Announcement

**republicanwriter** · 02-29-2008, 04:13 PM

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/78088/

Holy Smokes!

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. -- IHT.com

Yes cub scouts... This actually is an issue. In 1790 Congress stated that persons born outside of the United States to U.S. parents are natural born citizens. This was also addressed in the Dred Scott case, But this was struck down in 1868 in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

According to the State Department:

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 birthhttp://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/78088/

**Sprint_girl07** · 02-29-2008, 05:50 PM

Lol it is amazing what they dig up during these elections.

**Rough Neighbor** · 02-29-2008, 05:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
... Actually would be kind of nice if it is. ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha! That's interesting! It's obvious who's no fan of McCain's.

**Hudson** · 03-01-2008, 05:26 AM

Well, is this cccccccooooonnnnnvvvvveeeeennnnniiiiiieeeeennnnnttttt

Well, from the apparence, it may be an issue. However, US law, which is based on the Constitution tell another story.

The key to this argument is how AlterNet defines "natural person. But 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. defines citizen by statue, ie natural born. But "natural born" does not mean naturalized, according to Sec 1401. So, let us look at what the founders of our country had in mind about children born "beyond the sea?" In the Naturalization Act of 1790, it states, "''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . ." 1 Stat. 103, 104. This act was based on English Common law which British subjects born abroad shall have the same inheritances as if they were born in England. We can alos look at Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-666 (1927); or United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672-675 (1898 for additional guidance. If we look at case law, and the meaning to what "natural born persons" really means, this may suggest that US citizzens born abroad are included in the phrase "natural born persons" within the scope of Article 2, section 5 of the United States Constitution.

Other notable candidates incldue Barry Goldwater who was born in the Arizona territory and George Romney who was born to US parents while in Mexico.

**republicanwriter** · 03-01-2008, 06:59 PM

Somebody made this comment on the alternet blog

"This actually is an issue. In 1790 Congress stated that persons born outside of the United States to U.S. parents are natural born citizens. This was also addressed in the Dred Scott case, But this was struck down in 1868 in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

Neither the act of congress or Dred Scott were struck down by the 14th Amendment on this point. The interesting case is whether the State Department's ruling stands. It should fall to the Supreme court ruling and the act of congress.

Side note on history, Dred Scott was never overturned, it became in large part moot. The consitutional interpetation was no longer valid when the constitution was amended. That does not mean that the section defining what "natuarl born" means is bad law.

**Hudson** · 03-02-2008, 06:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
Davdah, I must say it although I really don't want to talk to you. And I won't be coming back to this forum with this set of people.
But I must say this. You are the poster child of a dumb lazy uneducated American.
You don't even know what socialism is and you will never know, because you don't even read books, not to mention you've never lived through what socialism is.
For your information, the American Democratic party according to European standards is the right wing party. Tada!
So what is republican party to Europe? I can say without hesitation that at this moment it is the fascist nazi party, and you are voting for a version of a nazi leader.
Racism is rampant among the party base (just not anti-semitic by anti-hispanic and anti-muslim). The war in Iraq killed over a million civilians, and if republicans stay in power, their insatiable hunger for power and greed for oil would wage wars for as long as possible, until all Muslims are swept off the face of the earth and until all oil is ****ed out from underground.
Ever read Main Kampf? Of course not because you don't read books. I will tell ya, you probably don't even believe in Auschwitz in your naivette and dumb stupor.
You are a poster child of the dumb, idiot uneducated greedy American Davdah.

Just STFU FAT UGLY REPUG. You're here all the time, so all your lies how successful you are and how many apartments you rent or restaurants you own are just that, plain lies. You're probably fat and ugly and poor, and your nazi party is losing power for decades to come. So go ship your lazy behind somewhere where the sun doesn't shine.
You're NOT a true American to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I person, you have to stop mixing the pink pills with the white pills with the purple pills. And please, lay off the Hurricanes, Bacardi, and the vodka.

**Hudson** · 03-02-2008, 06:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by republicanwriter:
Somebody made this comment on the alternet blog

"This actually is an issue. In 1790 Congress stated that persons born outside of the United States to U.S. parents are natural born citizens. This was also addressed in the Dred Scott case, But this was struck down in 1868 in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

Neither the act of congress or Dred Scott were struck down by the 14th Amendment on this point. The interesting case is whether the State Department's ruling stands. It should fall to the Supreme court ruling and the act of congress.

Side note on history, Dred Scott was never overturned, it became in large part moot. The consitutional interpetation was no longer valid when the constitution was amended. That does not mean that the section defining what "natuarl born" means is bad law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Propbaly Iperson

**Sprint_girl07** · 03-02-2008, 02:07 PM

Is that a closing speech of the day or for good?
You keep bidding farewell yet come back like a boomerang lol

Just admit it IP, you miss Davdah

**Hudson** · 03-02-2008, 05:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
Lol, I'm shaking in my boots Davdah. You don't even know who you were talking to. I advise you to go back to school and read real books.

I have no hate for you, only a disgust and sadness at your stupidity.
Btw, America lost the war with Iraq. The winner is not American neo-conservatism. History will judge Bush and his cronies harshly.
You're on the wrong side, and the saddest part is that you don't even know it.
Bye kiddo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This has to be one of the most unlearned statements you have made IP. It is way too early to determine who "won" and who "lost" while attempting to define uniformly the definition of "winning" and "losing." From a strict military standpoint, the US won since the Iraqi Armed forces, especially the famed Republican Guard, were vanquished. What has happened was that the Bush Administration never planned for, the Sunni Uprising. Because the Sunnis started the "ethnic cleansing" and because Iraqi neighbors have used Iraq to further their own political agenda separate from the UNSC 17 resolutions against Iraq, that is why the mess is the way it is. Until the Iraqis come to grips with political reality on certain issues, there will never truly be peace because those borders were artically made in 1919. But of course, you will plead ignorance when it comes to certain facts prior to the Bush Administration involvement.

**ProudUSC** · 03-02-2008, 06:21 PM

OMG, we need to record this day in history. Davdah applauding something Hudson said? Will wonders ever cease - lol!

**USVIPGuesT** · 03-03-2008, 02:01 AM

iperson,

Just curious, are you able to vote in US?

**mike_2007** · 03-03-2008, 02:04 AM

the answer is no she cann't

**Hudson** · 03-03-2008, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
And so did Hudson just do exactly that.

Read my blog for more information on how many generations will have to pay for the war. That I call a real loss Hudson Mister twist the facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what exactly did I say was not true, IP?

Was it the Sunni uprising? No, that is happening. Was it the fact that Iraq has artificial borders? No, that is established in historical fact. Or how about the fact that Iraq failed to comply with 17 UNSC resolutions? No, that can't be true because the UN always tells the truth. No, it can't be that. Or how about that Iraq was a quagmire before the US even invaded for the second time? No, it can't be that either since that will give credence to some of the arguments for going into IRaq.

As for the Iraq war costs by Stiglitz, they are just projections. He uses information asymmetry, common term Information Economics, to project the calculations. The lines of logic using this branch of microeconomic theory has major flaws that don't match up to the works by Friedrich Hayek, Claus Offe, and Jurgen Habermas. If we apply the same principles to WWII, the Cold War, etc, we are still paying for those events as well. Just a thoguht.

**Michaelthegreat** · 03-03-2008, 09:59 AM

You people are so ignorant. The Constitution requires that a President be a "natural born citizen". This means a citizen at birth. The child of parents who are both US Citizens is a citizen at birth. Both McCains parents were US Citizens therefore McCain was a citizen at birth and a naturalborn citizen in contrast to someone who is naturalized later. Thereore, McCain is eligible to be President of the US. In Contrast, Barack Osama and HRC heve de facto renounced their US Citizenship and are thereby ineligible.

Announcement

Can McCain run since he was not Born in US ?

Can McCain run since he was not Born in US ?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment