mccain not eleigible to be prez

I can see this is going to cause problems.

Good thing we'll never know, because McCain isn't going to be president.

Think about Woodrow WIlson... Wilson was born in a territory of the United States, New Mexico, before it became a state. There was no question that he was a natural born citizen. The same logic applies to people who were born IN THE CANAL ZONE, which was legal US territory at the time. He wasn't born in the territory of the country of Panama. He was born in US territory.
 
Watermark said:
I can see this is going to cause problems.

Good thing we'll never know, because McCain isn't going to be president.
Click to expand...

I can see Obama losing if the Republicans can manage to convince the American people that he is the wrong president for the right reasons-- i.e., not for being a (fake) Muslim or being black.
 
Watermark said:
I can see this is going to cause problems.

Good thing we'll never know, because McCain isn't going to be president.

Think about Woodrow WIlson... Wilson was born in a territory of the United States, New Mexico, before it became a state. There was no question that he was a natural born citizen. The same logic applies to people who were born IN THE CANAL ZONE, which was legal US territory at the time. He wasn't born in the territory of the country of Panama. He was born in US territory.
Click to expand...

A good point.... I was not aware of Wilson.
 
Superfreak said:
Apparently YOU didn't follow the thread. On what grounds would you challenge this as being unconstitutional. Right out of the gate I posted Title 8 which defines a U.S. citizen. The Constitution does not define it one way or another. Which means that it is 99.99999999% unlikely that anyone would challenge Title 8 definitions in court.

What part of that do you not get?

I have NO idea why they would look into it.
Click to expand...

First you don't need to challenge the 1790, just McCain's eligibility. There is question however whether the congress had power to define a natural born citizen. That was a big part of the reason for the 14th.

I think it should be challenged just to settle the matter.
 
Goldwater too, was born in a territory of the United States, Arizona, before if became a state and there has NEVER been an argument that he was not natural born. The constitution does not define the term, it is mentioned in the section which describes qualifications for president. Congress is given power to determine citizenship which is covered under the naturalization portion of Article 2. I am done arguing this, it is really pointless and only the truly dense, including those in the Media and those in the McCain campaign who hired someone to "research" this, would argue that Title 8 is invalid constitutionally.
 
RStringfield said:
First you don't need to challenge the 1790, just McCain's eligibility. There is question however whether the congress had power to define a natural born citizen. That was a big part of the reason for the 14th.

I think it should be challenged just to settle the matter.
Click to expand...

Ok.... but Socrtease already answered that....

"Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says that congress shall have

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

They had the right to define WHO was a citizen... on that I think you agree?

If you are born eligible under the rules of citizenship, how are you anything but a natural born citizen. This is the part where I do not understand what other option you think there is.
 
Socrtease said:
Goldwater too, was born in a territory of the United States, Arizona, before if became a state and there has NEVER been an argument that he was not natural born. The constitution does not define the term, it is mentioned in the section which describes qualifications for president. Congress is given power to determine citizenship which is covered under the naturalization portion of Article 2. I am done arguing this, it is really pointless and only the truly dense, including those in the Media and those in the McCain campaign who hired someone to "research" this, would argue that Title 8 is invalid constitutionally.
Click to expand...


No one is arguing that Title 8 is invalid. It's just that Title 8 does not and can not define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II. The question then, is what does the term mean. The answer is "who knows?"

That's all.
 
Dungheap said:
No one is arguing that Title 8 is invalid. It's just that Title 8 does not and can not define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II. The question then, is what does the term mean. The answer is "who knows?"

That's all.
Click to expand...

Ok.... one step at a time....

1) Does Title 8 define who is a citizen?


2) If you agree Title 8 defines who is a citizen... then if a person who falls under at least one of those stated requirments when they are born, HAS to be a natural born citizen. Meaning a citizen at birth. Right???
 
Superfreak said:
Ok.... but Socrtease already answered that....

"Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says that congress shall have

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

They had the right to define WHO was a citizen... on that I think you agree?

If you are born eligible under the rules of citizenship, how are you anything but a natural born citizen. This is the part where I do not understand what other option you think there is.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, he is wrong. There clearly was debate on whether congress had any power to define citizenship, otherwise the 14th would not have been needed. The Civil Rights act of 1866 had already defined all persons born within the US as citizens, but the framers of the 14th were concerned that the court would overturn it for lack of congressional authority.

Naturalization is not natural born.

And nothing currently in the code defines natural born, but I agree that those born as citizens should be considered natural born. It's just not a settled matter.
 
Socrtease said:
YOu got it! Cause that is what dungs argument means ad absurdium. If there is no defintion then none of us are natural born citizens
Click to expand...


Simply because the Supreme Court has not defined a term does not mean that it does not have a meaning. It just means that the precise boundaries of the definition are unclear.

For example, the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Now, the term "cruel and unusual punishment" has a definition. But what are the precise boundaries of that definition? No one knows until the Supreme Court says what the precise boundaries are.

Say Congress comes along and says (although this is not what Congress did with Title 8) "cruel and unusual punishment" only means ripping off fingernails and setting on fire. The fact that Congress defined it thusly does not make it so as Congress has no authority under the Constitution to define its terms.

Similarly, Congress can certainly prohibit certain forms of punishment but what Congress decides to prohibit does not therefore have any impact on what the term "cruel and unusual punishment" as used in the Constitution actually means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top