Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: TigersEye

I would agree with those who claim McCain was brought up through the nomination pack by the same people who brought Bill Clinton and Obama up through the nomination pack. I also think that Obama wanted to piggy-back on the resolution passed to O.K. McCains eligibility but couldn’t when it referred to parentS. I also think those that pushed the resolution just might have thoght they could pull a slick move by stetching the Constitution. The father’s citizenship is a requirement by virtue of Article II Section 8 directive #9 for Congress to DEFINE offenses against the Law of Nations which was Vittel’s treatise which defined a NBC as one born of parentS who are it’s citizenS. The stretch would be to Define ‘country’ as the place where the citizen parentS were and this would have been innocuous considering the Panama Canal: but the wording precedent would have been established like many people present today that two citizen parentS anywhere in the world satisfied the Constitution as to eligibility. The only hang-up then was the parentS and this could not be stretched for Obama.


24 posted on 02/21/2010 5:29:16 PM PST by noinfringers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: noinfringers

“Article II, Section 8, Directive 9...”

Do you not mean “Article I, Section 8..?”

Just checking.


26 posted on 02/21/2010 5:37:07 PM PST by Joe Marine 76 (Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: noinfringers
The stretch would be to Define ‘country’ as the place where the citizen parentS were and this would have been innocuous considering the Panama Canal:...

That is not exactly the legal argument in Dr. Chin's brief. It is part of it. One does have to wonder what the purpose of the Senate declaration was since it didn't really address any of the specific issues brought up about McCain or 0bama. It has no legal authority at all.

McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate

The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.

It seems more like a distraction to give 0bama cover and was supported by Hillary, McCaskill and Leahy among other Dems. I wonder if McCain or 0bummer voted on this or abstained?

29 posted on 02/21/2010 6:40:13 PM PST by TigersEye (It's the Marxism, stupid! ... And they call themselves Progressives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson