7 Comments

1. 

   Rod D. Martin on October 13, 2008 at 8:16 am

   Even one American parent — which he certainly had — is enough to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. You do not have to be born on American soil. And if you do, that might well create problems for John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone. This is a non-starter.

2. 

   Dave on October 13, 2008 at 8:31 am

   I disagree Rod. If in fact our country needs to define “natural-born citizen” then I don’t care who it affects. I find it hard to believe that any US court would deny that a military family serving overseas whose child is born while out of the country is not considered “natural-born.”

   The issue in the video is that John McCain has been clear about his citizenship and Barack Obama has not. The media has vetted John McCain’s citizenship issue and they have all but ignored Obama’s.

   The Democrats would undoubtedly bring a lawsuit against McCain such as Phillip Berg has against Obama if they thought for one second it was an issue.

   Furthermore, if Barack Obama was born in Kenya he does not meet the citizenship requirements because his mother was only 18 at the time she gave birth to him, which means she was one year short of the required five years of citizenship after attaining the age 14. And it is clear to me that John McCain’s parents meet the citizenship requirements outlined below.

   Under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the act in effect at the time of Barack Obama’s birth, the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

   (7) “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

   This proviso in this act does not apply to Barack Obama, because his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, was not yet 19 years of age at the time of his birth.

3. 

   Rod Martin on October 13, 2008 at 8:37 am

   This definition would have excluded George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams; and that’s exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court would say, if this ever got so far, as it denied cert on the grounds that this is a “political question”.

   This is a non-starter.

4. 

   Dave on October 13, 2008 at 8:42 am

   Good point! I imagine the courts will throw the case out. I’ll defer to you my lawyer friend.

5. 

   Dino on October 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

   I disagree Rod, the presidents you mentioned were in Office prior to the Constitution being ratified and passed as law. So it DID NOT apply to them. I think this guy does have a case. John I have known many many youngsters born overseas (being Military) and yes they are born with the birth certificate of a foreign country. However, when parents went to the American Embassy, they are give US citizen status as Naturally born, NOT naturalized aliens. I say this is a starter.

6. 

   Rod D. Martin on October 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm

   Wrong Dino: The Constitution was ratified in 1788. George Washington was elected to his first term in November of 1788, and took office in March of 1789. John Quincy Adams took office for his single term in March of 1816. And in any case, how do you think we would elect a President if there were no Constitution by which to elect them? That’s just silly. Heck, the Constitution had been amended twelve times before Madison and JQ Adams were even elected.

   The children of citizens are citizens. We can argue about jus soli, and perhaps should do so now that it is being abused so badly, but with Americans stationed and/or doing business literally all over the world now, the perversities that would be introduced by tinkering with inheritance of citizenship by blood would simply overwhelm the purpose and intent of the law. It is essential that we do not use the law against itself. And I feel quite certain that the conservative Justices would agree with the liberal Justices on this point.

   Except that they’ll never hear the case. It will fall under the political question doctrine and never be taken up.

   And that is as it should be. If they try to take from Barack Obama his otherwise legitimate election by a majority of Americans and their Electors through a technicality like this, it will unleash the whirlwind. It’s the kind of thing that could result in wholesale changes to the American system, very likely including the abolition of the Electoral College. None of those changes would be good; many of them would be horribly harmful.

   Anyway, this is just not going to gain traction, and it’s going to look like the Jim Crow-era enforcement of technicalities that kept black people from eating at public lunch counters. There’s no end-game that works, and it’s bad PR.

   I suggest we focus on beating him. We can absolutely still beat him. And we must.

7. 

   Christopher Schwinger on October 13, 2008 at 3:05 pm

   I’ve gotta say, I’ve heard so many rumors about Obama, most of which are probably true, but I want to see conservatives looking more intently at John McCain. He is no less of a traitor than Barack Obama, and he is no more of an advocate of individual freedom than Barack Obama. I’d say Sarah Palin is questionable, but McCain, like Obama, unquestionably aspires to be another Franklin Roosevelt. FDR said the Constitution is an outdated document, George W. Bush said it is “just a [g-d] piece of paper”, and McCain doesn’t talk about it. McCain’s favorite organization, La Raza, is much like the way the Communist Party USA was in 1930 (before the head, Earl Browder turned it into an idealistic promoter of ?”freedom”?–and FDR would get Earl Browder out of prison in 1942!). In 1930 the Communist Party USA was mostly made up of foreigners who openly talked of overthrowing the American government and system.

   By the way, Dave, I did write Chuck Baldwin’s campaign about how he would go about making American independent again, but I didn’t get a reply. I’m still going to vote for him because what is more important than knowing how to accomplish something is your DEDICATION to accomplishing it. Baldwin is the only candidate who is dedicated to ending illegal immigration, and McCain has an F from the gun owners of America. Baldwin has an A+ 🙂 .