The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2008 => Topic started by: Chris_ on February 27, 2008, 10:40:56 PM
-
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,†said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
The phrase “natural born†was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly†that only a natural-born citizen could be president.
Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.
Old News Is New Again!, Part II (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
-
According to a 1790's Congressional meeting, yes, John McCain is a natural citizen. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538
-
If his parents had been in Europe, he would still be an American citizen wouldn't he?
I think the NYT might be trying in vain to regain some footing.. but .. it aint working anymore.
-
If his parents had been in Europe, he would still be an American citizen wouldn't he?
I think the NYT might be trying in vain to regain some footing.. but .. it aint working anymore.
They tried it in 1999, didn't work then.
(http://www.msghelp.net/images/old_news.jpg)
-
Obama to co-sponsor bill clarifying McCain’s citizenship status (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978798/posts) :whatever: :jerkit:
Via S&L, a typically shrewd move by the Messiah on three counts — blunting any criticism of his own citizenship status; showing himself to be as magnanimous towards his opponent as Maverick was after l’affaire Cunningham; and avoiding any potential confrontation foisted on him by his dimmer supporters who’d dare challenge McCain’s right to American citizenship based on his military pedigree.
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation introduced yesterday by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D- Mo.) to ensure that John McCain can become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
“Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign,†Obama said.
Also, he gets another bill with his name on it signed into law. This makes what now? Two?
Update: A commenter complains that Congress can’t define “natural born citizen†since it’s a constitutional phrase and thus falls within the purview of the Supremes. Yes, true, the Court has final say, but the Court isn’t about to snatch citizenship from the children of military families and having a co-equal branch on record as supplying a definition makes it easier to defer.
-
Can we bounce McCain and get Romney...or Teh Fred! back...AND dump Barry HUSSEIN for the very defeatable Hillary all in 1 go???
Get Rove on the phone!!!!
:evillaugh: :evillaugh: :evillaugh:
-
24% Have Favorable Opinion of New York Times (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/24_have_favorable_opinion_of_new_york_times)
Just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable opinion and 31% are not sure. The paper’s ratings are much like a candidate’s and divide sharply along partisan and ideological lines.
By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political story.
Of those who followed the story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. Just 22% believe the Times was simply reporting the news. Republicans, by an 87% to 9% margin, believe the paper was trying to hurt McCain’s chances of winning the White House. Democrats are evenly divided.