I thought he was a citizen because of his father’s status (family accompanied active duty service member serving abroad), not his location…
Well, I’m not the scholar, though there are plenty of them who’d probably agree with this/his position. But as Salon puts it:
You guys are missing the real conspiracy here. Obviously the current Court is not going to hand the election to Barack Obama. No, they’re going to sit back and let Diebold do its job and get McCain elected. That’s when some “neutral third party” will file their suit. And the Supreme Court will take up the issue and, with great reluctance, will have to declare that President-elect John McCain is in fact ineligible for the Presidency - thereby clearing the way for Vice-President-elect Mitt Romney (or whichever conservative is chosen to “balance” McCain) to step forward and take the oath as President on Inauguration Day.
You people just don’t appreciate how much work it is to make sure the right guy gets into office.
This may be a stupid question, but if the US owned the Canal Zone at the time, why wouldn’t he be a natural-born citizen? Today, if someone is born on Guam or American Samoa, are they American citizens?
[Moderating]
Please refrain from this kind of political commentary in GQ, even if intended as a joke.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
See my post #42 on the first page. This is further discussed elsewhere in the thread.
I understand the difference between birth by blood and birth by location in determining a natural-born citizen. I just find it hard to believe that a child born to illegal immigrants that crossed the border 5 minutes before the birth can run for President but the child of an American born abroad (due to military service no less) cannot. Mothers, if you are in the ninth month - DO NOT VACATION ABROAD! Your children will never be President.
What is the strict constructionist argument that supposedly would exclude him?