On Nov 3, 3:34*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:16:16 -0600, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Like Frank said, it's never been put to the test and as
usual what you lack in knowledge you make up for with
certitude.

Horse caca. *He was born in a U.S. possession. *If he had been born on
Guam, Alaska or Hawaii before they became states, he would be eligible
for POTUS. *Kenya is NOT part of the U.S. *It has been reported that
Obama's own fraternal grandmother said he was born in Kenya. *And,
yes, even you are eligible for POTUS. *kaaaaack

Obama was born in Hawaii after it became a state. "It has been
reported..." is not good enough. Hell, if we believe the "it has been
reported" stuff, then space aliens are frequent overnight guests at
the White house. For Obama, there is a Hawiian birth certificate.
Works for me until proven in a court otherwise. United States v. Wong
Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),
On the other the other hand, there is still, "tradition"
notwithstanding, question on the by birth/naturalization question of
those born in protectorates, possessions and of US parents. In
regards to the Panama Canal Zone, on July 28, 1904, Controller of the
Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and
purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is
not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the
Constitution and laws of the country." So this question has been
floundering around for a very long time. It wasn't until 1953 that
those born in the Canal Zone were granted citizenship automatically.
Mr. McCain was born in '36. The Canal Zone at the time was under "US
control." Not a possession or protectorate. I'm not saying that John
McCain is not US citizen, I'm just saying that there is more leqal
grey area possible in John McCain's citizenship than in Barack
Obama's.
Frank Reid