vote no on "BO"

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:00:01 -0800 (PST), Frank Reid © 2008
wrote:

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

Frank, he is eligible to serve as POSTUS. If you think he isn't, you
are reaching for straws.

Why hasn't the DNC filed papers against him?

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:


Frank, he is eligible to serve as POSTUS. If you think he isn't, you
are reaching for straws.

Why hasn't the DNC filed papers against him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us.../28mccain.html has a great
review on this, and its not as clear as you seem to think. It hasn't been
pursued just because of a sort of gentleman's agreement-- a can of worms
over a technicality. A contest would probably result in a SC decision in
favor of "natural born"

Then again, bringing it up might actually have resulted in the GOP fielding
a candidate who had a chance of winning, and we wouldn't want that!



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 3 Nov 2008 22:21:09 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:


Frank, he is eligible to serve as POSTUS. If you think he isn't, you
are reaching for straws.

Why hasn't the DNC filed papers against him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us.../28mccain.html has a great
review on this, and its not as clear as you seem to think.

It's clear. The term "natural born" as used in the US Constitution,
does not mean born within the boundaries of the US as they exist at any
given moment, nor does it even elude to geography. It means a "citizen
at birth," as opposed to "naturalized citizen" or other form of "created
citizen" from one who held prior foreign citizenship. Through at least
two Federal laws, The Naturalization Act of 1795 and the law that made
Panama Canal births to US citizens, citizens (even retroactively), and a
whole body of clear legislative intent, McCain was a US citizen at
birth.

It hasn't been
pursued just because of a sort of gentleman's agreement

It hasn't been pursued because there is nothing to pursue, and the only
people who have standing to pursue it, Congress, know as a body there is
nothing to pursue (individuals, etc., don't have standing in the case of
the POTUS).

HTH,
R
-- a can of worms over a technicality. A contest would probably result in a SC decision in
favor of "natural born"

Then again, bringing it up might actually have resulted in the GOP fielding
a candidate who had a chance of winning, and we wouldn't want that!

wrote in
:


It hasn't been pursued because there is nothing to pursue, and the only
people who have standing to pursue it, Congress, know as a body there
is
nothing to pursue (individuals, etc., don't have standing in the case
of
the POTUS).

http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

I'm thrilled that your armchair analysis has yielded an opinion much
clearer than a Constitutional lawyer who obviously spent weeks to months
credibly thinking on and researching the matter, who opines that there
are historical differences between naturalized and native born, and that
only some interpretations would provide a conclusion of presidential
eligiblity.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 4 Nov 2008 01:47:51 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:


It hasn't been pursued because there is nothing to pursue, and the only
people who have standing to pursue it, Congress, know as a body there
is
nothing to pursue (individuals, etc., don't have standing in the case
of
the POTUS).

http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

I'm thrilled that your armchair analysis has yielded an opinion much
clearer than a Constitutional lawyer who obviously spent weeks to months
credibly thinking on and researching the matter, who opines that there
are historical differences between naturalized and native born, and that
only some interpretations would provide a conclusion of presidential
eligiblity.

I'm more than passingly familiar with most of what's in that, and your
argument that "some interpretations" would provide this or that is
nonsense. "Some interpretations" provide that Obama is a secret Muslim,
that Elvis is alive and well and having a donut at Dunkin' with Jimi
Hendrix and a guy from Venus and that you know of what you speak. One
can make whatever academic arguments one wishes, even interesting ones,
and make all sorts of arguendo "ifs," but they are ultimately without
merit because the Constitution, its meaning and the law are all in clear
agreement.

And if you'll actually read your own cite, you'll find that she says the
same thing. I feel no need to apologize for not needing "weeks to
months" to determine such a clear Constitutional matter. Further, that
article shouldn't have taken more than a day or two, and as far as
McCain, a lot of what the article covers could have been ignored - he
isn't an American Indian born on a reservation prior to 1982, his
parents were US citizens at their births with permanent residence in the
US, he has undoubtedly met the residency requirements, he was never a
citizen of another nation, etc., etc., etc.

You are perfectly free to be as wrong as you wish, but the answer to the
question of McCain being a "natural born citizen" under and as intended
by the US Constitution for the purposes of eligibility for the office of
POTUS is clear - he is a "natural born citizen."

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

You're welcome,
R

wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

I'm thrilled that your armchair analysis has yielded an opinion much
clearer than a Constitutional lawyer who obviously spent weeks to months
credibly thinking on and researching the matter, who opines that there
are historical differences between naturalized and native born, and that
only some interpretations would provide a conclusion of presidential
eligiblity.

I'm more than passingly familiar with most of what's in that, and your
argument that "some interpretations" would provide this or that is
nonsense. ...

Not only is roff's own Rick Dean a world renowned political
scientist, philosopher and an economist of such repute that
he has to be on the Nobel short list every year, now we are
pleased to note that he is a famous Constitutional scholar !!

We are *SO* lucky that the great Rick Dean deigns to visit
our humble little newsgroup. I'm in awe. Really.

--
Ken Fortenberry