Here is an excerpt from the NY Times article by Carl Hulse:
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
I believe that this law was a big reason I failed to live up to my own personal expectations. When, as a young boy, I learned that being born in Switzerland meant I could never be President, I realized all those people that said, "You can be anything you want to be," were full of sh!t. It was all downhill after that.
4 comments:
This same New York Times??
"It (Times story on McCain's 'romantic' female lobbyist) was something you would see in the National Enquirer, not The New York Times.
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
Of course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog.
I’ll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
But if you’re examining the paper’s coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn’t wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you’re traveling in a strange and forbidding world."
James Joyner , 'Outside the Beltway, editor,
I think this is a pretty funny argument. They have tried to link Obama to a madrassa in Indonesia, so maybe we can link McCain to some Panamanian Guerilla group.
The right can say the NY Times is liberal, which it probably leans that way. Then the left will say that FOX news and the Washington Post are conservative and it will go back and forth forever giving the radio hosts something to complain/talk about.
I think the NY Times story about McCain was ridiculous, but whatever. It probably helped his campaign by getting some of the conservative base to defend him. "We don't really like McCain, but we hate the NY Times more!"
The moral issues during elections are always amusing to me: anti abortion/pro death penalty, defense of marriage act/bible belt has the highest divorce rates, gun rights/stop the senseless shootings at schools and on and on. Both sides choose their battles to appeal to their base but it seems the conservatives have been more hypocritical. I'm sure all of you will lay into me for that one.....
McCain is running on Iraq. It will be interesting to see how that plays out no matter who his opponent is in the election.
Took this off Wikipedia so it could be crap. My larger point is that, valid or not, McCain does not meet the strict Constitutional requirement of being born on US soil or "natural born" to be President.
Do I think it is flimsy? Of course but someone will probably challenge him in court on it and I think it will be interesting to follow the money for the suit and see who is the real people behind it when it happens.
Here is what was on Wiki:
Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[
"who is the real people"
Yes, I graduated from ASU with a degree in Journalism, unfortunately I hate proof reading.
Post a Comment