digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Arizona Law Professor: McCain Not Eligible To Be President

huffingtonpost.com — a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain's birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a "natural-born citizen."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dBass, on 07/11/2008, -19/+8What's McCain and the repugs trying to pull?
    • LeeSoong, on 07/11/2008, -16/+5Arizona Law Professor - is a n00b.

      2 USA parents = USA citizen baby,
      it has been that way for a long, long time...
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/12/2008, -2/+20LeeSoong = nOOb.

        There is no argument about whether McCain is a CITIZEN(he is). US citizenship does not qualify you to run for President! The discussion is about whether he meets the CONSTITUTIONAL requirement of being a "natural-born citizen".

        RTFA!
      • NuttySquirrel, on 07/12/2008, -1/+5"it has been that way for a long, long time..."

        Apparently not as long as McCain has been alive, because it doesn't apply to him.

        That being said, this is stupid, and I'm not even for McCain.
      • ownwonnow, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2@FairDinkumMate

        The United States recognizes both jus soli (law of land) and and jus sanguinis (law of blood) as a determination of citizenship. They're both centuries old principles of international law, and were recognized by Great Britain prior to the formation of the United States. And as the United States obviously had not made a law regarding the determining factors of citizenship, American law therefore looks to English law for precedent. As a result of Senator McCain's parents being American citizens, he was a citizen of the United States upon the instant of his birth regardless of the locale. While Constitutional benefits may not have extended to him in the Panamanian protectorate (which is what I believe that congressional bill was meant to address), they most certainly do within the United States proper.

        The assholes in this story are arguing this case on semantics. Any judge worth his salt will toss them out on their ear.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Well obviously McCain is not a 'natural-born citizen' -
        he sprang forth from his mother's side, full grown and in Roman battle armor, born ready to fight !
    • Monkeyspanky, on 07/12/2008, -3/+1Aint McLame Old....Seriously....Old...?
  • Insanekingkong, on 07/11/2008, -27/+11Even though I hate the idea of McCain being the president the fact that he DID serve his country-in my opinion- affords him the right to run for office.
    • liuite, on 07/11/2008, -4/+11are you saying anyone who has served in U.S. military should be eligible to run for president. what about those who served in public office, such as Arnold Schwartzenegger.
    • ObamaWins08, on 07/11/2008, -4/+21Unfortunately for you, and our administration, there is this thing called a Constitution we have to follow ever now and then..
      • ileftfark, on 07/12/2008, -1/+8"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!!!"
      • paulsabo, on 07/12/2008, -14/+1Wow Obamawins, aren't you a ***** prick...
      • ThatsNotPudding, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2"there is this thing called a Constitution we have to follow ever now and then.."

        Not so much anymore...

        And Obama was a coward for voting to take away our privacies. Obama may win, but we've all lost already.
    • vash469, on 07/12/2008, -6/+10So this mofo is saying that some gang member or some foreign person that serves in the military they can serve as the US president. next this guy is going to say cause Osama bin ladin helped defeat the Russians during the cold war era that he can run for president
    • solistus, on 07/12/2008, -2/+6Luckily, Constitutional societies do not operate based on your opinion. To paraphrase Digg sweetheart Ron Paul, if you don't like it, change the Constitution, but until that happens, the law of the land says McCain can't be prez.

      Of course, the Constitution is so vague in its terminology that the government can always pick and choose which interpretations it recognises. There are very few things that the Constitution is explicit enough on to pose a real barrier to government action (see: the new FISA bill and the 4th Amendment)
  • rearlgrant, on 07/11/2008, -19/+10I hate this argument -- it just shows how ignorant people are about the Constitution. I can't believe any U.S. citizen would write this and be seen as literate. This "lawyer" should be disbarred, just like John Yoo.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, 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. Article 2 Section 1.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 07/12/2008, -0/+20What's your point?

      "No Person except a natural born Citizen" - this is what is discussed in the article
      "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" - McCain may be old, but he's not THAT old.
      "neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years" - Yeh, I reckon McCain has that covered
      "and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." - Seems he's got that too.

      I don't understand how you think what you wrote somehow shows that this "lawyer" (his name is Professor Gabriel J. Chinby the way) or anyone else is ignorant of the constituion. The main argument for McCain to be eligible is that a law passed by congress created a hole that wasn't intended so shouldn't count. That may be a fair point, but so is the point in this article that applying the EXACT letter of the law as written makes McCain ineligible to be President.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/12/2008, -10/+4As an attorney, he's failing to uphold the Constitution in the interest of being a partisan.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/camp ...
        Speaking as a lawyer myself...
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/12/2008, -2/+7As a lawyer you should know that to supress debate about the constitution & its interpretation would be the first step in ending it!

        If nobody was allowed to question the constitution, no amendments would have been made & you would probably have your desire for Prof. Chinby to be disbarred sated. However, as it stands, the very first amendment made to the constitution(after quite large debate about the constitution I would guess!) was to guarantee that congress would pass no laws curtailing the freedom of speech, religion or peaceable assembly.

        But I like the way that "as a lawyer" you thing Prof. Chinby should be disbarred because he interprets the laws of the United States & the Constitution differently to such a world reknowned legal mind as.......Ken Rudin!
      • hierophantus, on 07/12/2008, -2/+6I think when rearlgrant said "failing to uphold the Constitution," what he/she meant by that inelegant, imprecise, and unlawyerly phrasing was that in his/her opinion the analysis doesn't track with a faithful interpretation of the Constitution's citizenship requirement, not that the professor was somehow violating the Constitution by expressing his opinion on the subject. It's easy to be confused; after all, lawyers are supposed to use precise language to avoid ambiguity and unwanted meanings.

        As support for that opinion, rearlgrant then cited a column in the "Political Junkie" section of the Washington Post from 1998, in which a journalist not trained in the law gives his opinion on the subject in response to a reader's letter.

        In the face of that kind of research, apparently, a law professor's individual interpretation "fails to uphold the Constitution."

        Based on the imprecision of his/her analysis and writing, rearlgrant, if indeed a lawyer, is not a very careful lawyer. Feel free to evaluate his/her opinion accordingly.
      • solistus, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4rearlgrant: if you were an actual (competent) lawyer, you'd be aware that the only evidence cited in your source (the first naturalization act in 1790) hasn't been this country's naturalization law in quite some time. Under current US law, there are two ways to become a citizen: you can be born a citizen, or you can be naturalized (i.e., become a citizen at some point after your birth). Naturalize means to make natural. So, you can think of it this way: naturalization either happens automatically at birth (natural-born), or it happens later for some other reason (e.g., McCain, who was made a citizen by a 1937 act of Congress, as TFA explains). The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship at birth to those born on US soil, and 8 USC 1401 grants automatic citizenship at birth to children of two US citizens born on foreign soil, but Panama in 1936 was neither; it was US-controlled territory, but it was not fully incorporated into the United States, so neither the 14th Amendment nor 8 USC 1401 is applicable. That's why Congress closed that loophole in 1937 - one year too late for McCain to claim natural-born status.

        Of course, given that Bush can blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment and get away with it (with the presumptive nominee of the opposing party backing down on a filibuster, no less), it's pretty unlikely that this technicality will be enforced, but if you believe in upholding the letter of the law, John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States.
    • HallEffected, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1it's a good thing he was alive "at the time of the adoption of this constitution!" lolololol no but srsly he's really old
  • liuite, on 07/11/2008, -5/+33based on technicality, he did not become citizen until the law was passed a year after his birth.
    • fajitamelt, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but the law states that anyone born there after a certain date in 1907 would be a citizen. So I could've been born there on 5/23/1912 and not be a citizen until that law was passed.

      Natural born citizen? That's for you to decide.
  • nblsavage, on 07/11/2008, -9/+92Guys, I don't like McCain but this is lame. Just as lame as the wingnuts who claim that Obama isn't a 'natural born' citizen either. Give it a rest. They are both citizens and are eligible to run.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -3/+13Actually, this is something that just might need to go all the way to the supreme court in order to determine the true constitutionality of it.

      I've always believed that there were laws that allowed citizens deployed by the military who give birth to a child overseas to have their children be considered natural born citizens.

      But, then, what was that provision, from Article 2, section 1? What did it mean?

      I mean, being born in another country, but having two citizens as parents. Maybe that should be enough. Or maybe they really meant you had to have actually been born within the continental United States. Maybe even being born in Hawaii, or a protectorate doesn't count?

      Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that McCain is not eligible, unquestionably. I just think that is what our supreme court is supposed to decide, not the pundits, not the ideologues, not the partisans.
      • Cerebron, on 07/12/2008, -2/+5Since the position in question is Commander in Chief, it's an important point, and should not be treated lightly.
      • polencia, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3"I dont believe that McCain is not eligible unquestionably"

        that's one hell of a double-negative you got there.
    • Ogopogo, on 07/12/2008, -7/+1Your 'say-so' doesn't neccessarily make it so. There are significant questions on the 'natural-born citizen' eligibility of both candidates. Obama refuses to show a valid birth certificate. No worries about McCain tho, he's not going to get the votes anyway.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -0/+8You know, I don't just exclusively watch Fox News Channel, so I am a little bit lost on this "Obama refuses to show his birth certificate" red herring.

        I haven't hear that fallacious argument anywhere else. AND I WORK FOR A NEWS SERVICE!

        I do web development for UPI and The Washington Times.

        You've got to stop only getting your news from an outlet owned by an Australian Globalist. I know that I work for Newsworld, owned by the reverend Syung Myung Moon, who wants to unite all the world's religions because he spoke to Jesus on a mountain in South Korea, but I am not buying into his *****. I work for a company that is owned by a company that is owned by the world unification church, and I am smart enough not to buy into that *****.

        You watch Fox News and are too dense to realize you are being fed propoganda.

        Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

      • shig, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3Birth certificates are not required by law, and even if they were, he could get one. Is that even a question?
      • protocoI, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategoriz ...
        I've seen this all over the internet and I haven't really been part of this debate, but has this one been proven "invalid" somehow?
        </confusion>
      • KJSatz, on 07/12/2008, -2/+1protocol,

        I think that the text looks very "perfect" and digital in that scan, not even like it was printed and scanned, but just created on a computer. Also, it doesn't look like a birth certificate to me; most are handwritten (at least 20+ years ago and beyond) on fielded documents.

        But I don't doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore can be considered a natural born citizen.
    • locojones, on 07/12/2008, -3/+13There's no question that McCain is a citizen. The legal question is whether he is a natural born citizen as specifically detailed in the Constitution. Having read the article and its analysis, there is a cogent and persuasive argument that McCain is not a natural born citizen, and therefore ineligible to be President.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Article 2, clause 5 says:

        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 Constitution 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.
        By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be:

        natural born citizens (or citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption)
        at least thirty-five years old
        inhabitants for at least fourteen years of the United States.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/12/2008, -3/+3Digg Up. I don't like the guy but he fought for our country and that makes him more than citizen enough.

      /Enter pamama canal citizens for truth?
      • smithchr, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2I agree that McCain's wartime service is worthy of thanks, and citizenship is certainly an appropriate thanks, but we have many servicemen and women who aren't yet citizens but who still serve our country. If we're holding McCain's service up as reason for citizenship, we ought to be consistent and do the same for all servicemen.
  • shupy, on 07/12/2008, -14/+20Not only is it lame, it is old. This crap surfaced six months ago and it was stupid then.
  • Chestnutridge, on 07/12/2008, -9/+63I don't support McCain but this is stupid. Do we really want to say that a man who was born in the American held Panama Canal Zone (in the days when it was considered part of the U.S.A.) while his father was on active duty for the U.S. Navy isn't really a full U.S. citizen? This professor can make as many arguments as he wants but this dog ain't going to hunt!
    • solistus, on 07/12/2008, -3/+6Nobody is saying McCain isn't a citizen, just that he isn't a natural-born citizen. If you think such a technicality is anachronistic and stupid for a 21st century advanced democracy, well, I have bad news for you about most of the rest of the Constitution... it's full of needless technicalities, vague wording and archaic grammar.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 07/12/2008, -4/+2And that vague wording allows people to interpret the Constitution however they like. That's why we have stupid issues like this coming up. McCain should be able to run no matter how much you don't like him. Just like most states were not part of the US at some point don't make anybody's birth there less valid than someone born in a colony state.

        I don't get what these people want. McCain gives up the nomination and then another Republican will step in. This seems senseless.
      • Cerebron, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2But it's still better written than most of the laws today.
      • yacks, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4It's not vague wording.. It's all about schematics of the phrase "natural born U.S. Citizen" Does it mean you have to be born on American soil as well as being born to US citizens?
      • gh0st3000, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1You're a citizen if you're born in America and you're a citizen if you're born to American citizens in a foreign country. do you really think anyone who has a say is going to be petty enough to call him out on the fact that since technically he wasn't born in a state and technically he wasn't born in a foreign country that he's ineligible? He could have been born in Antarctica and he would be a natural born citizen, but since he was born on a US naval base to a parent in active duty, that's what puts his eligibility in question?
      • compdude32, on 07/15/2008, -2/+0thatsmyaibo,

        Clearly the Dems are scared of McCain, that is why this is coming up, that is also why Obama is changing his stance on issues.
  • bicycleman, on 07/12/2008, -22/+8The law is the law. Grandpa is out, Ron Paul is back in!!!!
  • xchrisxsays, on 07/12/2008, -9/+4It's sort of like a presidential pardon. It doesn't matter if the people weren't citizens before, they are citizens because of that law. The same way that it doesn't matter if a person did a crime, (I'm looking at you, Nixon) they are free from any punishment because of the pardon.
  • U83RMENSCH, on 07/12/2008, -6/+27Some how I dont think them folk in Washington consider the constitution part of their limits any more.
  • solesoul, on 07/12/2008, -8/+46I'm voting Obama, and I'm still burying this
    • Polarize, on 07/12/2008, -17/+3Why the hell are you voting for Obama?

      Why not just refrain from voting at all?

      The joke is on you.
    • BedPost, on 07/12/2008, -5/+8FISA.
  • kinseyincanada, on 07/12/2008, -4/+15this is a complete waste of time, if you dont like him, dont vote for him, simple as that.
  • YancyFryJr, on 07/13/2008, -12/+3Well, I'm sure that the new FISA has some sort of retrospective allowance for non-natural-born citizens to run for president. Yeah, that makes sense.
  • ZPWeeks, on 07/12/2008, -2/+21The Senate made a resolution because of this, sponsored by Clinton and Obama. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/show
    This is a non-issue.
    • pintomp3, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2wow, he got his own bill? i thought it was a more general bill.
    • kuwan, on 07/12/2008, -0/+7Well, with all due respect the Senate doesn't decide what is constitutional and what isn't, that's left up to the Judicial branch and ultimately the Supreme Court. They can pass resolutions all they want but if they are against the constitution then it really doesn't matter. I personally think it's a non-issue and am fairly sure that nothing will ever come of it. For every one "Arizona Law Professor" that claims that McCain isn't eligible there are many more lawyers that say that he is. I doubt that it will ever go to any court for a decision. If McCain somehow manages to win though then it will definitely be a favorite talking point among left-wing zealots.
    • locojones, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2I don't know why you're being dugg up because your statement is wrong. Had you read the article, you'd know that the resolution you cited is a non-binding one, meaning it isn't law. Congress isn't empowered to retroactively make people natural born citizens, so yes, it is an issue, and an important one at that.
  • charm803, on 07/12/2008, -5/+16I'm not a McCain fan, but this is ridiculous.

    Of ALL the things they should be focusing on, this isn't one of them.

    So, he was eligible to be a POW to defend his country, and now they are pulling this out?

    No. This is BS. Waste of time.
    • solistus, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4Who is pulling what? It's not like the Dems are demanding that he step down from the race. As long as we pretend to live in a constitutional society, we need to think about and follow that document. If something as stupid and/or vague as the natural-born requirement is seen as so ridiculous, the correct solution is to amend the damn Constitution, not ignore the problem and pretend it's perfect in its current form.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -2/+6There is no "eligibility" to be a POW. There is nothing in the constitution that requires a member of the armed forces to be a natural born citizen, meaning having been born inside the US, in order for them to qualify as a POW.

      You do know that there are people who are not even naturalized citizens serving in Iraq, right? You did know that, right? I mean, a person with a green card can enlist in the military. You knew that, right?
      • charm803, on 07/12/2008, -4/+2Yes, I knew that, but I was referring to the fact that on a technicality, Huffington Post is even writing about this.

        It is a technicality because he just happened to be born the wrong year.

        All I'm saying is, with more pressing things to write about, they should have focused on that.

        I can't even take HuffPost seriously.

        If I'm not voting for McCain, it's over ISSUES that matter.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5charm803,

        we should all be voting on the issues. Except when we fail to recognize that those issues are designed to separate us into two camps, in the divisive two-party system.

        We can't fight the two party system until enough people realize how caustic it really is to our democracy.

        However, if there is a constitutional provision that prevents a candidate from taking office, it should be explored all the way.

        I'm not sure it matters what year he was born. I think it matters how the supreme court interprets the constitution. If they decide that Article 2, section 1 should be strictly interpreted, to mean that anyone not born in the US is not eligible for the presidency, or if they decide that any citizen who gives birth outside the US confers the same natural born rights, well, that is a matter for the supreme court.

        Being a POW doesn't change what our constitution says.

        Yes, he was a POW. Lots of people were POWs. It sucked, they went through some horrible *****. But that doesn't exempt them from, nor does it change the interpretation of the constitution. It doesn't give them any more qualification for, or a special pass to be, the president.

        I can walk around downtown DC and could probably find a homeless guy who was a POW in Vietnam. Would you vote for him? Does his time as a POW make him qualified to be president?

        Don't get into false or misinformed idolatry. Being a POW means nothing when it comes to running for office. Most POWs are so mentally deranged, volatile, or angry, that you would never want to vote for them.
      • polencia, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1I agree with you.
        but still buried for condescending douchebaggery.
    • AndrewDB, on 07/12/2008, -0/+6You mean we should be focusing on stuff like ... Oh I don't know.. Flag lapel pins instead?

      /sarcasm.
  • DuffyDirect, on 07/12/2008, -8/+3McCain should run on being a minority too b/c he's Hispanic according to u guys apparently lol
  • jmpeagle, on 07/12/2008, -4/+14Every other law professor : "Yeah, that's why he teaches in Arizona"
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -4/+2Except that Arizona is not a backwater like your state probably is.

      You do know that the Tempe-Pheonix metro area is a center of universities and colleges, don't you?

      They have advanced, leading, and nationally recognized comp sci, astro-physics, astronomy and other science centers in Arizona.

      Okay, maybe it isn't John Jay, but I'm sure their law schools are competitive.

      I'm sorry, you probably were talking out of your ass, so I'll explain to you what John Jay is ... The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York. It's one of the premiere law schools in this country.
      • ownwonnow, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1None of that makes this yahoo's argument any more credible. It just makes UA's law school look juvenile.
  • jpop, on 07/12/2008, -10/+7When things like this are pulled out, it just smacks of desperation. I didn't think Obama was really that far down in the polls.
  • Monkeyspanky, on 07/12/2008, -11/+1Deport that false teeth wearing, lazied eye, OLD Son Of a Bitch.
  • spartan777, on 07/12/2008, -1/+6i thought i heard congress passed a law on exactly this issue months ago.
    • locojones, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1It was a non-binding resolution, not a law. Congress doesn't have the power to make him a natural born citizen.
  • bartpieters, on 07/12/2008, -2/+3Yet an another non-issue topic from ironically the same people who complain about it at other times. On the upside though, it would clear matter up enormously: given only one choice on a ballot, people might actually manage to vote for the candidate they want! It would also save a lot of mudslinging, false promises and money spent on either!
  • jrspartan53, on 07/12/2008, -1/+6I have no intentions to vote for the guy, but that doesn't mean i don't think he should be able to run. just because he doesn't explicitly fill the requirement of a rather vague phrase in the constitution saying he is a "natural born citizen" should keep him from running, although i would not be surprised if some liberal interest group tried their luck with it if he does some how win.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1Yeah, if I refuse to understand the constitution, I don't think we should abide by it.

      That's right. If I can't comprehend something, it must be invalid.

      Sorry, the constitution is what constitutes our government. To dismiss it is to say there are no rules, and our government can do whatever it wants.

      Oh, *****, I forgot, this is a post 9/11 world, so I guess the constitution no longer matters. The terrorists already defeated it!
    • locojones, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Jrspartan53 -

      Oh, so perhaps you wouldn't mind if the cops came over to your house and rifled through your things and arrested you even though they didn't explicitly fill the requirements of the 4th and 5th amendments, which are also pretty vague?
  • pintomp3, on 07/12/2008, -2/+8there are many reasons mccain shouldn't be president. a technicality like this isn't one of them.
    • Cerebron, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Why? There must be a reason for the law, what is it?
      • AnotherBrian, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3It's because at the time, the country was still very divided about the revolution and there was a real chance that King George could get one of his lackies elected president and simply cancel the Declaration of Independence.

        In this day it's not really a problem. I think it should be amended to say that you have to be born here and 35 years old or be a naturalized citizen of the US(only) for 35 years.
  • davidlitts, on 07/12/2008, -8/+3Rules are rules....well wait, nevermind, the Constitution has be stomped to death, so ***** it, let him run.
    • bruce86, on 07/12/2008, -2/+1rules are rules for republicans, unless they get in their way, if that is the case, the rules should be ignored for national security.
  • BikerDude69, on 07/12/2008, -8/+5That's OK, ol' GW and Co. have made sure the US Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore. What a shame.But according to my knowledge of the US Constitution, even though he was born in another country, he was born to US Citizens serving the interests of the US Government. I know many children who were born in Germany to US servicemen and women during the Cold War. They are no less US citizens than I, who was born within the Continental United States to American Citizens.

    What about Obama? Wasn't his father a Kenyan Citizen, and NOT an American citizen? His citizenship is more in question than More of the Same McCain! NEITHER of them are qualified to be president in my worthless opinion!
    • kcasper, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3Obama was a natural born citizen by being born in a state at the time of his birth. There is no issue there. Stop trying to apply a law that doesn't apply on USA soil.
    • jbrand45, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2How is Obama's citizenship in question? It doesn't matter what nation your parents are citizens from. If you are born in the United States, you are a nationalized citizen, regardless. Why do you think many pregnant Mexican women cross the border just to have their children? So that they are American citizens and have an opportunity at a better life.

      Learn the way world works before you open your virtual mouth and make a fool of yourself.
    • BikerDude69, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2How dare I say anything about your savior Obama! I know the law. I was TRYING to make a point. Too bad some of you Obamaniacs are so headstrong you can't read correctly. Get a grip.
  • vinod1978, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4McCain was in Panama because his father was in the military, and there is now a bill in Congress that will be passed (or has already passed - I'm not sure) that will make it legal to have children of service men that were born on military bases. Now, I'm a liberal and I support Obama but even me - and Obama - agree that this is a stupid attack on McCain that actually brings the public closer to him then try to tear him away. This type of news only makes liberals more angry, and republicans feel like saying FU for not respecting a veteran - so what's the point?
  • schrutefan, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2How can you expect the Constitution to strip McCain of his candidacy due to a technicality when it can't even protect US citizens from unlawful surveillance, imprisonment and torture?
  • LoneRanger85, on 07/12/2008, -5/+5The Senate passed a resolution confirming McCain's citizenship. This is a moot subject, except in the minds of Democrats who know Obama is unelectable. Always looking for the loophole.
    • locojones, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2Except that it wasn't a law, it was a non-binding resolution. Congress can't retroactively grant him natural born citizenship. That's why this is an issue.
  • brickbat, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4I don't really care about this either way but it is interesting to see the different reactions. If it had been Bill Clinton that may not be eligible to be President, the Republicans would have thrown the kitchen sink at it. The Republicans loved technical, blurry issues, that they could spin and get the media squawking at. It seems like most of the Domocratic supporters are still trying to play nice. After 8 years of Bush, I would have expected a little more grit from Democrats.
    • Photokon, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2well maybe because he was born in a U.S. Base while his father was serving in Panama might have something to do with that. That is a pretty ***** technicality since his father was in the military serving and some scumbag is going to come out and say he isn't a natural born citizen. I bet this ***** loser didn't even serve in the military.
      • brickbat, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1See thats exactly what I mean. Do you think Republicans care how fair or right a particular point is?
  • tikited, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Maybe every person in America should for president so there would small chance of winning. What if Arnold was natural born by U.S. then every person would vote for arnold as president instead of bush, ah ha. Is Panama U.S.yeah right? Does McCain even know a second language i think. McCain is an illegal immigrant from the planet Uranus. : )
  • eltardo, on 07/12/2008, -5/+1If this stands and somehow the constitution gets flipped so you don't have to be natural born.... Give the Presidency to AaaRNOLD! He'd kick some ass!

    ps. IMPEACH BUSH
  • edebolt, on 07/12/2008, -1/+13Huffington post has less and less credibility. Should be called the partisan blowhard post.
  • ArchivalQuality, on 07/12/2008, -1/+7McCain is not eligible, Obama is a Muslim, there is a secret handshake to become an American citizen (hint: it's the same as the Freemason's), and the Constitution says that only people who take care of semi-retarded Kodiak Grizzly Bears can vote.
    • 1timeuser, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Well as a semi-retarded kodiak grizzly bear I am relieved.
  • arbouler, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3every political stories i read on nytimes i read with full skepticism now.
  • DrCyclops, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Two words for this supposed scholar: BARRY GOLDWATER.
    • Chestnutridge, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Not really the same issue. After all, Arizona was a "territory" of the U.S. when Goldwater was born, while the Canal Zone (though treated like a territory at national political conventions at the time) was always something a bit less.

      Neverless, the same objection was made to Goldwater's eligibilty when he ran. As I remember, no one seemed very distressed about the issue.
  • OdinThor, on 07/12/2008, -1/+0Next thing you know they are going to say Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for U.S. President ...
  • woodrow8292, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Don't you think that his campaign would have looked into this to make sure he was able to run before he announced his run? Same with Obama. I mean come on it's not like either staff is suddenly like DOH! maybe we should have made sure they were eligible to run in the first place.
  • crackberri, on 07/12/2008, -1/+0Well, he speaks France. That should make him qualified………
  • gkiltz, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1The courts have ruled several times that US Military bases overseas are US Territory for purposes of defining "American Born!"
    Also, the US really no longer has a valid case in saying that, if both parents are citizens, the child is not a citizen. several different treaties through the years have shot down that argument!
    Not a win-able battle!
    He'll most likely lose anyway, so quit worrying about it!
  • Metasquares, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Meh, it's a fairly stupid requirement anyway. If you were born here, you can run, but if you moved here at the age of 5 months and spent the rest of your life here, you can't.
  • askantik, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2McCain sucks (so does Obama, so don't flame me), but I was born in a foreign country to American parents in the military. Does that mean I can't run for President, too? :(
  • solid12345, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Does he have his tenure at the University of Phoenix?
  • jbrand45, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3As much as I dislike McCain, this kind of article is ridiculous. It's just more nitpicking from people who are grasping at straws.

    C'mon people, McCain has done enough on his own to discredit himself, why bother trying to apply some technical loophole that may or may not be valid anyway?
  • ravenswing2, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Cocktail party conversation for bored lawyers. Buried.
  • Jaguwar, on 07/12/2008, -3/+2Blah, blah, F-word blah blah moveon.org talking point. blah blah George Bush is Hitler blah blah shredding the constitution blah blah Guantanamo fascists. Blah blah something I heard on the Daily Show blah blah F-word blah blah Huffington Post talking point, blah blah torture fascists Blah blah Fox news blah blah.

    Blah blah something my college professor with the pony tail once said blah blah Dick Cheney blah blah Abu Ghraib blah blah lied about Iraq blah blah. When will America wake up blah blah neo-cons blah blah Karl Rove blah blah NSA blah blah neo-con blah blah. fascists racist homophobic blah blah.

    Whewwww, I am drained, speaking truth to power is so exhausting, I think I will listen to the new Coldplay on my iPod, have a latte and edit my Facebook page.
    • Lyk4n, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1ZOMG! I have an iPod too! We should add each other on Facebook, we could totally be best friends!! We could go to the coffee shop together and double team your mom! It'll be great! Right?!... right?
  • ownwonnow, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3The United States recognizes both jus soli (law of land) and and jus sanguinis (law of blood) as a determination of citizenship. They're both centuries old principles of international law, and were recognized by Great Britain prior to the formation of the United States. And as the United States obviously had not made a law regarding the determining factors of citizenship, American law therefore looks to English law for precedent. As a result of Senator McCain's parents being American citizens, he was a citizen of the United States upon the instant of his birth regardless of the locale. While Constitutional benefits may not have extended to him in the Panamanian protectorate (which is what I believe that congressional bill was meant to address), they most certainly do within the United States proper.

    The assholes in this story are making an asinine semantic argument. Any judge worth his salt will toss them out on their ear.
  • Cyberdactyl, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2You will notice the Huffy Post is all over this. . . BUT dear say, where is the Huffy Post on Obama's ineligibility?
    • nblsavage, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1You've got FOX and Malkin for that. Pot, meet kettle.
  • vermax, on 07/12/2008, -2/+1McCrone
  • ObamAmerican48, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1The pundits and right wing nutjobs have tried to use the same argument against Senator Obama. It's ***** and irrevelant.
  • LumpyRevolution, on 07/13/2008, -2/+1He's not even qualified. He works for the bank. Geesh! When are people gonna discover that? When they are homeless indentured servants?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.