NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone sent me this in an email. There was no citation. I tend to take things like this with copious amounts of salt. Can anyone find a reliable source for this other than some random email. Or is it someone slandering a) Billary or b) Obama or c) both?


"Subject: Is Obama Legally Eligible to Serve as President?

SOME TIME AGO HILARY SAID SHE HAD SOMETHING ON OBAMA THAT WOULD CHANGE THE ELECTION AND THAT'S WHY SHE ONLY SUSPENDED HER QUEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY, WELL HERE IT IS.

This came from a USNA alumnus. It'll be interesting to see how the media handles this...

Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone .

US Law very clearly states: '. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia . This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think that Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days."

He was born in the state of Hawaii, right? That makes him an automatic natural born citizen.

Since when do parents have to be citizens to make you a citizen?

Damn, the far-rights do love their unsolicited emails.

Sounds like it has about as much fact as the email telling me i had Inherited the Nigerian Prince's Fortune...

Sounds like it has about as much fact as the email telling me i had Inherited the Nigerian Prince's Fortune...

With Nigeria spelled wrong. And prince. And fortune.

i dont know anything about this supposed law, if it exists, if its constitutional.

but barrack obama isnt running for president between '52 and '86 so it doesnt matter, he is qualified TODAY.

What a crock of shit.

This is about as stupid as the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Any child born in a US territory is a US citizen.

Seen this on about 3 websites now. Still bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Email is, shockingly, false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Email is, shockingly, false.

:eek::eek2::eek::eek2::eek::eek2:

THE ONE CONSTANT IN MY LIFE HAS BEEN RUINED!!!!!

amusing, since it is actually mccain that fell through a legal loophole that renders him constitutionally ineligible to be president (not that anybody will do anything about it...)

This email is made of poop.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

Leave it to Kat for sanity. I have Snopes in my favorites, I should have checked there first.

Snopes is my friend.
CIAC Hoaxbusters was a good site, too, but it's been shut down.

Sounds like it has about as much fact as the email telling me i had Inherited the Nigerian Prince's Fortune...
But all I had to do was give them my credit card details...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

undetermined? it seems pretty clear cut to me. the law at the time was poorly worded and accidentally excluded mccain and others from being born with citizenship. because this was terribly stupid of them, congress fixed it a year after mccain was born and granted mccain and others citizenship. but they were not born as citizens, therefore they cannot be natural born citizens.

of course, nobody is going to touch this one at all, so it will occupy the same space as other clearly and obviously wrong things that are allowed to keep on existing, like god in the pledge and the defense of marriage act.

we have a really weird system.

we have a really weird system.
I concur.

Though the UK system isn't any less weird.

I concur.

Though the UK system isn't any less weird.

Of course the argument here is not really a systematic argument. It's one of semantics. If McCain had been born in Brazil, no one would dispute his natural born status. But because of a possible semantics issue and a clarifying law, all of a sudden there's a dispute.

Honestly, I'd say there was a much bigger problem with the system if he was declared non-natural born. "Sorry, McCain. If you'd been born anywhere else in the world, you'd be eligible. But since you were born in a tiny little patch of land that didn't fit into our particular semantic interpretation, you're screwed! "

of course, nobody is going to touch this one at all, so it will occupy the same space as other clearly and obviously wrong things that are allowed to keep on existing, like god in the pledge and the defense of marriage act.

Except the Columbus guys deliberately badgered presidents all the way up to Eisenhower before it was *added* to the pledge, and Bill Clinton himself signed... never mind. The system is only as weirdly bad as the idiots that comprise it.

I'll add Bush's existence to the list of wrong things.

but they were not born as citizens, therefore they cannot be natural born citizens.

But they still got citizenship by right of birth, not through naturalization.

It really depends on how the courts interpret "natural born citizen"--if the issue ever does come up.

Um, Hawaii is in America. So it means jack shit if both his parents were from Neptune, he's a US citizen.

Anyway, isn't this just code for "he's not a real American, because he's black"?

Um, Hawaii is in America. So it means jack shit if both his parents were from Neptune, he's a US citizen.

Anyway, isn't this just code for "he's not a real American, because he's black"?

No, it's code for "he's not a real American because he beat Hilary."

Americans best vote for McCain then, as he has pledged to defend the white power structure in America.

Someone sent me this in an email. There was no citation. I tend to take things like this with copious amounts of salt. Can anyone find a reliable source for this other than some random email. Or is it someone slandering a) Billary or b) Obama or c) both?


"Subject: Is Obama Legally Eligible to Serve as President?

SOME TIME AGO HILARY SAID SHE HAD SOMETHING ON OBAMA THAT WOULD CHANGE THE ELECTION AND THAT'S WHY SHE ONLY SUSPENDED HER QUEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY, WELL HERE IT IS.

This came from a USNA alumnus. It'll be interesting to see how the media handles this...

Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone .

US Law very clearly states: '. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia . This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think that Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days."
Two things that poke neat little holes in that argument.
1. He was born in Hawaii after it gained statehood, making the whole thing irrelevant. All the Constitution stipulates is that one must be a natural-born citizen. There is no federal law saying otherwise because that would be unconstitutional.
2. "Ann Dunham was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas" Last time I checked, Kansas was a state in 1942.

If any of this really mattered, they wouldn't have been nominated in the first place, and they wouldn't have been allowed to run.

Sheesh.

Of course the argument here is not really a systematic argument. It's one of semantics. If McCain had been born in Brazil, no one would dispute his natural born status. But because of a possible semantics issue and a clarifying law, all of a sudden there's a dispute.

the 'clarifying law' closed a hole. if this hole didn't exist, no clarification would have been necessary. but don't take my word for it, we can actually go see what congress said at the time (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/hr_751303.pdf).

and then we can check out the actual law itself (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/1937ACT.pdf), which very narrowly applies only to panama for precisely this reason.

But they still got citizenship by right of birth, not through naturalization.

hmm, i'm not sure about that. when mccain was born he was not an american citizen. he became one later by act of congress. it seems like a stretch to call that 'natural born'

If any of this really mattered, they wouldn't have been nominated in the first place, and they wouldn't have been allowed to run.

Sheesh.

If it didn't matter, there wouldn't have been discussion about it in the Senate, in April of this year, and a non-binding resolution wouldn't have been made on the issue.

Obviously, there is some conflict over the issue, and the Senate has decided to agree a kind of amnesty (at that level). But, of course, as I said - it's non-binding.

Although I agree with you in spirit - it really shouldn't matter. Anyone who has citizenship should be allowed to run for any office. Even president.

The rumor that Obama isn't really a natural born citizen is false, as has been pointed out Hawaii became a state two years before he was born there. So is the rumor that McCain doesn't qualfy because he was born in Panama. The PCZ was U.S. territory at the time, and if I'm not mistaken all U.S. millitary bases are considered U.S. territory. (if I'm wrong on that count, let me know)

hmm, i'm not sure about that. when mccain was born he was not an american citizen. he became one later by act of congress. it seems like a stretch to call that 'natural born'

Agreed. Even if a loophole was later plugged, to fix the status that newborns could claim - McCain was born before it. He was not 'natural-born, when he was born, and - surely - that's what matters?

The system is only as weirdly bad as the idiots that comprise it.

I'll add Bush's existence to the list of wrong things.


Wow, I can see that you have a very open mind there. True, our system isn't perfect, it has flaws. You obviously haven’t heard the saying, "Democracy isn't the best system, just the best one so far"

Mate, I will personally fight to the death to defend your right to your opinions. But the biggest problem with the system is people like you. People who see things the way they want to, and are totally oblivious to anything that contradicts their beliefs. Your slam of Bush is just evidence of that. True he's not perfect, but he's still the President.

Your probably thinking that I'm saying this just because I'm a Republican. just because I support McCain. You'd be off then on your thinking. I'm not a registered member of any party. I've voted for Democrats just as often as I have Republicans. But in the upcoming election, it's my personal belief that MCcain would make a better President. He has more experiance, more understanding of foreign affairs, and has plans such as off-shore drilling and building Nuclear plants that help all of us.

Given a few years to get his feet wet more and get more experiance, I think Obama could become a very good canidate to lead our country. But at the moment, between the two of them, McCain is just the better thing for our country.

Plus, even if he wanted to do half of the radical things people accuse him of, he'd have to go through Congress to do them. And Congress may I remind you is throughally democrat. Maybe what scares you isn't McCain himself, but that almost half of the Deomcrats in Congress are Conservative Deomracts. That Nancy Polosi had to bench Congress's vote on off-shore drilling until after the election because she knows it would pass if they voted now.

So seriously mate. I understand your veiwpoint, and respect it. I even probably share alot of values and beliefs with you. But your blindness to the political field, your narrow-mindedness to only what you want to see is the very thing that makes the system bad. That on your good true point, one of those,

idiots that comprise it(the system)

is none other than yourself. Open your eyes mate. If you look at all the data, all the opinions, everything and still believe the same thing, that's up to you. But if your going to firmly believe something, make sure that you know all the different sides of it.

If it didn't matter, there wouldn't have been discussion about it in the Senate, in April of this year, and a non-binding resolution wouldn't have been made on the issue.

Obviously, there is some conflict over the issue, and the Senate has decided to agree a kind of amnesty (at that level). But, of course, as I said - it's non-binding.

Although I agree with you in spirit - it really shouldn't matter. Anyone who has citizenship should be allowed to run for any office. Even president.

President Schwarzenegger?:eek:

President Schwarzenegger?:eek:

Hell, yeah. :)

(We know it's going to happen, anyway - it has been prophesised).

Hell, yeah. :)

(We know it's going to happen, anyway - it has been prophesised).

*runs for the Canadian border*

*runs for the Canadian border*

Can't be any worse than the last 8 years.

Right?

Right?

The PCZ was U.S. territory at the time, and if I'm not mistaken all U.S. millitary bases are considered U.S. territory. (if I'm wrong on that count, let me know)

nah, bases aren't u.s. territory. not even embassies are for the purposes of citizenship, iirc

nah, bases aren't u.s. territory. not even embassies are for the purposes of citizenship, iirc

But the Canal Zone was, so it should be irrelevant, I think. :confused:

Can't be any worse than the last 8 years.

Right?

Right?

Nothing could be worse than the last 8 years.

But the Canal Zone was, so it should be irrelevant, I think. :confused:

nope, hence the 1937 law that made mccain and others like him citizens. the previous law was from 1850 something or other, and hadn't even considered situations like what we did with panama.

nah, bases aren't u.s. territory. not even embassies are for the purposes of citizenship, iirc

Hey mate, I think you should read the info at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.+territories

It clearly states that, "land used as a military base is considered a form of territory."

But the Canal Zone was, so it should be irrelevant, I think. :confused:

There are territories and territories.

Until 98, I think, the Canal Zone was considered an 'unincorporated territory', which (apparently) is not the same as (some) other types of territory. The whole headache is tied in to "Insular Cases", also - which allow the Supreme Court to decide how Constitutional Law is applied to extraneous territories ( a precedent set in 1901, I believe - and a series of cases that are theoretically still being actively pursued, since the status of Guantanamo would theoretically come under this heading).

It's a thorny one - the Supreme Court may effectively trump the wording of the Constitution...

Nothing could be worse than the last 8 years.

Don't ever say that again.

I know what happens when people say "at least it's not raining", or "it's a miracle, I dropped the groceries and the eggs remain unbroken".

I don't want 8 more years, thank you very much.

There are territories and territories.

yeah - the difference between american samoa vs puerto rico, for example.

the 'clarifying law' closed a hole. if this hole didn't exist, no clarification would have been necessary. but don't take my word for it, we can actually go see what congress said at the time (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/hr_751303.pdf).

and then we can check out the actual law itself (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/1937ACT.pdf), which very narrowly applies only to panama for precisely this reason.

Um, did you actually read what that said? It said because the citizenship of children born in the canal zone to American citizens had never been adequately defined. That's the opposite of saying they were NOT citizens. They said it was unclear.

Aside from that, can you tell me when McCain went through the naturalization process? There are only TWO kinds of citizens. Those natural born (by right of birth) and those naturalized (by submitting themselves for citizenship). Guess which one McCain is?

Um, did you actually read what that said? It said because the citizenship of children born in the canal zone to American citizens had never been adequately defined. That's the opposite of saying they were NOT citizens. They said it was unclear.

Aside from that, can you tell me when McCain went through the naturalization process? There are only TWO kinds of citizens. Those natural born (by right of birth) and those naturalized (by submitting themselves for citizenship). Guess which one McCain is?

Naturalised, by the change in the status that occured almost a year after he was born?

Naturalised, by the change in the status that occured almost a year after he was born?

Dude, aren't you English? The definition of natural born and the purpose of that status comes from your law. I already showed you the definition at the time they used it. That you ignore, at some point, becomes your flaw. Do you really want to base your argument on that?

Um, did you actually read what that said?

did you?

"The necessity for this legislation is apparent because the citizenship of persons born in the Canal Zone of American parents has never been defined either by Constitution, treaty, or congressional enactment."

"Even children born within the limits of the Zone which is under the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens. These children...do not come within the statutes on citizenship..."

"The beneficiaries under the bill are the children...[who] are citizens in every sense except as a matter of law." (emphasis mine)

it wasn't 'unclear'. it was not there.

Dude, aren't you English? The definition of natural born and the purpose of that status comes from your law. I already showed you the definition at the time they used it. That you ignore, at some point, becomes your flaw. Do you really want to base your argument on that?

Oi oi! No more caffeine for you. :)

I don't see why you shouldn't change our law, you change all our spellings, and stuff. "Thru"? I ask you!

The argument isn't mine - I've seen it bouncing around online, although I admit I have discussed it on 'here'. It seems that the two camps can't really decide how it works out. Myself, I don't really mind how it works out, there are much bigger fights to be had in this election cycle, and it's frustrating me no end that the debate ('there', not 'here') seems to be devolving into 'flip-flopping' again - but it is interesting.

How the law gets applied, and how it applies from the English law, are probably (to be honest) way beyond my knowledge of the American legal system. It looks to me (as a layman) that they wouldn't have had to fix the status a year after McCain was born, if there was nothing broken. I also wonder exactly how much the Insular Cases affected what was previously (perhaps) quite a straightforward application of law. It seems like 'Insular Cases' law might well have been enough, on their own, to scupper any direct interpretation of citizenship law that preceded them.

As far as I can tell, Insular Cases (as I already mentioned) actually allow for things like 'different' application of the Constitution. Under those circumstances, it looks like sure bets would be out the window.

Oh, and Hi! Long time no see!

did you?

"The necessity for this legislation is apparent because the citizenship of persons born in the Canal Zone of American parents has never been defined either by Constitution, treaty, or congressional enactment."

"Even children born within the limits of the Zone which is under the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens. These children...do not come within the statutes on citizenship..."

"The beneficiaries under the bill are the children...[who] are citizens in every sense except as a matter of law." (emphasis mine)

it wasn't 'unclear'. it was not there.

You don't know what "never been defined" means? They said they'd not been defined as aliens. They'd not be defined at all. Everything you quoted demonstrated that they THOUGHT the law was unclear.

Fortunately, Congress doesn't interpret law. The definition of natural born was quite a extensively reviewed topic in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. And, of course, we adopted the same system they had and used their words, with their definitions. The idea of natural-born had a very important reason for it. It was related to the allegiance that those who are subject of a government owe to it. Since those serving overseas were expected to show allegiance to the government, their children have been natural born citizens not SINCE the inception of our government, but before it was even conceived.

Hey mate, I think you should read the info at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.+territories

It clearly states that, "land used as a military base is considered a form of territory."

and you should read this document from the state department (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf), which says "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth. "

You don't know what "never been defined" means? They said they'd not been defined as aliens. They'd not be defined at all.

a question. before the usia passed a law defining how to get citizenship, was everybody in the world a citizen?

Oi oi! No more caffeine for you. :)

I don't see why you shouldn't change our law, you change all our spellings, and stuff. "Thru"? I ask you!

The argument isn't mine - I've seen it bouncing around online, although I admit I have discussed it on 'here'. It seems that the two camps can't really decide how it works out. Myself, I don't really mind how it works out, there are much bigger fights to be had in this election cycle, and it's frustrating me no end that the debate ('there', not 'here') seems to be devolving into 'flip-flopping' again - but it is interesting.

How the law gets applied, and how it applies from the English law, are probably (to be honest) way beyond my knowledge of the American legal system. It looks to me (as a layman) that they wouldn't have had to fix the status a year after McCain was born, if there was nothing broken. I also wonder exactly how much the Insular Cases affected what was previously (perhaps) quite a straightforward application of law. It seems like 'Insular Cases' law might well have been enough, on their own, to scupper any direct interpretation of citizenship law that preceded them.

As far as I can tell, Insular Cases (as I already mentioned) actually allow for things like 'different' application of the Constitution. Under those circumstances, it looks like sure bets would be out the window.

Oh, and Hi! Long time no see!

As you well know, Congress is involved in POLITICS, not interpretation of the law.

CONGRESS believed at one time that seperate but equal represented equal rights. CONGRESS believed at one time that we are not required to give full faith and credit to the licenses of other states. Oh, wait, that's now.

CONGRESS is not a reliable metric for constitutionality. Regardless, they said clearly that the status was not defined. Obviously, they believed that the status was unclear.

Worse and even more silly is that by being retroactive, it reaches back to the birth of McCain. He is a citizen by right of birth by about eight different ways of looking at. One pretty much has to ignore the intent of natural born, the treatment of children of citizens since the beginning of the country, and just the very purpose of law.

It's patently silly to suggest by becoming MORE of a part of the US would suddenly confer LESS rights to those born there. How such an argument can even be made with a straight face is beyond me.

a question. before the usia passed a law defining how to get citizenship, was everybody in the world a citizen?

Actually, before they passed a law on who was and who wasn't a citizen, there was no US. Interesting that, no?

Actually, before they passed a law on who was and who wasn't a citizen, there was no US. Interesting that, no?

i don't believe you. demonstrate this.

edit: my more general point is that being a citizen is a positive action rather than a default. until you are defined as having citizenship, you are not a citizen.

Sounds like it has about as much fact as the email telling me i had Inherited the Nigerian Prince's Fortune...

You too! Ok, I don't think I received one of those (tempting :rolleyes:) email offers, but boy have I heard of them.

I would think that Obama would've known his status before starting the race... for example, I know I am not eligible to be elected to the office of President of the United States, I won't be eligible until the 2024 election (age disqualification, of course), but I know my status, and I'm not running, you'd think someone who is running would have the 'for sure' status on hand.

Also... if this were true... why wouldn't someone have brought it up before... I bet it would've helped Hillary's campaign if Obama could not have run against her. Oh right, she's keeping it a secret for no reason....

As you well know, Congress is involved in POLITICS, not interpretation of the law.

CONGRESS believed at one time that seperate but equal represented equal rights. CONGRESS believed at one time that we are not required to give full faith and credit to the licenses of other states. Oh, wait, that's now.

CONGRESS is not a reliable metric for constitutionality. Regardless, they said clearly that the status was not defined. Obviously, they believed that the status was unclear.

Worse and even more silly is that by being retroactive, it reaches back to the birth of McCain. He is a citizen by right of birth by about eight different ways of looking at. One pretty much has to ignore the intent of natural born, the treatment of children of citizens since the beginning of the country, and just the very purpose of law.

It's patently silly to suggest by becoming MORE of a part of the US would suddenly confer LESS rights to those born there. How such an argument can even be made with a straight face is beyond me.

Congress is involved with politics, agreed. However....

The Insular Cases (1901, etc) set a precedent for territories, to whit - in territories, the Supreme Court is the deciding power on how such things as Constitutionality apply.

McCain falls in an unhappy place - post Insular Cases (well, post-up-until-the-1922-one, anyway - obviously pre-the-2008-one), but pre -amendment to change the recognised status of the PCZ.

The argument that the amendment is retroactive is, thus, probably the only one that really covers McCain, if it can be shown to be retroactive. I'm not sure that's been shown.

Regardless - the Senate thought it was an interesting enough loophole to discuss it in April of this year, and their general consensus was that it wasn't an issue. On the other hand - they didn't actually say that he WAS covered, either - and the main argument seems to come down to whether or not the original wording is read as letter of the law, or spirit.

Nothing could be worse than the last 8 years.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Novice.

the 'clarifying law' closed a hole. if this hole didn't exist, no clarification would have been necessary.

...unless of course there are multiple ways to look at the wording. That's usually what "poorly worded" means - that the intent of the law either wasn't clear or that it actually did something other than intended.

And the fact remains that, regardless of what was or is decided about the original law, we're talking about a semantic issue.

If I say "I like ice cream, bananas, and chocolate" does that mean that I only like banana splits? Or do I enjoy all three things separately?

but don't take my word for it, we can actually go see what congress said at the time (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/hr_751303.pdf).

You do realize that even your link states that the purpose of the bill is to clear up doubt as to how the law applied to these people? There are multiple instances of them mentioning that the status of these citizens was in doubt. So it certainly wasn't clear at all to them what the prevailing law of the time said either. Hence the need for clarification.

And it also makes it rather clear that the intent behind the law was to ensure that these citizens would be treated no differently than those born in a US territory.

If I say "I like ice cream, bananas, and chocolate" does that mean that I only like banana splits? Or do I enjoy all three things separately?


Most of the time, it wouldn't matter. :)

But, what if, for one situation - it did?

Damn, the far-rights do love their unsolicited emails.
You mean, it just might fit in perfectly with their ability to scream loud and long about things they neither know anything about nor have any intention of taking responsibility for yelling?

You do realize that even your link states that the purpose of the bill is to clear up doubt as to how the law applied to these people?

actually, it says that the purpose is to 'confer' citizenship on people. you cannot confer that which is already possessed.

did you?

"The necessity for this legislation is apparent because the citizenship of persons born in the Canal Zone of American parents has never been defined either by Constitution, treaty, or congressional enactment."

"Even children born within the limits of the Zone which is under the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens. These children...do not come within the statutes on citizenship..."

"The beneficiaries under the bill are the children...[who] are citizens in every sense except as a matter of law." (emphasis mine)

it wasn't 'unclear'. it was not there.

"The primary purpose of the bill is to remove doubt as to the applicability of section 6, title 8, to persons born in the Canal Zone..."

"The precise political status of the Canal Zone has not been authoratitively determined..."

"there is doubt that any of the persons described in the bill are citizens of the United States under the Constitution or any existing statutes..."

It was apparently unclear to some of the authors in your link.


Most of the time, it wouldn't matter.

But, what if, for one situation - it did?

Unless you had me right there to ask, I suppose you'd just have to make your best guess as to what I meant, wouldn't you?

i don't believe you. demonstrate this.

edit: my more general point is that being a citizen is a positive action rather than a default. until you are defined as having citizenship, you are not a citizen.

I have to demonstrate that before the formation of the US, which included a definition of its members, there was no US? Wow, when weak arguments get desperate, tonight at 10.

You either are or aren't a citizen. They said it was undefined. That's saying there was no clear answer. You can ignore that if you like, but ignoring the evidence doesn't bolster your argument.

Congress is involved with politics, agreed. However....

The Insular Cases (1901, etc) set a precedent for territories, to whit - in territories, the Supreme Court is the deciding power on how such things as Constitutionality apply.

McCain falls in an unhappy place - post Insular Cases (well, post-up-until-the-1922-one, anyway - obviously pre-the-2008-one), but pre -amendment to change the recognised status of the PCZ.

The argument that the amendment is retroactive is, thus, probably the only one that really covers McCain, if it can be shown to be retroactive. I'm not sure that's been shown.

Regardless - the Senate thought it was an interesting enough loophole to discuss it in April of this year, and their general consensus was that it wasn't an issue. On the other hand - they didn't actually say that he WAS covered, either - and the main argument seems to come down to whether or not the original wording is read as letter of the law, or spirit.

Fortunately, the Congress cannot alter Constitutional law without passing an amendment. As such, you can cite them as much as you like, but it does nothing for the argument.

The fact is that everywhere in the world prior to the existence of the PCZ the children of those serving overseas, even before the US existed, were citizens. You're arguing that with the creation of the PCZ suddenly that changed, and the meaning of the Constitution changed. It's possible, but the burden is on you. Congress doesn't satisfy that burden. The rulings of the SCOTUS might, but you don't have them. Overall the majority rulings of the SCOTUS have supported my argument.

There may have been magic zones where the law that existed since the 18th century was suspended, but you've not demonstrated as much as of yet.

and you should read this document from the state department (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf), which says "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth. "

Thank you very much for showing me that mate. :) I'm man enough to admit that I was wrong, according to your info. However, that still does not affect McCain, as your documentation was not put into effect until 1995. Even then, the bases being American military bases, there's a high probability that both of the parents would be US citizens, thus entitling the child to citizenship as well. What this does say though is that a foreign national cannot have a baby on a US military base and have the baby automaticly become a citizen

Nothing could be worse than the last 8 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

With Nigeria spelled wrong. And prince. And fortune.

somebody likes RvB......lol

Oi oi! No more caffeine for you. :)

I don't see why you shouldn't change our law, you change all our spellings, and stuff. "Thru"? I ask you!

Through. Thru is what is put on signs like "Drive-Thru" or "Thruway" to save space, and is not (or should not) be used in formal writing.

As for the extraneous 'u' in colour, neighbour, et al, I throw it away with riotous abandon.

I have to demonstrate that before the formation of the US, which included a definition of its members, there was no US? Wow, when weak arguments get desperate, tonight at 10.

no, i mean the united states was formed by the ratification of the constitution (or the articles, if we want to go back a bit more), and the original constitution doesn't define citizenship. thus, until congress got around to passing some laws, people in brazil were of undefined status and therefore, by your reasoning, citizens.

You either are or aren't a citizen. They said it was undefined. That's saying there was no clear answer. You can ignore that if you like, but ignoring the evidence doesn't bolster your argument.

if you either are or you are not, and you are not defined as one, then you are not a citizen. the law specified who was born a citizen, not who was not. by your own claim, there is no such status as 'undefined'. the status of those born in panama was not included in the earlier definition of citizen. thus, by straight deduction, they were excluded from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

What Bush has done to the Constitution is worse.

of course, nobody is going to touch this one at all, so it will occupy the same space as other clearly and obviously wrong things that are allowed to keep on existing, like god in the pledge and the defense of marriage act.

The reason that God is in the pledge is simple, this nation was founded by Christians, thus the "In God We Trust" on our money. The reason it still is in the pledge is because there are as Obama said "Bitter people who cling to their guns and religion".

On a second note to all of you who say Obama isn't a Muslim its simple, when he was a child in Indonesia he went to an Islamic School, not only that he took classes where the child learns to read the Quran in its original language. This class is restricted to only true Muslims and when he denied the accusation he betrayed the Islamic faith. In Islamic terms Apostasy is rewarded with Death so theres a problem here.

In terms of his politics, I live in Illinois ( his "home" state) and am still waiting to see just one thing he promised us. So never believe his promises because he wont fulfill them.

If it didn't matter, there wouldn't have been discussion about it in the Senate, in April of this year, and a non-binding resolution wouldn't have been made on the issue.

Obviously, there is some conflict over the issue, and the Senate has decided to agree a kind of amnesty (at that level). But, of course, as I said - it's non-binding.

Although I agree with you in spirit - it really shouldn't matter. Anyone who has citizenship should be allowed to run for any office. Even president.

There are more important issues to consider when selecting a President.

Fortunately, the Congress cannot alter Constitutional law without passing an amendment. As such, you can cite them as much as you like, but it does nothing for the argument.

The fact is that everywhere in the world prior to the existence of the PCZ the children of those serving overseas, even before the US existed, were citizens. You're arguing that with the creation of the PCZ suddenly that changed, and the meaning of the Constitution changed. It's possible, but the burden is on you. Congress doesn't satisfy that burden. The rulings of the SCOTUS might, but you don't have them. Overall the majority rulings of the SCOTUS have supported my argument.

There may have been magic zones where the law that existed since the 18th century was suspended, but you've not demonstrated as much as of yet.

I believe the argument here is that the "and" is all inclusive. There was a law that covered the children of US citizens born abroad, but it applied outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. The argument was that the PCZ was outside the limits (ie. not an incorporated territory, state, etc.), but not outside the jurisdiction. As such, they claim it wasn't covered because both conditions were not met.

Of course, this is a semantics argument, and those are pretty much always on shaky ground. One could just as easily read that as meaning either condition would suffice. And, as FS's link shows, even those who passed the law clarifying the status of those born in the PCZ weren't certain on whether or not they were already covered.


The reason that God is in the pledge is simple, this nation was founded by Christians,

..except it wasn't.

thus the "In God We Trust" on our money.

And this wasn't added by the founders. The first instances of it were seen around the Civil War era and it wasn't officially adopted until the 1950's.

The reason it still is in the pledge is because there are as Obama said "Bitter people who cling to their guns and religion".

On a second note to all of you who say Obama isn't a Muslim its simple, when he was a child in Indonesia he went to an Islamic School, not only that he took classes where the child learns to read the Quran in its original language.

He went to an Indonesian public school, which meant that it was Muslim-affiliated.

He also went to a Catholic school while he was there. Does that make him Catholic.

This class is restricted to only true Muslims and when he denied the accusation he betrayed the Islamic faith. In Islamic terms Apostasy is rewarded with Death so theres a problem here.

It is? You've attended the school he went to in Indonesia?

Well while that email is false Obama still is a terrible choice for president, though McCain is not much better. He is so inexperienced that he is essentially a puppet, and I have never heard him take a solid position on anything. He wants to tax the hell out of everyone and everything. He is opposed to FTA (Fair Trade Agreements), which open new markets for businesses to sell their prodeucts. Another problem is that opposing FTA's with Columbia and South Korea who are very close allies, could hurt our economy. What Obama wants to do is increase US protectionism which will futher slow economic growth and cause more layoffs and general job loss.

Now, I do respect Obama, I respect the fact that he is a black man running for president and that he is jumping over all sorts of barriers to do so. What I have a problem with is many of his policies. I also have a problem with his recent trip, (which had no real point) and all the news coverage it got. Did you know that it was headline news that Obama said "shotgun" when getting into a car. It was like he was the president. I also dont undersatnd his campaign speach to the germans, last time I checked they couldnt vote in our election. (Well I understand why he did it but it really is not as important or historic as it was portrayed).

[QUOTE=Sehr Ubermensch;13880652]The reason that God is in the pledge is simple, this nation was founded by Christians, thus the "In God We Trust" on our money. The reason it still is in the pledge is because there are as Obama said "Bitter people who cling to their guns and religion".

Actually "god" was added into the pledge during the cold war. So we would be a more moral nation than our godless red enemy

Obama was born a Muslim because his mother was one, he converted to catholicism later.

Obama was born a Muslim because his mother was one, he converted to catholicism later.

Wow. There isn't a single correct statement in there.

Obama's mother was not Muslim, and he's never been Catholic. Whoopsie!

He is opposed to FTA (Fair Trade Agreements), which open new markets for businesses to sell their prodeucts.

Actually, he isn't opposed to fair trade agreements. What he is opposed to are free trade agreements that don't include stipulations to ensure fair trade.

[\
"Bitter people who cling to their guns and religion".
[/QUOTE]

What the hell man, why do politicians always have to bash guns and their owners. It really pisses me off, I own three and not only are my guns perfectly safe, AND I dont really care whether or not "God" is on our money or in the pledge. On top of that I am a conservative republican and "God" can kiss my ass.

Wow. There isn't a single correct statement in there.

Obama's mother was not Muslim, and he's never been Catholic. Whoopsie!

I miss spoke when I wrote catholicism, but you are right I am wrong, i just looked it up.

Actually, he isn't opposed to fair trade agreements. What he is opposed to are free trade agreements that don't include stipulations to ensure fair trade.

He IS opposed to FTA's with S Korea and Columbia, both of whom buy a lot of our food products.

If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii before 1959 he would not be a an eligible candidate however he was born in 1961 so he is a natural born US citizen.

There are more important issues to consider when selecting a President.

More important that... whether they're legally allowed to run...

???

Through. Thru is what is put on signs like "Drive-Thru" or "Thruway" to save space, and is not (or should not) be used in formal writing.

As for the extraneous 'u' in colour, neighbour, et al, I throw it away with riotous abandon.

Hey, we NEED those extra letters. That's why we're all so good at Scrabble... :D

Fortunately, the Congress cannot alter Constitutional law without passing an amendment. As such, you can cite them as much as you like, but it does nothing for the argument.


I wasn't actually talking about Congress, my friend... I only referred to them in an aside as a response to yours.


The fact is that everywhere in the world prior to the existence of the PCZ the children of those serving overseas, even before the US existed, were citizens. You're arguing that with the creation of the PCZ suddenly that changed,


No, not at all. I'm arguing that the Insular Cases changed the situation.


...and the meaning of the Constitution changed.


Not the meaning of the Constitution, only how it is applied to Insular Cases.


It's possible, but the burden is on you. Congress doesn't satisfy that burden.


I wasn't citing Congress as evidence.

I can find you a list of most of the rulings that are considered 'Insular Cases', if that'll help.


DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901)
Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901)
Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901)
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
Huus v. New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901)
Dooley v. United States, 183 U.S. 151 (1901)
Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176 (1901)

Those are the formal 'Insular Cases'.

These are the other cases often termed as within the same remit:

Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)
Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904)
Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904)
Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905)
Dowdell v. United States, 221 U.S. 325 (1911)
Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91 (1914)
Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)

And the following Guantanamo case:

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008)


The rulings of the SCOTUS might, but you don't have them. Overall the majority rulings of the SCOTUS have supported my argument.

There may have been magic zones where the law that existed since the 18th century was suspended, but you've not demonstrated as much as of yet.

There is a difference occuring, though - centred around the first Insular Case in 1901. It's to do with those (usually? non-contiguous territories), and was a response to claims of Imperialism.

More important that... whether they're legally allowed to run...

???

I'm just glad we didn't have to choose between two former members of the Skull & Bones Fraternity.

I really wish we had other choices both McCain and Obama are going to fly America into the ground

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Novice.

:upyours: If you have an arguement, then ffs make one. Don't just act like some grade school bully.

What the hell man, why do politicians always have to bash guns and their owners.

If that's really what you get out of that quote, you've missed the point.

He IS opposed to FTA's with S Korea and Columbia, both of whom buy a lot of our food products.

Being opposed to specific trade agreements (for instance, if they do not contain the fair trade stipulations he's looking for) does not equate to being opposed to them in general.


No, not at all. I'm arguing that the Insular Cases changed the situation.

None of the Insular cases directly dealt with citizenship. Several dealt with issues like tarrifs. A few dealt with Constitutional rights, but as far as I can tell none of those involved someone from the continental US traveling or stationed abroad and coming back to the US. They all either dealt with tarrifs or the application of the law within the territories in question.

Reading through the summaries, it would seem that, in the end, territories were categorized either as incorporated or unincorporated. Incorporated territories were more strongly bound by the Constitution than unincorporated - in that unincorporated territories could pass laws, carry out judicial proceedings, etc. that would not be allowed within a US state.

None of the Insular cases directly dealt with citizenship. Several dealt with issues like tarrifs. A few dealt with Constitutional rights, but as far as I can tell none of those involved someone from the continental US traveling or stationed abroad and coming back to the US. They all either dealt with tarrifs or the application of the law within the territories in question.

Reading through the summaries, it would seem that, in the end, territories were categorized either as incorporated or unincorporated. Incorporated territories were more strongly bound by the Constitution than unincorporated - in that unincorporated territories could pass laws, carry out judicial proceedings, etc. that would not be allowed within a US state.

From what I can gather, the real punch that Insular Cases deliver, is that they allow for territories to be allocated Constitutional rights differently. And - of course - that the administration of this 'difference' is the Supreme Court.

So - you really can be left with a gray area - in this case, it's possible to see why they felt a NEED to amend the rules to concretise the citizenship status. And the problem, then - is that, given that, what does it mean for those born in that territory, but before the amendment. Can we assume retroactivity? IS it implicit, and thus arguable - or explicit, and thus less so?

From what I've read, the PCZ was operated as an unincorporated territory - with all the headaches that go with that.

From what I can gather, the real punch that Insular Cases deliver, is that they allow for territories to be allocated Constitutional rights differently. And - of course - that the administration of this 'difference' is the Supreme Court.

This is sort of true. I think it would be more correct to say that it limited the government differently. Unincorporated territories were not considered to be fully part of the United States. As such, the government (state and federal) could treat them differently (ie. by leveraging tariffs). By that same token, the governments of these areas were not as strongly bound by Constitutional limitations - they could, for instance, hold trials without the defendant having access to a jury.

But this issue isn't one of Constitutional application. The Constitution limits the US government in how it can treat citizens - both natural and naturalized. The exact manner in which one becomes a citizen - natural born or naturalized - is a matter of statute.

So - you really can be left with a gray area - in this case, it's possible to see why they felt a NEED to amend the rules to concretise the citizenship status.

Again, though, this isn't a grey area in terms of the Constitution. It is a grey area in terms of the statute. There were two possible ways to read it.

And the problem, then - is that, given that, what does it mean for those born in that territory, but before the amendment. Can we assume retroactivity? IS it implicit, and thus arguable - or explicit, and thus less so?

The law doesn't explicitly contain the term retroactive, which leaves it up to a matter of interpretation. But given the inherent retroactive nature of the law (ie that it states an effect stretching back to the establishment of the PCZ) and the justifications given by lawmakers, I think a very strong argument could be made that retroactivity was the intent. And I'm pretty sure that, under a direct challenge, the courts would uphold that argument.

From what I've read, the PCZ was operated as an unincorporated territory - with all the headaches that go with that.

Not from what I can tell. An unincorporated territory was still within the limits of the US. The argument here is that the PCZ was not within the limits, but was within the jurisdiction - that it was a new situation that had not previously been encountered. The PCZ was never US territory - it was always a part of Panama. We just had control over it temporarily.

Not from what I can tell. An unincorporated territory was still within the limits of the US. The argument here is that the PCZ was not within the limits, but was within the jurisdiction - that it was a new situation that had not previously been encountered. The PCZ was never US territory - it was always a part of Panama. We just had control over it temporarily.

i hate to jump into the end of this but since you have been looking it up...

what is the rule on people born on US military bases in foreign countries to US citizens serving at those bases at that time?

i hate to jump into the end of this but since you have been looking it up...

what is the rule on people born on US military bases in foreign countries to US citizens serving at those bases at that time?

I haven't looked that up specifically yet, but I do have several friends and family members born that way. It is my understanding that they are natural-born US citizens.

I think just having parents that are US citizens will do it, though, unless the parent has been out of the country for too long. One of the interesting things about the McCain argument is that, if his parents had been on vacation in Brazil when he was born, there would be no question whatsoever as to his natural-born status.

Sometimes, the other country offers them dual citizenship until they are adults. My mother, for instance, was technically considered a German citizen (according to Germany - the US didn't recognize it) until she was either 18 or 21 (don't remember which). At that point, in order to keep it, she would have had to move the Germany and given up US citizenship.

*goes to look up specific rules*

I haven't looked that up specifically yet, but I do have several friends and family members born that way. It is my understanding that they are natural-born US citizens.

I think just having parents that are US citizens will do it, though, unless the parent has been out of the country for too long. One of the interesting things about the McCain argument is that, if his parents had been on vacation in Brazil when he was born, there would be no question whatsoever as to his natural-born status.

Sometimes, the other country offers them dual citizenship until they are adults. My mother, for instance, was technically considered a German citizen (according to Germany - the US didn't recognize it) until she was either 18 or 21 (don't remember which). At that point, in order to keep it, she would have had to move the Germany and given up US citizenship.

*goes to look up specific rules*
thanks.

it all seems like something that if the supreme court ever had to decide, it would be decided that the person (mccain) is a natural born citizen.

but i can see where it might have to be formally decided.

Google is clogged right now with people looking up stuff for McCain, but I think this is relevant:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

Basically, if you're born outside the US but at least one of your parents is a US citizen, you are as well.

thanks.

it all seems like something that if the supreme court ever had to decide, it would be decided that the person (mccain) is a natural born citizen.

but i can see where it might have to be formally decided.

Yeah. That would be a little difficult, though. Someone with standing has to put in a case to challenge it.

But I suspect that, if the case did get the Supreme Court, they would rule that the law pertaining to the PCZ applied retroactively. If the document I linked above is accurate, natural born status can be conferred by a retroactive law. And as I said to Grave, I think the evidence is there to argue that the intent of the lawmakers was that it be retroactive. Unless there is specific debate of that question on record and it was voted down, I'm pretty sure the courts would rule that it did apply that way.

Someone with standing...


Does anyone know what that actually means?

It seems like another of those gray areas that can be stretched as far as needed to achieve a desired end.

Does anyone know what that actually means?

It seems like another of those gray areas that can be stretched as far as needed to achieve a desired end.

As a general rule, it means someone who can either show that they have been harmed or that they would almost certainly be harmed. I'm not sure what it means here. When challenging a law, it's someone who is harmed by the application of the law. In the matter of eligibility for elected office? I'm not certain. In the narrowest sense, I suppose it would mean that only an opponent could bring the challenge and have standing.

You are right, though, in that it is a tricky area in general. I think the courts sometimes use standing issues to get out of answering a politically tricky question.

Does anyone know what that actually means?

It seems like another of those gray areas that can be stretched as far as needed to achieve a desired end.
seems to me that in the case of the presidency it could be any citizen of the US.

or at least his opponents both in the general election and in the primaries.

seems to me that in the case of the presidency it could be any citizen of the US.

or at least his opponents both in the general election and in the primaries.

Or, if you wanted a real political coup, I suppose they could wait until after the election. Then, if McCain was elected, his VP could challenge his eligibility......

But can you imagine the kind of approval ratings someone willing to do that would have?

As a general rule, it means someone who can either show that they have been harmed or that they would almost certainly be harmed. I'm not sure what it means here. When challenging a law, it's someone who is harmed by the application of the law. In the matter of eligibility for elected office? I'm not certain. In the narrowest sense, I suppose it would mean that only an opponent could bring the challenge and have standing.

You are right, though, in that it is a tricky area in general. I think the courts sometimes use standing issues to get out of answering a politically tricky question.

Are you sure it's about "harm" and not about "interest"? :confused:

"Harm" seems to be a strange qualifier to go by.

Are you sure it's about "harm" and not about "interest"? :confused:

"Harm" seems to be a strange qualifier to go by.

Hmmmm.....you may be right.

*is not a lawyer*

It's been described to me as "harm", and that usually is the case in a challenge to a law (ie. you would be the one who got arrested, etc.).

Actually, maybe it has more to do with the difference between criminal issues and civil ones.

No, I really don't know. It's something like that. LOL

Or, if you wanted a real political coup, I suppose they could wait until after the election. Then, if McCain was elected, his VP could challenge his eligibility......

But can you imagine the kind of approval ratings someone willing to do that would have?

Not necessarily bad... maybe. If a far more conservative VP rode McCain to an election victory, and then pulled the proverbial rug from under him AND it followed through... the conservative fringe might be quite pleased at the coup of letting a 'moderate' (heh) do the heavy lifting.

Pulling that stunt would be an obvious attempt to hijack democracy, and would surely get shot down by the opposision and the Supreme Court. I personally would no more recognize the legitimacy of such a President than if Osama Bin Laden ran in disguise (well not that bad, but you get the idea).

Pulling that stunt would be an obvious attempt to hijack democracy, and would surely get shot down by the opposision and the Supreme Court.

The same conservative Supreme Court that upheld Dubya's selection in the first place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Romulan Republic
Pulling that stunt would be an obvious attempt to hijack democracy, and would surely get shot down by the opposision and the Supreme Court.

The same conservative Supreme Court that upheld Dubya's selection in the first place?

If the Supreme Court were to have had a Liberal majority Al Gore would have gotten away with stealing the election as he tried to do.

On election night as the election was close in Florida. Al Gore was on his way to concede the election then changed his mind. And contested the election results. President Bill Clinton is said to have remarked, why is the election in Florida so close, it wasnt supposed to be.

Thank us Cuban Americans for President George Bush, remember Elian Gonzalez. Al Gore asked President Clinton to help us in the case. President Clinton betrayed us all the way. Al Gore paid the price on election night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Romulan Republic
Pulling that stunt would be an obvious attempt to hijack democracy, and would surely get shot down by the opposision and the Supreme Court.



If the Supreme Court were to have had a Liberal majority Al Gore would have gotten away with stealing the election as he tried to do.

On election night as the election was close in Florida. Al Gore was on his way to concede the election then changed his mind. And contested the election results. President Bill Clinton is said to have remarked, why is the election in Florida so close, it wasnt supposed to be.

Thank us Cuban Americans for President George Bush, remember Elian Gonzalez. Al Gore asked President Clinton to help us in the case. President Clinton betrayed us all the way. Al Gore paid the price on election night.

Hey, only a few hundred thousand dead. Way to teach ol' Clinton a lesson.

Hey, only a few hundred thousand dead. Way to teach ol' Clinton a lesson.

Don't forget a billion dollar surplus turned into a trillion dollar deficit, 9-11 slipping under My Pet Goat's nose, Bin Ladin still at large, decrease in world opinion, Iraq destabilized into a sectarian shitfest, Iran emerging from a deadlock into a relatively uncontested Middle East power, the Taliban rebounding from near complete defeat, suppression of liberties of American citizens and foreign civilians, and so on and so forth.

That really showed Slick Willy.

Originally Posted by Jocabia
Hey, only a few hundred thousand dead. Way to teach ol' Clinton a lesson.

Don't forget a billion dollar surplus turned into a trillion dollar deficit, 9-11 slipping under My Pet Goat's nose, Bin Ladin still at large, decrease in world opinion, Iraq destabilized into a sectarian shitfest, Iran emerging from a deadlock into a relatively uncontested Middle East power, the Taliban rebounding from near complete defeat, and so on and so forth.

That really showed Slick Willy.

Did President Clinton use the Social Security trust fund to help balance the budget? Serious question not a charge.

If President Clinton had helped us Cuban Americans with Elian Gonzalez. As Al Gore asked him too. Many Cuban Americans would have voted for Al Gore, no amount of cheating by the Republicans would have overcome the extra pro Gore votes by Cuban Americans.

Perhaps he thought betraying Cuban Americans as an anti immigration issue would win the state of Florida for the Democrats, that would explain his remark, Why was the election in Florida so close, it wasnt supposed to be.

We were so mad of his appeasement of Fidel at every turn, hiding behind Janet Reno. Al Gore paid the price on election night. Blame your hero Slick Willy Bill Clinton.

My last post on this subject.

Did President Clinton use the Social Security trust fund to help balance the budget? Serious question not a charge.

If President Clinton had helped us Cuban Americans with Elian Gonzalez. As Al Gore asked him too. Many Cuban Americans would have voted for Al Gore, no amount of cheating by the Republicans would have overcome the extra pro Gore votes by Cuban Americans.

Perhaps he thought betraying Cuban Americans as an anti immigration issue would win the state of Florida for the Democrats, that would explain his remark, Why was the election in Florida so close, it wasnt supposed to be.

We were so mad of his appeasement of Fidel at every turn, hiding behind Janet Reno. Al Gore paid the price on election night. Blame your hero Slick Willy Bill Clinton.

My last post on this subject.

You don't represent the entire Cuban American community any more than Al Qaeda represents Muslims or Fred Phelps represents Christians. I seriously doubt each and every Cuban American decided that dooming the United States to 8 years of Bushevism and its accompanying disasters was worth the supposed spite to Clinton because he wouldn't help the Exiles stick it to Castro with Elian (as if Fidel would have given a shit really, why else would he let the rafters go to Florida in the first place?). If anything, without Obama it would have given Hillary a chance to take the White House.

Did President Clinton use the Social Security trust fund to help balance the budget? Serious question not a charge.

If President Clinton had helped us Cuban Americans with Elian Gonzalez. As Al Gore asked him too. Many Cuban Americans would have voted for Al Gore, no amount of cheating by the Republicans would have overcome the extra pro Gore votes by Cuban Americans.

Perhaps he thought betraying Cuban Americans as an anti immigration issue would win the state of Florida for the Democrats, that would explain his remark, Why was the election in Florida so close, it wasnt supposed to be.

We were so mad of his appeasement of Fidel at every turn, hiding behind Janet Reno. Al Gore paid the price on election night. Blame your hero Slick Willy Bill Clinton.

My last post on this subject.

Bill Clinton certainly isn't my hero. There were tons of things wrong with him and personally I don't think he should have been President.

However, that has NOTHING to do with Gore (who supported your case even by your own admission) and NOTHING to do with Bush.

You proudly handed the reins over to one of the worst Presidents in history and you excuse by admitting you were being petty. Congrats. Your mother must be so proud.

Pulling that stunt would be an obvious attempt to hijack democracy, and would surely get shot down by the opposision and the Supreme Court.

The "opposition" has repeatedly shown it will roll over and play dead when elections are stolen.
I personally would no more recognize the legitimacy of such a President than if Osama Bin Laden ran in disguise (well not that bad, but you get the idea).I personally have never recognized the legitimacy of Dubya, but my withholding of recognition has had, shall we say, less than enormous impact on the course of events.

Bill Clinton certainly isn't my hero. There were tons of things wrong with him and personally I don't think he should have been President.

However, that has NOTHING to do with Gore (who supported your case even by your own admission) and NOTHING to do with Bush.

You proudly handed the reins over to one of the worst Presidents in history and you excuse by admitting you were being petty. Congrats. Your mother must be so proud.

pwned.