SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (29051)7/16/2008 6:39:47 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Look... you can try to 'define away' the issue by CLAIMING that the 'issue' is whatever you say it is

What the issue is is in this discussion is simple, its the point under dispute. I haven't been disputing any claims about the canal zone, so the law about the canal zone isn't the issue. Since it isn't in dispute, and isn't something necessary to the dispute (to put it another way it isn't the only way that McCain can qualify).

and the American laws are were we should turn for answers

And none of those laws say he is ineligible.

so it shouldn't matter at all what 'my definition' is.

Absent a specific USSC finding or unambiguous law the only thing to go by is to directly look at the words of the constitution. Unless one is to assert that "natural born" means "born in the US", the "McCain is ineligible" argument has no leg to stand on. If you are going to argue that he is ineligible you should have a reason why. No law says he isn't eligible. No relevant USSC decision says he isn't eligible. The only thing that would make him ineligible is if "natural born" means "born in the US". If you believe it means that you should say so. If you don't there isn't anything more to debate.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext