Reply With Quote
Of course it would be a great idea to argue that the son of a military man who was born outside of the US on a military installation due to the fact that his father was stationed there cannot run for president.
You still are. You are powerful around these places.
Mouse and all his trolls was not enough . . .There just haven't been enough signatures on the pe ion to date.
Of course it would be a great idea to argue that the son of a military man who was born outside of the US on a military installation due to the fact that his father was stationed there cannot run for president.
I was born overseas in a military hospital. It was explained to me that the soil beneath the delivery room was legally designated "American Soil" for the purposes of naturalization. Is this correct?
"Soil beneath the delivery room was legally designated "American Soil" '
I know embassy and supra-national orgs like OEDC and UN buildings are sovereign, as are their cars (CD on license plates is "corps diplomatique", park anywhere, don't get ticketed). Probably true for military bases occupying foreign soil.
That's why the Iranians violating the US soil of the US embassy in Tehran was really a casus belli. We still owe the Iranians for that one, but of course we also owe the Iranians for destroying their democracy and installing the west-friendly/oil-friendly Shah in the 50s.
McCain's birth/qualification is exactly the kind of inane side-show the media likes to run with, for 15 minutes.
His militarism is a much bigger problem. And in general, for a 72 year old, or maybe because he's so old, it sure seems like it makes up a lot of on the spot as he goes along, forgetting/contradicting the he made up earlier.
ie, he's not serious person. He's still kind of half- ed, frat-rat fly-boy, not so very different from the joker dubya.
"Natural born citizen" means citizen from birth. McCain was born a U.S. citizen to parents who were U.S. citizens. This is explicitly laid-out in 18th-century jurisprudence.
If my knowledge of the cons ution is correct, then Dubya gets to be president again if McCain is elected.
Everyone is worried about McCain. How bout the representative
from D.C. or does that count. Well it counts in some votes.
So much for folks who read the political left blogs. Get
some knowledge and then come back and talk to me.
OK, that I didn't know. But I do know that Arizona was in the process of becoming a state then as it was soverign US territory under US law.
I completely agree. However, that is not how the black and white of the cons ution reads. Any legal challenge must take the text of the law, and not how someone feels about it. When you let that occur, it becomes judicial activism. Yes, other material is considered at times, but this is absolutely clear. "Natural born" specifically means born in the USA. Look in any antique unabridged dictionary
Correct, but technically nobody was during the adoption of the cons ution. It did provide a provision because our founding fathers had very little ignorance compared to our politicians today.
They stated things short and sweet, and very understandable to the common people with the usage of the English language at the time.Article II section 1 Clause 5:
Qualifications for office
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Cons ution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-29-2008 at 09:08 PM. Reason: spelling, changed "fells" to "feels."
For legal citizenship, yes, it's automatic. It still isn't "natuaral born citizenship."
No it doesn't. Show be some facts behind that. The dictionary definition does not support that conclusion. When you research the words in an antique dictionary, you find natural means native. Native specifically refers to the soil where you are born. It specifies words like city, state, nation, etc. It may have been deemed by law for purposes of citizenship, but it cannot override the highest law of the land.
the troll forum now requires secrets codes and social security numbers so mccain and the trolls must all be together
Any point to that?
The first definition of quaint under wiktionary is "Having old-fashioned charm."
Now in my 1906 century:
I would be curious what context he called it that, but it doesn't matter much as it does fit the cons ution within a few of it's possible correct usages.Quaint, a. [OE. queint, coint, from OFr. coynt, coint, neat, fine, trim, dainty, from L. cognitus, known.]
1) Pleasantly odd and antique; singular; unusual; curious; fanciful; far-fetched; whimsical; affected.
2) (obsolete) Artificially elegant; ingeniously contrived; trim; pretty; neat; fine-spun; pleasant.
I like the first one from my dictionary. "pleasantly odd and antique." The second one also fits the cons ution very well. "ingeniously contrived."
Was your statement suppose to be some king of a slam against Gonzales? If so, you should know the dictionary better.
I could pull out any of my several dictionaries, and the term is not going to vary much.
Only because I come across too many people like you.
Can you stay on topic, or do you need to go back to the children's forums?
Cobra will disappear in a few weeks when blazers are eliminated
looks like steve kerr ^
William Blackstone (the de facto expert on classical interpretations of 18th-century English common law, interpretations which were adapted into the United States Cons ution), 1765:
"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."
Jacob Giles, The Common Laq, Common plac'd, 1733:
"The Children of Embassadors in a foreign Country, are natural born Subjects, and not Aliens."
Those are the definitive commentaries on the 18th-century definition of "natural-born" in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Let the record note that your assertion is unequivocally disproven, and the matter settled in my favor.
This is a good find. It looks like I may be wrong on this issue as long as the reference is valid. I see no reason up front to believe it isn't. Common law is recognized as law of the time unless otherwise contradicted. This would explain why it hasn't gone to court, or serious discussion now, and with Romney.
I acknowledged I think such a thing is wrong when it comes to my original posting. Here is my last sentence from my first posting:
It also explains the distinction where my daughter cannot become president. Although she was deemed a citizen at birth, her mother was not a citizen. Part of that quote was "provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king."I think in cases like this, the native born should include citizens born in other countries who were there because of military duty of the parents. Still, I will take this technicality if it means Huckabee will become the nominee over McCain. This part of the cons ution should be changed. However, it is hard to dispute the black and white of the cons ution, and it is the supreme law of the land.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-02-2008 at 11:03 PM.
hey, wc, how come you never looked up "deliberately misleading"?
Since when does the Cons ution have any relevance?
Has anyone checked the international law on the subject. You
know like our Supreme Court does. The world court is the
place we need to be looking.
You care to expand on your statement. Context vs
precedent?
context=purely for comparison
precedent=for setting record.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions