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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (28930)7/11/2008 6:37:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

July 11, 2008
By ADAM LIPTAK
nytimes.com


In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, 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.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.

In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company



To: TimF who wrote (28930)7/11/2008 6:49:11 PM
From: ManyMoose  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Wow! I was amazed to see that California is more federal than Montana.

The western states are federal by virtue of treaties and purchases, and private land derives from pre-existing holdings and by dispositions, homesteading, or auctions. The BLM was originally intended to dispose of federal lands but instead became a manager of them.

Railroads were granted huge holdings in order to encourage them to build the rails and settle the west. Some could argue that it was a huge ripoff. From my point of view, the railroad lands are problematic because many of them were granted in alternating sections like a checkerboard, which makes for a very difficult management scenario in today's world.

Recently, one of the largest conservation deals in history was completed. Over 300,000 acres were put on a conservation footing. They were composed of Plum Creek Timberlands, which descended from Northern Pacific Railroad lands.

Plum Creek conservation deal biggest in U.S.
missoulian.com

July 1, 2008

By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian

KALISPELL - When the ink finally dries on the largest conservation land purchase in the history of the United States - 320,000 Montana forest acres for $510 million - nearly nothing will have changed.

And that, of course, is exactly the point. The deal between Plum Creek Timber Co. and conservation buyers is designed to maintain the status quo; the real change would come if those western Montana acres were sold instead to real estate developers.

Plum Creek lands to be purchased under the deal announced Monday include forests surrounding the Missoula Valley, on up the Swan and even into the Yaak, and all "are worth more as house lots than as board feet," said Eric Love, regional director for conservation buyer Trust for Public Lands. "It just would be tragic to lose it all to backcountry sprawl."

Since 1999, Plum Creek has been organized not as a timber company, but as a real estate investment trust, and the company's bottom line has relied increasingly on land sales. In fact, during the last five years Plum Creek's real estate revenue has tripled, to more than $330 million annually.

And that has raised concerns in states such as Montana, where supplying urban services and firefighting crews into new forested neighborhoods can often come at a steep cost to taxpayers. The company owns 8 million acres nationwide, 1.2 million acres in Montana, and has targeted some 2 million of those acres for possible sale.

That new reality - in which trees are worth more vertical than horizontal - was the inspiration behind the landmark conservation deal announced Monday, Love said.

The land purchase is expected to be complete in three years, and will place most of the 320,000 acres into either state or federal ownership. The small portion remaining in private hands will be burdened by conservation easements, allowing public access and continued timber harvest, but prohibiting subdivision and real estate development.

The "Montana Legacy Project," as it is known, is anchored in legislation written recently by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and included in the nation's farm bill. The Baucus provision allows qualifying states or nonprofits to either issue tax credit bonds or to apply directly for federal grants that then can be used for conservation land purchases.

That mechanism accounts for the first $250 million of the total $510 million needed. The remainder will be raised from private donors and, perhaps, a partnership with state government.

"This is so big," said Missoula County Commissioner Larry Anderson. "It's huge. Protecting these portions of the Swan is going to be so important."

Important to the wildlife that crosses Plum Creek lands between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountain wilderness areas.

Important to the recreationists who hunt, hike and huckleberry these wild hills.

Important to the local communities whose economies rely on logging.

And important to taxpayers who otherwise would be paying to extend services into the forest fringe.

"All of us have a moral obligation," Baucus said, "to leave this place in as good as shape, or better, than we received it. We want our kids and grandkids to enjoy it, as well."

The deal follows similar conservation sales of Plum Creek land, notably in the Blackfoot River drainage east of Missoula and the Thompson-Fisher area west of Kalispell. In fact, Plum Creek's Hank Ricklefs said Monday that over the past 10 years, 70 percent of company land sales have been for conservation.

"Plum Creek," he said, "has worked hard to have balance in our business." He called the deal announced Monday "a great outcome for the citizens of Montana, and a great outcome for the citizenry of the United States."

And, surely, a great outcome for Plum Creek, which will receive more than a half billion dollars for timber land it has already logged. (And some key real-estate development acres - in the headwaters of Whitefish Lake, for instance - were not on the table, despite keen interest from the conservation buyers. "Not everything's for sale today," said company spokeswoman Kathy Budinick.)

With the future of private forest lands increasingly uncertain, Love said, "we'll never see an opportunity like this again. Like Humpty Dumpty, once this land gets broken apart (by residential subdivision), we can't put it back together again."

Baucus praised the coalition that hammered out the deal - Plum Creek, Trust for Public Lands and The Nature Conservancy, among others - for "bonding together to preserve the best characteristics of our state."

Hunters, anglers, snowmobilers, loggers and all who recreate on western Montana's forest lands will benefit by conserving "what's best about Montana," the senator said, adding that such traditional uses are deeply ingrained in Montana's rural culture.

"We intend to honor that tradition," said Dana Christiansen, of the Nature Conservancy. "This project will maintain that public access" and also "allows us to preserve this truly magnificent wildlife habitat." In addition, Christiansen said, "we will continue the process of sustainable forestry on this property."

Plum Creek, in fact, will do some of that future logging, but under a sustainable forestry program created and monitored by third-party certifiers.

If funding falls together as expected, Plum Creek will receive $200 million by the end of this year, then another $200 million by the close of 2009. The final $110 million is to be paid when the deal is completed, in December 2010.

It represents a considerable chunk of change, Love admitted, but he called the deal "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, in our view, at a very, very fair price."

As to raising the money not yet in the bank, "we're going to do whatever it takes," Baucus said, "because it's the right thing to do."

Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@missoulian.com.

vitalground.org

snipurl.com