Another day, another non-troversy invented by the New York Times to attack McCain
Posted on February 28, 2008
NY Times: McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
Only idiots have made such “queries.”
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen†can hold the nation’s highest office.
We know the strategy — make the inanity about which you write seem to be an age-old question to which not even a yak-butter-smeared yogi in the Himalayas can answer.
Simple…quite simple. McCain’s dad was in the Navy when he was born. He was born on a US military installation. Just like every baby born today at Ramstein, Okinawa or Kunsan — he is a natural-born citizen of this country. Case closed.
Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan (GF — NO DUH), Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born†when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.
Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.
It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.
Not one of these examples has anything to do with McCain’s situation. It’s just another attempt to call into question an answer we already know.
McCain must really have a pretty spotless personal record if all the NY Times can come up with is this thud and last week’s dud that “exposed” that he knows a woman in Washington.
» Filed Under Elections, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “Another day, another non-troversy invented by the New York Times to attack McCain”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
It’s quite possible you’re wrong. Various laws passed by Congress make it very clear that he’s a citizen; that’s absolutely not in doubt.
But the definition of a “natural born citizen” is found in the Constitution and such a definition cannot be change by acts of Congress. Thus, additional grants of citizenship are something other than “natural born”.
Personally, I don’t care if McCain becomes President, so I would support an amendment to clarify the matter, but in the absence of one, it is a sticky matter could end up in court. Sadly, the court would probably take a consequentialist approach anyways; you see, legislating from the bench isn’t unique to leftists.
RE: McCain’s birth place & eligibility.
I love how they planned the release of this “query;” after he become the presumptive Republican nominee.
What is their “dirt of last resort?” Renewed calls of “baby-killer” from his Vietnam days?
The ACLU makes me sick.
“It’s quite possible you’re wrong”
–Places overseas like military bases & embassies are considered sovereign US territory. And to my knowledge, which could be wrong, the Panama Canal Zone was US territory back then because we owned the canal. It would be like being born in Guam or the District of Columbia today.
You are correct NoGuff.
Jeff — I stand by my point. Some things are not as hard to figure out as the NY Times pretend they are. Are you really prepared to argue that the legal status of children of servicemembers born on US military installations or while at sea is undetermined? If their legal status is not clear, what do you imagine it could possibly be?
This is a non-issue that NY Times is using to pump up the Democrats.
Nothing more.
If he’s not eligible lets get Mitt Romney back.
Like I said, such people are clearly citizens. The question is whether or not they are “natural born” or have been naturalized pursuant to Congress’s Article 1 Section 8 authority.
The distinction is completely irrelevant on all other matters, but this isn’t all other matters.
The NEW YORK SLIMES, one of america’s most vile news rags, not even a vulture would want this scum sheet in his cage.
Clearly a non-issue, kind of like Obama’s dad being Muslim.
WHO CARES?! No one actually reads the NYT