What are these “facts” you have.
I am the last person you’ll find defending John McCain, but claiming he isn’t a legal, natural born citizen, is kind of ridiculous. Every bit as ridiculous as disavowing Obama’s citizenship.
No, that’s incorrect. The allegations that McCain is not eligible rest on the proper interpretation of the constitutional term “natural born citizen.” Since no court has ever interpreted the term, it is technically an open question whether it includes those born outside the states. (Though everyone recognizes that even if the arguments for interpreting the term to exclude those born outside the states had merit, no court in the land would enjoin the duly elected McCain from becoming President.)
The allegations that Obama is not a citizen rest on easily falsifiable facts.
One is a curious legal puzzle, not intended to question McCain’s Americanness. The other is a ridiculous smear, intended paint Obama as foreign.
I guess one man’s curious is another man’s ridiculous. Doesn’t even seem worth the court’s time if there was a challenge.
It’s about one step away from "it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.
[legal hijack] This is a total tangent from the thread, but it isn’t actually a trivial question. McCain should clearly be allowed to run for President. He was born to American military personnel serving abroad and spent most of his life either serving his country or living in it. The Framers would have wanted him to be eligible.
But suppose a man is born in Hostileforeignlandia to an American mother and an Hostileforeignlandian father who is part of the Hostileforeignlandia ruling elite. The man spends almost his entire life in Hostileforeignlandia as his father’s protege among the Hostileforeignlandian ruling class. He returns to the US at age 60 and runs for President. Such a man is a citizen according to Congress, but it seems to be at least concievable that this man is exactly the sort of man the framers intended to exclude by use of the term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution. They did not want people who were not familiar with and loyal to America or were part of some foreign aristocracy to become President.
The question becomes whether there is a good, principled line to be drawn which can include people like McCain but exclude people like the hypothetical man from Hostileforeignlandia. One proposed line–and one potentially consistent with the actual intentions of the Framers–would be those born within the territory of the United States. But no one likes the results of that definition. So the challenge is to come up with a better line to draw that is still defensible as more than just arbitrary. That’s what makes it an interesting legal academic question even though it has no practical significance (for a half dozen reasons). [/legal hijack]
Well, that reasoning works well for our National Soccer team.
I understand your points, and they are intriguing, academically. However, in the context of all this presidential campaign falderal, it was definitely broached as some sort of impeachment of McCain’s eligibility for the office. McCain specifically, that is. That’s what I find ridiculous.
On the other hand, in your example, I for one would welcome our Hostileforiegnlandian overlords … to run for president that is. You want to talk about entertainment? If your interpretation of what the framers wanted when they wrote in “natural born citizen”, to exclude Joe Neverbeenherebefore from running, I’d say they were short-sighted considering the lay of the land these days.
For one thing, good luck getting elected. We’re suffering through “Obama is an Arab” shit now, image if there were an actual Arab running? Oh, the hilarity.
Second of all, come on, you know you want Arnold to run.
At the time, wasn’t there some talk of a sense of Congress motion that McCain was eligible - which IIRC was supported by everyone?
And BTW, this was a perfectly reasonable thing for Mr. Moto to bring up. Let’s not freak out for no reason, people.
Reasonable to bring up, not reasonable to hang on the lefties.
‘Natural born’ simply means ‘has never been anything else’. McCain was never Panamanian, and Obama was never Kenyan.
Move along, theres nothing to see here.
Reasonable to point out as interesting trivia (along the lines of, "hey look, both candidates have middle names with an S in them). Not reasonable to point out as an equivalence. He has since said he meant it only as trivia, which is fine, but I maintain not the most natural reading of his initial post.
I haven’t seen that. Is there an example of this somewhere?
While you’re at it, will you also define other constitutional phrases for us. It sure will be easier than making the court do it. What does “liberty” mean in the Fourteenth Amendment? Can you help us out with “bear arms”? And if you have a moment, could you clear up the whole Ninth Amendment thing?
Mr Moto’s post cited it quite well, and you quoted him calling it a ridiculous comparison. So, basically, I feel like I’m in a Fawltey Towers sketch right now.
Back to the OP… I’m pretty sure this is a gigantic whoosh. They–Illuminati Pictures-- are making fun of all the loonies out there.
Whenever one of these Obama citizenship smears come up, I always have the same response: If this shit were true, Hillary would have been ALL over it.
Where in his cite does it say it was brought up as an attack on McCain as opposed to an academic curiosity? And even better, can you point me to some link where someone is using it as an attack?
You also have to be resident in the US for 14 years prior to running.
Absolutely true. Edit the hypothetical in your own mind accordingly.
Regarding McCain’s eligibility, if I recall correctly, the Senate itself clarified the question. I don’t have a cite right this second and I heard this months ago on the Rachel Maddow show while driving, so take it for what it’s worth. Essentially, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that McCain was indeed legally qualified to be President. Two of the cosponsors were Clinton and Obama.
This was during the primaries when the prospect of a clean campaign against McCain was still very real for both of those Senators.
From the cite:
"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions — raised in the liberal blogosphere — about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president. "
(bolding mine)
And, take it as anecdotal if you’d like, but it’s been addressed at Snopesas a debunking; although, curiously, they list it as “Undetermined.”
Yeah, but wasn’t that because McCain was “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”?
That made me smile, Frank. Here is the cite, if you like.
If a question is raised in the liberal blogosphere it is therefore an attack? The distinction I was trying to draw was between curious questions and attacks on Americanness. I’ve seen no evidence of the latter with McCain.
And Snopes lists it as undetermined for all the reasons I’ve stated (and they state)! It IS undetermined. 