discussions concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama II for the office of President of the United States, many point out that if there were a real issue, the Republicans would have leveraged it in 2008 to retain control of the White House. But it was well-documented at the time, and additional documentation and analysis have established, that John McCain’s eligibility was in question as well. With that being the case, why would the Republicans nominate a candidate who might not be constitutionally eligible to serve in the office?
The answer may be a simple one – the 2008 race was going to the Democrats and the Republicans did not want a leading candidate for 2012 to lose or be roughed up during the campaign. So the solution – let the man who needed to win in 2008, if he was ever going to be president, run – even if he might not be constitutionally eligible. Was this a grand conspiracy by the Republican Party? No, it was just simple pragmatic political strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Why do you think five (5) democRAT Senator were sooooo eager to create Resolution 511, it was not the puppies idea???
McCain got his Panamanian pass and did not want to put that in jeopardy by pointing out that Obama is a Kenyan Born Citizen.
He figured he would beat the Kenyan anyway. Without objecting the day after Obama became the nominee, he would lose all credibility going forward if he objected to Obamas Kenyan citizenship.
McCains ambition sealed our fate. Thats why Democrats came out and voted for McCain in the early primaries. They want a doddering old Maverick on our ticket.
McCain is / was an NBC, regardless of the location of his birth.
Obama is not / was not an NBC, regardless of the location of his birth.
COngress can only confer statutory citizenship (i.e., “naturalized”) on anyone.
A statutory citizen can never be an NBC, and vice versa.
There is little to no doubt what the founders and framers intended here. A natural born citizen can never (in appearance or in fact) be calimed by a foreign power.
You've been shown the evidence that he was indeed born on the Coco Solo naval base. Why do you insist on repeating that falsehood?
Now as to your other statement:
All of us kids who were born in the Canal Zone knew we could never run for president.
Where "all of us kids" born of a parent who was in the US military? That is the basis by which McCain is natural born, while most of you, whose parents were neither diplomats nor military, are not.
Vattel, "Law of Nations", volume I, a combination of section 212 and section 217. 212 contains the "born in the country of parents who are citizens" definition, while 217 indicates that those born in the armies of a nation or its diplomatic corps are considered born in the country, since they never really left its jurisdiction.
But the CRS is incorrect. The principal does not extend to the children born abroad of citizen parents not in the military or diplomatic corps.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Political consultants and finger-in-the-wind politicians could easily have gone through this thought process. It is the political consultants who are always advising conservatives to move to the middle (Leftward in other words) to appeal to the moderates. Those who listen are killed following that advice.
Good Lord we are not that stupid
Are you a political consultant? If you are a voter you are correct - we are not stupid enough to follow such advice. Republican politicians generally are stupid when campaigning. They are too careful for fear of the media savaging any slight slip or even true statement the media can misinterpret.
Who was our candidate in 1976? Why?
In case you have temporarily forgotten, it was Bob Dole. He had been a staunch Republican conservative and Senate leader. Although few thought he had a chance most thought he deserved it. A key consideration was that Clinton had the election sown up, this was before Lewinsky was revealed, and so Dole was offered as the sacrificial lamb.
As far as Sarah Palin is concerned it brought her out of the shadows and into the spotlight. Without McCain we may never have heard of Palin. Now she is a leading light of the conservative movement and may well have a great chance in 1012.
Needless to say, I disagree with your entire premise.
“You’ve been shown the evidence that he was indeed born on the Coco Solo naval base. Why do you insist on repeating that falsehood?”
What evidencs? You show ME the evidence.
Because you are so dang dumb, his Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Canal Zone, which is not the same as a birth certificate, states he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. But then, you have trouble reading.
“Where “all of us kids” born of a parent who was in the US military?”
Again, for the millionth time, there were no hospitals on military bases at that time.
If they were born on the Pacific side, they were born in Gorgas Hospital, Canal Zone. If they were born on the Atlantic side, they were born in a Panamanian hospital, Republic of Panama.
Had there been hospitals on military installations, they would have still been born in the Canal Zone since military installations were located in the Canal Zone.
You know NOTHING, ZERO, about the Canal Zone and Panama. So shut up.
At the very least, borrow a brain.
Dull in ‘96, not ‘76 !!!
.
That's not how the Court has read the law.
COngress can only confer statutory citizenship (i.e., “naturalized”) on anyone.
Both McCain and Obama were citizens at birth. Hence, they are natural born citizens, by the commonly accepted definition of the phrase, not likely to be overturned.
There is little to no doubt what the founders and framers intended here. A natural born citizen can never (in appearance or in fact) be calimed by a foreign power.
Under that reasoning, a foreign government not wanting Candidate X to become the US president could keep him out of the race simply by passing a law making him a citizen of their miserable nation and inviting him to come down to their embassy and pick up his passport. The framers never meant to cede US sovereignty in that way or any other. It has to be up to the voters to decide whether a candidate who meets the basic legal requirements is actually a patriot or not.
I’m not challenging you, I’m just curious as to your reaction to factcheck.org’s entry on McCain’s status:
“John McCain’s father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy who was stationed in Panama in 1936, when McCain was born. This has led to speculation as to whether McCain is a U.S. citizen and whether he can be elected president, a question that was raised during McCain’s run for the Republican nomination in 2000 as well.
Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
Article II: ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.’
But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790. Congress: ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’
Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from ‘natural born citizen’ to ‘citizen.’
But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
In a 2009 lawsuit challenging both John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that both McCain and Obama qualify as natural born citizens and both were entitled to receive the votes of Indiana electors. The lawsuit was “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.” The decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to review the appeals court’s decision.
“Obama is not / was not an NBC, regardless of the location of his birth.”
“That’s not how the Court has read the law.”
.
BS!
In the only cases that addressed this specific issue, that is exactly how the court ruled.
Give up Obama Man.
Besides, in 1787, there was no known definition for a natural born citizen, other than born in country to citizen parentS.
Contrary to your mindless assertions and sad quotations of threads here, this is the type of stuff the sane world takes seriously:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25457698/The-Tribe-Olson-Natural-Born-Citizen-Memo
It and similar lines of reasoning are why rational people believe John McCain could not have been President if elected. All one needs to know to appreciate the irrationality of your position are your own absurd words: defending the eligibility of John McCain for President, whom I voted for, makes one an Obot.
But I'm glad we've cleared up that you really are that far gone.
1. That’s not how the Court has read the law.
I don’t believe that’s the case. In the limited times SCOTUS has defined this term, the only way they have defined naturla born citizen is “born of citizen parents (always in the plural).
2. Both McCain and Obama were citizens at birth. Hence, they are natural born citizens, by the commonly accepted definition of the phrase, not likely to be overturned.
Again, that’s not the case. Citizens and natural born citizens are not equal in terms of Presidential eligibility. If this were true, there would have been no need to state it differently in the Constitution.
Further, Justice Marshall, in Marbury vs. Nadison stated that “It cannot he presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”
If you equate citizen and natural born citizen, then that leaves “natural born citizen,” written directly into the Constitution, without an effect, which is inadmissible (i.e., not a competent argument before the Court). Marshall stated clearly that one cannot construct such an argument.
3. Under that reasoning, a foreign government not wanting Candidate X to become the US president could keep him out of the race simply by passing a law making him a citizen of their miserable nation and inviting him to come down to their embassy and pick up his passport. The framers never meant to cede US sovereignty in that way or any other. It has to be up to the voters to decide whether a candidate who meets the basic legal requirements is actually a patriot or not.
Nope, again it does not work, becuase of the phrase “born”, i.e., “at birth”. Under A2S1C5, the operative time is at birth.
This has always been the intent and the common (and only SCOTUS definition).
From the Yale Law Review:
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.
The definition was stated in Minor vs. Happersett.
BS!
In the only cases that addressed this specific issue, that is exactly how the court ruled.
Give up Obama Man.
I had to check to se if I really said that! Thanks! It sucks to get old. 1976 seems like yesterday, but I'll admit I was thinking 96.
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.