McCain ineligible to be president?

everyman · 10-07-2008, 08:08 PM

Not necessarily.

8USC1403 relating to persons born in the Panama Canal Zone after 1904 makes McCain a U.S. citizen. It does not make him a natural-born U.S. citizen, which is what the 14th amendment requires.

Demon_Hunter · 10-07-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everyman

Not necessarily.

8USC1403 relating to persons born in the Panama Canal Zone after 1904 makes McCain a U.S. citizen. It does not make him a natural-born U.S. citizen, which is what the 14th amendment requires.

He is a US citizen by birth, he is a natural born citizen.

Hopeful · 10-07-2008, 08:32 PM

In practice, I think it would be pretty lousy treatment for those who are willing to serve our country overseas to have their families treated as second class citizens. Not that they get the treatment they really deserve, but what a slap in the face that would be.

everyman · 10-07-2008, 08:47 PM

There's a difference between citizenship by statute and citizenship by birth -- it seems that's what the legal argument is about.

Yes, the 14th amendment can be problematic. It's what keeps Arnold from running for President.

Demon_Hunter · 10-07-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everyman

There's a difference between citizenship by statute and citizenship by birth -- it seems that's what the legal argument is about.

Yes, the 14th amendment can be problematic. It's what keeps Arnold from running for President.

If they ever find a way to make Arnold president, im leaving.

And, the law works retroactively. It gives McCain the same citizen ship status as someone born on the mainland United States at that time. By law he was born a citizen, and thats what counts.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-07-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

If they ever find a way to make Arnold president, im leaving.

And, the law works retroactively. It gives McCain the same citizen ship status as someone born on the mainland United States at that time. By law he was born a citizen, and thats what counts.

Why? I actually kind of like having the governator! (It would require a constitutional change, but if it were made, why not?)

mulletman · 10-07-2008, 09:21 PM

He couldn't be any worse than the other actors-turned-president we've had....

~~Reagan~~

*ahem*

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-07-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulletman

He couldn't be any worse than the other actors-turned-president we've had....

~~Reagan~~

*ahem*

Well, as far as California governors go, he is no Grey ~~Out~~ Davis.

***Art*** · 10-07-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everyman

Not necessarily.

8USC1403 relating to persons born in the Panama Canal Zone after 1904 makes McCain a U.S. citizen. It does not make him a natural-born U.S. citizen, which is what the 14th amendment requires.

What about 1404-1407? They use the same language. Would you argue that Alaskans, Hawaiians and U.S. Virgin Islanders could not run for president, when the same language is used for all of them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by everyman

There's a difference between citizenship by statute and citizenship by birth -- it seems that's what the legal argument is about.

Yes, the 14th amendment can be problematic. It's what keeps Arnold from running for President.

I would not call that a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulletman

He couldn't be any worse than the other actors-turned-president we've had....

~~Reagan~~

*ahem*

You really think Arnold would not be worse?

mulletman · 10-08-2008, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art

You really think Arnold would not be worse?

Yes. I do.

TravisR · 10-08-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Why? I actually kind of like having the governator! (It would require a constitutional change, but if it were made, why not?)

Eh, I think he did a reasonably good job cleaning up the mess that we were left with from Davis but other than that I don't think he's too great. I was more than a little upset with him when he made those budget cuts on education (and welfare... but who cares about that :P). I remember reading a quote and all he really said in his defense was that the cuts "had to come from somewhere." Which is fine and I understand that and all but in my opinion budget cuts should never never never ever come from education. It's one of the most important responsibilties and investments that government can make and shouldn't be second to anything. Except national security and stuff because that tends to be pretty important.

I wonder what old Arnold's approval ratings are atm... hmm!

Bryan · 10-08-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everyman

There's a difference between citizenship by statute and citizenship by birth -- it seems that's what the legal argument is about.

Yes, the 14th amendment can be problematic. It's what keeps Arnold from running for President.

and McCain is a citizen by birth.

Hopeful · 10-08-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Well, as far as California governors go, he is no Grey ~~Out~~ Davis.

Agreed and I, for one, am a huge Ronald Reagan fan. I think very few of you here will remember the Berlin wall and the nervousness of the Cold War, super long gas lines, double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Those were the issues of the times. I do, and am proud to say I voted for him - twice.

Ax · 10-08-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Agreed and I, for one, am a huge Ronald Reagan fan. I think very few of you here will remember the Berlin wall and the nervousness of the Cold War, super long gas lines, double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Those were the issues of the times. I do, and am proud to say I voted for him - twice.

I know this is the wrong place but it's his actions int he middle east that set Osama Bin Laden up to attack us on 9/11 and his actions that cause us to be the most hated nation in the middle east. There are plenty of actual Christian countries to hate but they hate us and the reason is because we intervened. And no Reagan wasn't the first to intervene just the most and set up the worst terrorists... like Bin Laden himself. (See also Iran: Contra)... His FP was atrocious.

The Soviet Union was gonna collapse anyways, Reagan might have sped it up but it was an eventuality... Also... the Berlin wall was torn down under GHWB not Reagan so I'm not really sure why you brought that up...

The only place where I agree with Reagan was his economic policies... Which were brilliant.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-08-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AX

I know this is the wrong place but it's his actions int he middle east that set Osama Bin Laden up to attack us on 9/11 and his actions that cause us to be the most hated nation in the middle east. There are plenty of actual Christian countries to hate but they hate us and the reason is because we intervened. And no Reagan wasn't the first to intervene just the most and set up the worst terrorists... like Bin Laden himself. (See also Iran: Contra)... His FP was atrocious.

The Soviet Union was gonna collapse anyways, Reagan might have sped it up but it was an eventuality... Also... the Berlin wall was torn down under GHWB not Reagan so I'm not really sure why you brought that up...

The only place where I agree with Reagan was his economic policies... Which were brilliant.

All foreign policies will breed terrorists. Intervening promotes a hatred by one side, yet intervening is sometimes necessary. In Afghanistan, the soviet war machine being stopped was important to breaking the Soviet Empire.

The US has always supported terrorists who serve our purposes. How about the French Underground in WW2?

In the case of Bin Ladin, it backfired to an extent.