vote no on "BO"

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