Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (28960)	7/13/2008 1:59:40 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

LOL! With all due respect to the speculations (contained in your links) about 'what the constitution's framers might have been thinking', or to the principle of owing 'allegiance to the King of England'... we still have the actual laws of the United States of America to deal with. And those laws previously (from our founding up until law was changed in the 1920s) were quite clear as to how they defined the term 'natural born citizen'. They restricted it's meaning to those born in the legally INCORPORATED AREAS of the United States. And, since the Canal Zone was never legally incorporated in America, and it was clear practice of the period to actually DEPORT people to other nations who had been born in the Zone, (thus further establishing that unincorporated status of the Zone...), it would seem that there is the potential for disqualification. Note: the law governing how 'natural born citizen' is defined in American law WAS CHANGED (to include the Zone, and other overseas areas...), but, unfortunately for John McCain it was changed about ONE YEAR AFTER he had already been born. :-)