mccain not eleigible to be prez

Right... and the Constitution says what Dung?

"
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. "

You got it Dung.... it says natural born citizen.

Now Dung... What does Title 8 do?

You guessed it Dung... it defines WHO qualifies as a natural born citizen. It is the law. Unless you challenge the Constitutionality of the LAW, then you have no argument.


As I said previously, twice now, be sure to send along your thorough legal research to the McCain campaign, you'll be saving them substantial sums in legal fees.

Title 8 merely says which folks are citizens at birth, nothing more. It does not define who is a "natural born citizen" as that phrase is used in the US Constitution.

Fer CHrist's sake, JOHN McCAIN'S CAMPAIGN PAID A LAWYER TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE AND THE LAWYER SAYS QUITE CLEARLY THAT IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION.
 
Dumbass..... yes, the Constitution says natural born citizen. Title 8 DEFINES who is a natural born citizen.... because the Constitution does not. Title 8 is how we define a natural born citizen. Unless, as I mentioned someone can successfully challenge the Constitutionality of the law.

You're not a lawyer so stop pretending to be one. Thanks.
 
Also, this isn't the first time that McCain has run for president-- so surely you think it would have come up during one of those elections, right?


And it has, just like it came up when Goldwater ran. Just like it came up when others mentioned in the NY Times article ran. The whole point is that the question has never been resolves and remains an open issue.
 
You're not a lawyer so stop pretending to be one. Thanks.

But 90 percent of our government are lawyers, and surely they would have caught this during one of McCain's previous campaigns or surely before he came this far.

In other words, it is a non-issue. I am sure the lawyer is there solely to present a lawyerly argument against other lawyers, rather than to actually research anything...in short, put together a paper so long on the issue that it would keep idiots like Dungheap from disputing it.
 
As I said previously, twice now, be sure to send along your thorough legal research to the McCain campaign, you'll be saving them substantial sums in legal fees.

Title 8 merely says which folks are citizens at birth, nothing more. It does not define who is a "natural born citizen" as that phrase is used in the US Constitution.

Fer CHrist's sake, JOHN McCAIN'S CAMPAIGN PAID A LAWYER TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE AND THE LAWYER SAYS QUITE CLEARLY THAT IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States

Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
 
And it has, just like it came up when Goldwater ran. Just like it came up when others mentioned in the NY Times article ran. The whole point is that the question has never been resolves and remains an open issue.

It isn't an open issue, and you know it. If it were an issue that hadn't be resolved, he would not be allowed to run-- he would not have made it this far.
 
Tell you what Dung... get Obama to make that an issue. Get any of your Dem leaders to challenge whether McCain is a natural born citizen. No, that isn't going to happen is it. They'll just sit back and let their mouthpiece take shots at McCain as they cower in the background.
 
I grow tired and weary. I'm going to go pound my head against a wall now. It'll be more productive.

Clearly, everyone mentioned in the article, legal experts, including those hired by McCain's campaign who have researched the matter are wrong and Superfreak, random anonymous political message board poster with no legal training is correct, having figured the whole thing out with five minutes of research on google.

Gotcha.
 
I grow tired and weary. I'm going to go pound my head against a wall now. It'll be more productive.

Clearly, everyone mentioned in the article, legal experts, including those hired by McCain's campaign who have researched the matter are wrong and Superfreak, random anonymous political message board poster with no legal training is correct, having figured the whole thing out with five minutes of research on google.

Gotcha.

That's right. Exactly.

Why, does something about that seem strange to you? Or, Laugh Your Ass Off funny by any chance?
 
I grow tired and weary. I'm going to go pound my head against a wall now. It'll be more productive.

Clearly, everyone mentioned in the article, legal experts, including those hired by McCain's campaign who have researched the matter are wrong and Superfreak, random anonymous political message board poster with no legal training is correct, having figured the whole thing out with five minutes of research on google.

Gotcha.

Like I said and you ignored... the only way to challenge the LAW is on the grounds of it being Unconstitutional. Good luck with that. Make sure it is a focal point for the Dems. I am sure it will win you a lot of votes.
 
Like I said and you ignored... the only way to challenge the LAW is on the grounds of it being Unconstitutional. Good luck with that. Make sure it is a focal point for the Dems. I am sure it will win you a lot of votes.

Whatever. It would be easier if you just admitted that your analysis is incorrect and that the various legal scholars mentioned in the article might know a thing or two more about it than you do.
 
Whatever. It would be easier if you just admitted that your analysis is incorrect and that the various legal scholars mentioned in the article might know a thing or two more about it than you do.


forget it. Your banging your head on the wall. SF is one of those posters who think they are armchair legal and scientific experts, based on their knowledge from some editorial they read in National Review.

Yesterday he was telling me that he had no idea, indeed was skeptical, that human greenhouse gas emmissions were primarily responsible for warming the planet. Even after I posted that every single government and credible scientific organization on the planet had concured that human activities, most likely, are the leading cause of the atmospheric temperature trend increases.
 
How sweet would it be though if McCain couldn't be prez after all? If his candidacy gets decided by judges and they say its a no-go, I'd laugh for years about it.
 
forget it. Your banging your head on the wall. SF is one of those posters who think they are armchair legal and scientific experts, based on their knowledge from some editorial they read in National Review.

Yesterday he was telling me that he had no idea, indeed was skeptical, that human greenhouse gas emmissions were primarily responsible for warming the planet. Even after I posted that every single government and credible scientific organization on the planet had concured that human activities, most likely, are the leading cause of the atmospheric temperature trend increases.

He is one of those google maniacs. He googles everything, finds an article abotu it, and then takes a definitive stance on it based on that one article as if it contained all the knowledge in all the known world. And he will never, ever, back down or just say "huh, I'm not sure on this".

It's just stupid. You have to have a lot of time to kill to want to get involved with his nonsense.
 
Whatever. It would be easier if you just admitted that your analysis is incorrect and that the various legal scholars mentioned in the article might know a thing or two more about it than you do.

Try reading the article. The legal scholars are saying that it could be challenged on a constitutional basis. Or are you reading otherwise?

The Constitution itself does not define natural born. That is why we rely on the law. If you have a problem with the law... challenge its constitutionality.
 
Back
Top