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 (29058)	7/16/2008 8:22:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: That's the overall issue. Yep. Re: But the fact that the law you kept posting about was enacted a year after McCain was born, wasn't very relevant to the discussion of the overall issue, since it 1 - That fact wasn't being disputed, and 2 - The location of McCain's birth Was/is not the only way for McCain or anyone else in his position to qualify.... You have yet to establish that ('was not the only way to qualify') as indisputable 'fact' for someone born in the Zone in that year... (Certainly you didn't establish that as 'fact' with your quote from a long ago repealed law.) Re: and 3 - The fact that it was one year after, would not automatically imply that he was ineligible I didn't say that it conclusively established that he was ineligible.... But I believe it's fair to say that the passage of that law suggested that there would have been doubts prior to the law's passage about the Presidential eligibility of someone born in the Zone earlier. As the law Professor argued, the very fact that Congress believed it was necessary to pass a law to SPECIFICALLY address the status of children born in the Zone, and also the various legal precedents he also referred to (children born in the Zone being deported to other countries... a record of Court decisions that establish that the US Courts considered the Zone be 'under US control' but not part of American territory, a la GITMO or Iraq now, etc.), all argue that the matter is not as cut-and-dried as you suggest.

To: TimF who wrote (29058)	7/16/2008 8:51:27 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Sorry... forgot this last part: Re: "even if you assume that being born of two citizen parents doesn't make you a citizen wherever you are born (an assumption you have given no one any reason to support)." That's because I NEVER made that assumption! In fact, I've posted SEVERAL TIMES NOW that that point is NOT IN DISPUTE anywhere, or by anyone. Child of two Americans = new American. A fact not in dispute. (No need to keep raising.) ONLY question under discussion is the legal implications of that extra bit in the Constitutional clause about qualifications for Presidency: "natural born". Which --- (as I've also repeatedly given evidence for) --- the US Supreme Court has definitively ruled is up to Congress to decide....