Yeah, that was exactly the “principle of favorability” I was refering to. So, it’s clearly a Code Civil thing (I believe it is a Roman principle of law, so it could have made its way into the US system, apparently not).
Cool, there seems to be many law savvy Dopers ;).
I’ve heard the distinction being made between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen. Couldn’t take the site for very long, so I don’t recall the exact distinction. But I think it was something along the lines of okay, so he has his birth certificate, which means that being born here he is a native born citizen–a citizen because he is ‘native’ to the country. But because both of his parents weren’t citizens, he’s not a natural born citizen, like someone born to two full citizens anywhere.
Not claiming it makes sense or the terms couldn’t easily be reversed, just that that’s some of the hullabaloo out there.
The McCain campaign did commission a team of constitutional lawyers to produce an opinion on his eligibility to be president. They concluded he was eligible.
However, other legal scholars have serious disagreement with their conclusion.
In the end, if the Electoral College, after thoughtful deliberation, deems him qualified and the Supreme Court declines to intervene and Congress declines to impeach, he can be President.
Regarding US sovereignty in the Panama Canal Zone, the relevant clause from Hay-Bunau Varill Treaty which established the Zone is this:
Bolding mine. The phrasing “if it were the sovereign” indicates that the US was not actually sovereign, although it could exercise equivalent rights.
Apparently I’m a total doofus. I’m not getting this at all. All people born on U.S. soil are automatically citizens. The only exception is a child of non-U.S. diplomats. Both parents can be illegal immigrants, and a child of theirs born on American soil is a Natural-born U.S. citizen. My interpretation of this is that this two-illegal-parent child, could in fact, run for president because he/she is American-soil born. No? Now Obama’s parentage is being questioned, and it’s completely irrelevant. What am I missing?
What you are missing (I think) is that the so called “birthers” allege that Obama was actually born in Kenya, despite the documentation that he was born in Hawaii; or else fabricate some reason that his father’s Kenyan citzenship would somehow make him ineligible even though he was born in the US.
Colibri: Don’t forget that some of the birthers also pretend Obama is an Indonesian citizen and that would make him ineligble (although it doesn’t if he’s a dual national). Of course, there’s also the far-loonie ones who think that Obama’s Muslim and that alone also makes him ineligible.
Really, they’re not even trying anymore with their laundry list of why the man can’t be President.
That the birthers hate Obama. They hate what Obama represents. Therefore everything he says must be a lie. Every piece of paper he reveals is a forgery. Every proof he offers must be fake. Everything he doesn’t say hides the real truth that will reveal him. If any refutation is forthcoming, they just slide over to the next demand, which will be as crazy as the earlier ones. Obama cannot ever win, because that would diminish them. So everything Obama does is lose-lose.
Check this remarkable FreeRepublic thread. A Jeff Winston summarizes many of the major objections to the new form and provides rational explanations that destroy them.
Then read the 150 or so comments. At least half reject his work outright. A good portion of those remaining try to hold on to certain of the points. And Winston himself provides a good many doubts about various subjects.
It is not about the birth certificate or anything else specifically. It’s about the fact of Obama and what he represents. He is the opposite of Reagan. Reagan was teflon. Obama is a black hole that attracts every accusation hurled his way and absorbs it so it can never disappear. Logic and rationality don’t matter, as long as specific accusations can be made.
The one I love best is Jack Cahill’s book Deconstructing Obama “that endeavors to explain the truth behind Barack Obama’s parentage and background – specifically, that Obama’s real father was an anonymous African American from Seattle, and Obama’s grandfather bribed Barack Obama Sr. to pose as the child’s father.”
If Obama was really born in Washington State this obviously negates any possibility of declaring him not a natural born citizen. So you’d think it would be completely counterproductive. It isn’t. Believers will easily switch over to being horrified by this lie and whenever convenient will go back to the NBC lie or to the born in Kenya lie or whichever one happens to be in front of them. No cognitive dissonance. All lies are equal as long as they expose the 0.
So it makes sense that I can’t make sense of the arguments, because they make no sense. Got it.
Perhaps a hijack, should be a thread if Trump really looks like he will run: What about the First Lady being an immigrant? I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that, either!
Is the OCR’s breaking or shifting of the letterw in Obama’s birth certificate while scanning what the WONJCTs are calling “kerning”?
They argue that the certificate he released was written by a computer because the font it is written in uses kerning, something that typewriters used at the time of his birth couldn’t have done. One example of the kerning claim can be seen at about 4:40 in this video I found linked from another blog at that fountain of science, Free Republic.
So McCain was SOL because he fell into a loophole that was patched after the fact?
McCain was the son of two US citizens, though. That made him a citizen from birth no matter where he was born.
If you are white, then sure!
If you are brown, probably not.
Apparently not, under the law as it existed at the time:
HOWEVER, that same law a few paragraphs down also states that if a child is born out of wedlock, the child automatically gets the citizenship of his mother. Since Obama’s dad was already married in Kenya and Obama’s mom was the second wife, would she have been considered legally married under US law? If not, the whole time period thing is moot.
I have no idea what they mean by “kerning,” but “kerning” means the horizontal adjustment of letter spacing to make printing look nice. E.g., on a typewriter with fixed spacing AV would not have the top left of the V above the bottom right of the the A. Kerning makes them overlap horizontally.
That’s what they mean by it. The birth certificate is kerned and typewriters of the 50s-60s didn’t do kerning. So they maintain it was created on a computer and can’t be a photocopy of an original document. You can see an example in post #51 of this thread.
One of the current morphs of the Birther thing is the distinction between “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”.
I haven’t seen the argument beyond shitty internet “lawyers” (who leave me convinced that my understanding of Constitutional Law qualifies me to teach at Harvard :eek:) but they cite Common Law case law from before there even was a CotUS and some SCotUS case law that purports to “prove” that an NBC must have both jus sanguinis coming from both parents and jus soli. (The question I really haven’t seen addressed is has there ever been a case which asks “Can NBC status come from only one parent?” in which the answer was “No, it can’t.”)
According to this argument McCain is a Citizen but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
CMC fnord!
And, yet again, I hang my head in shame for knowing this. 
Does the typing really look ‘nicely spaced’ to anyone? Looks to me like it was typed on an old crappy manual typewriter with loose tolerances on how far the carriage moved between struck letters.
Is this going to be like the moon landings where the strongest evidence of legitimacy turns out to be from the deniers pointing out non-intuitive but entirely explainable minutiae?