| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
NYT prints hopeful piece suggesting that McCain can’t be president due to where he was born
The NYT’s war on McCain continues:
WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
In case this has planted a seed of doubt in anyone’s mind about the Mc’s eligibility, this post should put your mind at ease (h/t: Patterico).
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
9 Responses to “NYT prints hopeful piece suggesting that McCain can’t be president due to where he was born”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Can’t we just have a presidential election without the extraneous drama.
Apparently not sadly..
Er, we have had several presidents who were not “natural-born citizen[s]” of the US in the sense that they were not born in the US (I do not know if any of them were born “unnaturally”): George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson…
I would submit that it is the New York Times that is becoming more foreign to this nation than John McCain.
Shame that a “natural born paper” might as well be an Al Jazeera publication.
Although this is technically true, all of these men were born on this continent. Martin Van Buren was the 1st US President, born after the formation of this country. – Lorica
This was settled 200 years ago. The NYT does no research.
Why doesn’t the NY Times just close it’s doors and save some trees? They are a waste of paper and ink.
Why conservatives must now support McCain
Several weeks ago, I posted an essay entitled: “Adios McCain”, in which I declared that I could not support his nomination as the Republican candidate for president. My inspiration for this essay was the news that Juan Hernandez, an open borders activist and former aide to Mexican President, Vicente Fox, had been named as McCain’s senior advisor for Hispanic Outreach, an appointment which I felt-and still feel is outrageous. Since that time, McCain has all but wrapped up the Republican primary. Unless something happens soon to give credence to the recent New York Times article about a supposed romance with a lobbyist, McCain will be the Republican nominee for president. Assuming he is, it is crucial that conservatives put aside their differences and support McCain for president.
The New York Times article certainly served to bring conservative support to the Arizona senator from many who had sworn never to vote for him. Yet, there are still those conservatives who, because McCain is weak on illegal immigration and certain other issues, are still saying they will not vote for him. In my view, that would be a terrible mistake.
Let’s take it issue by issue. There is no doubt that McCain has angered many of us over his lack of support for stopping the violation of our borders. He has spoken disparagingly of those who have demanded that the law be enforced. Lately, he has made statements to the effect that he is coming around to our point of view. How convincing is he? I remain skeptical.
Yet, we know what either a President Obama or President Clinton will do-nothing. The Democratic Party relies on courting Hispanics (both present and future citizens) as voters. The Democrats are notorious for not supporting any law enforcement agency-let alone the Border Patrol. With McCain, there is hope that we will achieve at least some of our objectives-if we hold his feet to the fire.
When it comes to the War on Terror and our efforts in Iraq, only McCain offers hope that we will prevail in those ventures. Both Clinton and Obama will bring the troops home-incrementally perhaps- but they will abandon the effort to win the war in Iraq, even though we are now winning. McCain is strong on this point. He is committed to destroying Al-Qaida, prevailing in Iraq and defeating Islamic terrorism. This issue alone justifies a vote for McCain. It is simply the most defining issue of our time.
Similarly, what will happen to our military under Obama or Clinton in an age of international Islamic terror? It is obvious that either would drastically reduce the size and capability of our Armed Forces. As a precedent, we only have to look at the last two Democratic presidents- Carter and Clinton. Both decimated the military, which necessitated a build-up by Reagan and GW Bush to correct the problem. Even now, we still need a further build-up of our military. Only McCain will do that.
Thirdly, is there any question but that Obama or Clinton will further a socialistic agenda for America? The difference is only in degrees, but a Democratic presidency, coupled with a Democratic-controlled Congress, means greater government control, more spending, increased taxes, and increased socialism in our daily lives-in total contrast with what made our country great.
In addition, one of the most important considerations is the make-up of our federal courts-especially the Supreme Court. In all likelihood, the next president will appoint at least two new Supreme Court justices. If the president is Clinton or Obama, one can only expect more people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (an ACLU attorney). True, McCain could disappoint us on this one, but the only chance we have of getting more Thomas’ or Scalias on the Supreme Court is through McCain.
Along those lines, don’t overlook the Federal Appeals Courts and federal judgeships. When I was an active DEA agent, I saw first-hand the damage to law enforcement that was done by Carter and Clinton-appointed federal judges, who would routinely sentence convicted drug traffickers to short prison terms or even probation. Many are still on the bench. Obama or Clinton would flood the federal bench with hundreds more lenient judges. Every day, we hear more horror stories about lenient judges who turn vicious criminals back onto the streets. If we allow the Democrats to appoint those judges, then we have no control in correcting the situation.
Is this an enthusiastic endorsement of John McCain? No. I have spelled out my problems with the Arizona senator in strong terms. As I have said before, I have great respect for his military record but object to many of his positions as a senator. The bottom line, however, is this; McCain, barring some unforeseen development, will be the only one standing between a President Obama or President Clinton.
If McCain becomes president, we must continue to pressure him to do the right thing on issues like illegal immigration. He should be pressured to jettison Juan Hernandez from his staff and enforce our immigration laws. However, if we stay home in November, we have only ourselves to blame if liberals take over this country-at a crucial and dangerous time in our history. The stakes are simply too great. We must support McCain in November. If we stay home and allow Obama or Clinton to become president, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
gary fouse
fousesquawk