Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Is John McCain a "natural born citizen"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I will start off by saying that I think the "natural-born" requirement in the constitution is a bit silly, but since it's in there .. we have to live with it.
The times had an interesting article today on the McCain issue. You can read the article yourself, but the up shot is that a university of Arizona law professor wrote an article concluding that McCain is NOT a "natural-born" citizen and therefore NOT qualified to serve as a US president. I agree with the legal conclusion, but think that it should not matter and think that the solution is to amend the constitution and get rid of the "natural-born" part of the qualification test. Basically, I think that anyone who is a citizen, whether by birth or otherwise should be allowed to run - the voters can make the ultimate decision on who is "qualified". What do others think? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html |
Anonymous
| If the natural born requirement is removed, do you know who would run as a Republican candidate in the next presidential elections? Ah-nowd Schwarzenegger. |
Anonymous
... and ? |
Anonymous
Around the time that Arnold was running for governor of California, the public was clamoring for a constitutional change to remove that 'natural born" technicality so that he could run for the Oval Office. Based on his popularity, it seemed like a likelihood that it would happen. Now with a few years experience managing the state of CA, he probably has a good shot at being the Republican nominee and winning over voters who are disillusioned with politics. |
Anonymous
| I can understand the general rule - the President might be swayed by allegience to the nation of his birth, especially if he lived there for years and has relatives there. If they removed the rule altogether, would people holding dual-citizenships be permitted to run? I could see amending it to clarify the term natural-born though, and I don't have an issue with John McCain's citizenship. They just need to clarify the rule - perhaps stating that you must have been born on US soil or to have one US Citizen parent. |
Anonymous
| Both my children were born to American's stationed overseas. They were not born at a military institution, but in a public hospital. Does that make them less of a citizen? |
Anonymous
| oh, please. This is a non-issue. |
Anonymous
In a sense I agree. It would be utterly ridiculous for the child of a member of the armed forces to be punished for the fact tha he was born while his parent was serving his country. On the other hand, the Constitution is the law, and just as Justice Scalia said "it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct", it is possible that the Court might rule that the intent of the founders was that the President must be born on US soil, and if we wish to change that, we have to amend the Constitution. However, I admit that it is unlikely that the five Justices who anointed W President would rule against McCain. |
Anonymous
|
Well, then if you are going to question the validity of this (referring to being natural born) let's question the other laws - minimum president's age, terms of the presidency, etc.
You could pretty argue that everything could be put on the ballot for, as the OP quoted in the original posting - the voters can make the ultimate decision on who is "qualified". |
Anonymous
| Non-issue. The intent of the law is to ensure that those running for President have their first loyalty to the U.S. Let's read the Constitution as an expansive, living document, looking at the intent rather than the literal language. |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
I agree, but McCain is a strict constructionist and, therefore, would not agree with you. |
Anonymous
| Obama would, however. |