Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why McCain and I Should be Allowed to be President

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 03:13 PM
Original message
Why McCain and I Should be Allowed to be President
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-mccain-and-i-should-b_b_88926.html

John McCain was born in Panama. Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in Austria. I was born in Turkey. Article II of the Constitution clearly states, "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." (emphasis added)

End of the question, right? None of us can be president of the United States of America.

This should be especially clear for "strict constructionist" conservatives. John McCain says he wants judges who won't legislate from the bench. He wants them to apply the letter of the law. Well, there you have it -- the end of John McCain's candidacy.

Now McCain supporters are saying a plain reading of the constitution isn't fair because his parents were on an American military base in Panama's Canal Zone. Boo hoo. Sad day for you. Strict constructionism!...(For the rest, including several links included in the article, click the link at the top of the page)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. LOL! That "strict constructionism" can really bite ya in the ass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Actually, it matters that the military base was in the canal zone

The canal zone (at the time of his birth 71 years ago) was, in fact, an American possession. Hence, he is a natural born Citizen (if the founders had wanted to restrict it to those born within just the States, they could have phrased it that way).

Personally, I have no problems getting rid of this restriction, but it isn't an issue with this election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I hope you read the whole article. In fact, I encourage everyone to click the link rather than
just reading the very short excerpt. It's often misleading to just read the excerpt, and that applies here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Ok, I've read the article
and he is wrong on the facts. The Panama Canal Zone was US territory.

The Fourteenth Amendment says (from his article)...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Simply asserts STATES rights are circumscribed by US Law, it does not make any assertion that only persons born within a state are "natural born" US citizens. In fact the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" would certainly include all persons born within the ENTIRE United States (the States, territories, and possessions).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'm not an expert on the Constitution, are you?
I don't ask that as a dig, I'm just curious. Cenk was a lawyer, but that doesn't mean he's an expert either. Leave a comment on his article (or email the show) and see how he responds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Here, join in (someone made an argument like yours)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Plain reading of the Constitution gives it to McCain
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 says the one of the duties of Congress is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." They first did it in 1790 right after the Constitution was ratified with the Naturalization Act of 1790. Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code is just the latest version.

Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401
"Citizens of the United States at Birth"


The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

McCain falls under (a) because the Panama Canal and the military base were under U.S. jurisdiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC