mccain not eleigible to be prez

RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...


What he said.
 
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).

This means that congress CAN define who is and is not a citizen at birth in other circumstances. The 14th ONLY means that they cannot say someone born in the US is not a citizen. They can however, define who else is to be considered natural born. The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born out of wedlock to American citizen women are AUTOMATICALLY citizens. Children born to American citizen fathers however are not treated that way, dad has to support the child, must affirm paternity before the child's 18th birthday, and the supreme court has upheld the different standard established by congress, for children of citizen mothers and citizen fathers.
 
Socrtease said:
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).

This means that congress CAN define who is and is not a citizen at birth in other circumstances. The 14th ONLY means that they cannot say someone born in the US is not a citizen. They can however, define who else is to be considered natural born. The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born out of wedlock to American citizen women are AUTOMATICALLY citizens. Children born to American citizen fathers however are not treated that way, dad has to support the child, must affirm paternity before the child's 18th birthday, and the supreme court has upheld the different standard established by congress, for children of citizen mothers and citizen fathers.
Click to expand...

Both of McCain's parents were US citizens. I have no idea whether or not he was born in a military hospital, but if so would be an argument for being on US soil as an added point.
 
Kathianne said:
Naturalization Act 1790, signed by GW himself!
Click to expand...

It's not definitive precedent and it's not even part of current law. I think it gives some indication to intent and if I have not made it clear, I don't think the founders would have ever intended to exclude the likes of McCain.
 
RStringfield said:
It's not definitive precedent and it's not even part of current law. I think it gives some indication to intent and if I have not made it clear, I don't think the founders would have ever intended to exclude the likes of McCain.
Click to expand...

I agree, I also don't think Congress would pull such a thing.
 
He was................

Kathianne said:
Both of McCain's parents were US citizens. I have no idea whether or not he was born in a military hospital, but if so would be an argument for being on US soil as an added point.
Click to expand...


and the law stipulates all children born to UScitizen parents serving abroad are entitled and coverd as natural born US citizens...they are also entitled to 'Dual Citizenship' of the country they are borne in! This whole argument in here is just a diatribe by those who hate McCain!
 
Threedee said:
Yes, the Southern populists who call themselves conservatives, or else neocons which is nearly an admonition of being a populist, would probably jump at the chance to get him disqualified.
Click to expand...

Neocons love McCain. You seem to have a strange idea of who or what neocons are.
 
Neocons are not southern populists. Where you get that idea is beyond me. Kristol and Podhoretz were born in Brooklyn and much of the thought is based there with Shachtman. Strauss taught in Chicago. Scoop Jackson was from Washington. Neocons are fairly hostile to the south and only placate them as useful idiots.
 
RStringfield said:
Neocons are not southern populists. Where you get that idea is beyond me. Kristol and Podhoretz were born in Brooklyn and much of the thought is based there with Shachtman. Strauss taught in Chicago. Scoop Jackson was from Washington. Neocons are fairly hostile to the south and only placate them as useful idiots.
Click to expand...

Ouch, that last line could define me, except I don't even see them as all that useful anymore, and I'm one of a handful of people that still holds 19th Century era grudges against the south.

Still, social conservatism and fiscal liberalism is a hallmark of both populism and neoconservatism.
 
Dungheap said:
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.
Click to expand...

As Socrtease has pointed out to you.... The Courts HAVE given the power of definition to Congress and Congress HAS defined it.

but even without that.... Congress IS entitled to define the requirements of citizenship. A point I believe you agree with.... correct??????

If you do agree with that, then I ask you.... (and String if you are reading).... If a person is born that meets at least one of the requirements of citizenship.... then how could they be anything other than a natural born citizen as they are BORN with natural rights of citizenship????
please explain your position on that.... thanks.
 
Superfreak said:
As Socrtease has pointed out to you.... The Courts HAVE given the power of definition to Congress and Congress HAS defined it.

but even without that.... Congress IS entitled to define the requirements of citizenship. A point I believe you agree with.... correct??????

If you do agree with that, then I ask you.... (and String if you are reading).... If a person is born that meets at least one of the requirements of citizenship.... then how could they be anything other than a natural born citizen as they are BORN with natural rights of citizenship????
please explain your position on that.... thanks.
Click to expand...


You are conflating the ability to define citizenship with the ability to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

1. Yes, Congress does indeed have the authority to pass legislation relating to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, within limits (For example, the 14th Amendment states that all persons born in the US are citizens. Congress cannot pass legislation that says people born in the US are not citizens). That is indisputable.

2. However, Congress has no authority to pass legislation that attempts to define what the text of the Constitution means. Therefore, Congress cannot pass legislation that attempts to define the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as that term is used in Article II.

3. As a result, Congress can pass a law that says all persons born to US citizens in a territory controlled by the United States are "natural born citizens." But, that does not mean that those person born to US citizens in a territory controlled by the US are therefore "natural born persons" for purposes of Article II of the Constitution.

As I explained above, Congress can no more define what the terms "cruel and unusual punishment" or "due process" or "privileges and immunities" mean for constitutional purposes than it could define what the term "natural born citizen" means. Those determinations are for the courts to decide. Because the courts have never had occasion to decide what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II, there remains some doubt, however small, as to whether McCain is in fact a "natural born citizen."
 
Dungheap said:
You are conflating the ability to define citizenship with the ability to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

1. Yes, Congress does indeed have the authority to pass legislation relating to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, within limits (For example, the 14th Amendment states that all persons born in the US are citizens. Congress cannot pass legislation that says people born in the US are not citizens). That is indisputable.

2. However, Congress has no authority to pass legislation that attempts to define what the text of the Constitution means. Therefore, Congress cannot pass legislation that attempts to define the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as that term is used in Article II.

3. As a result, Congress can pass a law that says all persons born to US citizens in a territory controlled by the United States are "natural born citizens." But, that does not mean that those person born to US citizens in a territory controlled by the US are therefore "natural born persons" for purposes of Article II of the Constitution.

As I explained above, Congress can no more define what the terms "cruel and unusual punishment" or "due process" or "privileges and immunities" mean for constitutional purposes than it could define what the term "natural born citizen" means. Those determinations are for the courts to decide. Because the courts have never had occasion to decide what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II, there remains some doubt, however small, as to whether McCain is in fact a "natural born citizen."
Click to expand...


ok... you got the first part answered.... you agree that they can pass legislation as to who is and isn't a citizen.

Then you diverted from the second part.

If you have the classifications of a citizen as defined by Congress..... if a person is born falling under one of those classifications.... what else could they possibly be other than a natural born citizen?

try not to divert this time....
 
Superfreak said:
ok... you got the first part answered.... you agree that they can pass legislation as to who is and isn't a citizen.

Then you diverted from the second part.

If you have the classifications of a citizen as defined by Congress..... if a person is born falling under one of those classifications.... what else could they possibly be other than a natural born citizen?

try not to divert this time....
Click to expand...


I diverted from the second part because the second part does not matter for the reasons that I stated. Regardless of what Congress says about who is and who is not a citizen it has no authority to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II of the Constitution.
 
Dungheap said:
I diverted from the second part because the second part does not matter for the reasons that I stated. Regardless of what Congress says about who is and who is not a citizen it has no authority to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

1) Do you see the ignorance in that position? By defining who is considered a citizen and who isn't, then anyone born into one of the definitions of citizen has to be a natural born citizen. They cannot be anything else.

2) But continue to ignore number one. Address the case Socrtease pointed out to you where the courts DID give Congress the power to define who was natural born and who is not....

"Originally Posted by Socrtease
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).

This means that congress CAN define who is and is not a citizen at birth in other circumstances. The 14th ONLY means that they cannot say someone born in the US is not a citizen. They can however, define who else is to be considered natural born. The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born out of wedlock to American citizen women are AUTOMATICALLY citizens. Children born to American citizen fathers however are not treated that way, dad has to support the child, must affirm paternity before the child's 18th birthday, and the supreme court has upheld the different standard established by congress, for children of citizen mothers and citizen fathers."
 
Dungheap said:
I diverted from the second part because the second part does not matter for the reasons that I stated. Regardless of what Congress says about who is and who is not a citizen it has no authority to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

and seriously, be honest... you are avoiding answering number two because you have absolutely NO leg to stand on. You cannot answer it because you know you are wrong.
 
Dungheap said:
You are conflating the ability to define citizenship with the ability to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

As I explained above, Congress can no more define what the terms "cruel and unusual punishment" or "due process" or "privileges and immunities" mean for constitutional purposes than it could define what the term "natural born citizen" means. Those determinations are for the courts to decide. Because the courts have never had occasion to decide what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II, there remains some doubt, however small, as to whether McCain is in fact a "natural born citizen."
Click to expand...

And this is indeed where you analogy falls flat on its ass. The 10 amendments in the bill of rights are those "unalienable rights". Rights that existed prior to the creation of the United States of America. The specifics spelled out in the articles are powers and limits on powers on the three branches as spelled out in the Constitution. Citizenship in the US did not exist prior to the creation of the United States and the government of the people has the power to decide who is and is not a citizen of its country at birth.

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution says:

“ 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.

As pointed out before Article 1 section 8 gives Congress plenary power over citizenship. Congress absolutely has the power to expand or contract citizenship insofar as they do not intrude upon the 14th Amendement. If they wish to extend citizenship upon birth to children born to female citizens who give birth overseas they can and they have. Natural born does not have absolute territorial restrictions other than people born here can never involuntarily be stripped of citizenship. That is the floor for citizenship. Congress' plenary powers allow them to extend citizenship at birth to whomsoever they choose.
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
And this is indeed where you analogy falls flat on its ass. The 10 amendments in the bill of rights are those "unalienable rights". Rights that existed prior to the creation of the United States of America. The specifics spelled out in the articles are powers and limits on powers on the three branches as spelled out in the Constitution. Citizenship in the US did not exist prior to the creation of the United States and the government of the people has the power to decide who is and is not a citizen of its country at birth.

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution says:

“ 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.

As pointed out before Article 1 section 8 gives Congress plenary power over citizenship. Congress absolutely has the power to expand or contract citizenship insofar as they do not intrude upon the 14th Amendement. If they wish to extend citizenship upon birth to children born to female citizens who give birth overseas they can and they have. Natural born does not have absolute territorial restrictions other than people born here can never involuntarily be stripped of citizenship. That is the floor for citizenship. Congress' plenary powers allow them to extend citizenship at birth to whomsoever they choose.
Click to expand...


It has plenary power to extend citizienship to whomever it chooses but it does not have any power whatsover to define what the COnstitution means by "natural born citizen."

We are talking about two distinct powers: 1) the power over naturalization versus 2) the power to define and give meaning to the text of the Constitution. Congress can do #1. It cannot do #2. What we are talking about here, whether a person is a "natural born person" for purposes of Article II falls squarely within the realm of #2 and Congress has no power or authority to resolve that issue.

I'm through with this conversation. Really, it is a very simple concept. Congress has no power to define what the text of the Constitution means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top