Maybe he wants some free dental work.
The Democrats were correct. McCain was not eligible. It isn't clear whether voters paid any attention, but some of the legal analysis was excellent. Dems were very interested in amending Article II just before the 2000 elections. Barney Frank sponsored an honest attempt http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
to Amend Article II in House Joint Res 88 in July of 88, to allow naturalized citizens resident in the U.S. for 20 years, to be reputed natural born citizens (not like Claire McCaskill’s SB 2678, which was political, to provide cover for McCain so no Republican would challenge Obama’s eligibility). This would have covered McCain as well as Schwarzenegger, since McCain is a naturalized citizen through a complicated, but much examined, chain of legal reasoning.
Here is one of several “Birther” cases challenging McCain before the 2000 election:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
In McCain's case his issues were widely publicized by the WaPo, the NYT, LA Times - all the progressive voices.
Orly Taitz’ difference is that the state-run media has applied Alinsky rules 5 - “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon” - and thirteen -”Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Taitz legal arguments make a more understandable case, and one better aligned with what “feels right” than with the seemingly unfair accident of McCain's ineligibility - that the Canal Zone was covered by no sovereignty treaty until the year after he was born. Obama’s having been born with allegiance through his non-citizen father to England was a topic of such obvious concern to framers steeped in natural and international law that no one questioned John Jay's suggestion of making it a requirement for presidential eligibility.
Here is an excellent legal summary of McCain's problems. Always remember that presumable objective scholars have biases. Gabriel Chin, like Barney Frank in his amendment proposal above, examines just the soli, born on the soil, requirements for president, but never mentions the jus sanguinis requirement included in the common law definition repeated by John Marshall, Vattel, Morrison Waite, Joseph Story, James Kent, James Wilson, Charles Ev ans Hughes, Dr David Ramsay... Like most attorneys, professors or not, he picked his citations to make his case. But he does a thorough job of it, and reviews lots of case law to do it.
http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/Chin/als08-14.pdf
The Democrats were correct. McCain was not eligible. It isn't clear whether voters paid any attention, but some of the legal analysis was excellent. Dems were very interested in amending Article II just before the 2000 elections. Barney Frank sponsored an honest attempt http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
to Amend Article II in House Joint Res 88 in July of 88, to allow naturalized citizens resident in the U.S. for 20 years, to be reputed natural born citizens (not like Claire McCaskill’s SB 2678, which was political, to provide cover for McCain so no Republican would challenge Obama’s eligibility). This would have covered McCain as well as Schwarzenegger, since McCain is a naturalized citizen through a complicated, but much examined, chain of legal reasoning.
Here is one of several “Birther” cases challenging McCain before the 2000 election:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8873272/Fred-Hollander-v-Senator-John-McCain-et-al
In McCain's case his issues were widely publicized by the WaPo, the NYT, LA Times - all the progressive voices.
Orly Taitz’ difference is that the state-run media has applied Alinsky rules 5 - “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon” - and thirteen -”Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Taitz legal arguments make a more understandable case, and one better aligned with what “feels right” than with the seemingly unfair accident of McCain's ineligibility - that the Canal Zone was covered by no sovereignty treaty until the year after he was born. Obama’s having been born with allegiance through his non-citizen father to England was a topic of such obvious concern to framers steeped in natural and international law that no one questioned John Jay's suggestion of making it a requirement for presidential eligibility.
Here is an excellent legal summary of McCain's problems. Always remember that presumable objective scholars have biases. Gabriel Chin, like Barney Frank in his amendment proposal above, examines just the soli, born on the soil, requirements for president, but never mentions the jus sanguinis requirement included in the common law definition repeated by John Marshall, Vattel, Morrison Waite, Joseph Story, James Kent, James Wilson, Charles Ev ans Hughes, Dr David Ramsay... Like most attorneys, professors or not, he picked his citations to make his case. But he does a thorough job of it, and reviews lots of case law to do it.
http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/Chin/als08-14.pdf
Probably, his smile has been strained and cracking a bit lately, most likely setting his teeth on edge. :)