McCain's Ineligibility for the US Presidency

Well, in terms of strict legal analysis, there is a distinction to be drawn between the class of citizens as defined in the constitution, and citizens as created by statute. A statutory enactment cannot overrule the constitution. So an act which designates the inhabitants of an overseas territory as an American Citizen, does not necessarily confer rights which are prescribed in the constitution.

This is essentially a technical issue.

My own view is that on strict constructionist terms, there are real issues as to whether McCain was properly eligible.

On the other hand, I regard the point as entirely moot. There is no way a Supreme Court dominated by such personalities as Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas would do anything but rule politically.


I wouldn't expect Ginzberg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagen to be any more apolitical. It is the name of the game. That aside I doubt any USSC to give any but the most broad definition to "natural born citizen" to anyone elected POUS. Too much potential for chaos and it would allow to many questions about the legitimacy of whoever would become POUS. In the very unlikely event he would be declared ineligible my guess is that Sarah Palin would become POUS as she was vice president elect and there is no question about whether she is a natural born citizen.
 
That's actually what they put on the license plates in D.C.

Ah, I keep forgetting about the DC wall that keeps the DC-er's from moving 10 miles to Maryland or any of the 48 other good states. (let's be real no one in their right mind wants to move to Alaska.)
 
A literalistic "strict constructionist" interpretation of the phrase is nonsensical, as it would make ineligible every President from Washington to Jackson. They were all born British subjects in British colonies.
 
I wouldn't expect Ginzberg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagen to be any more apolitical. It is the name of the game.

No, it is not the name of the game. A Justice on the Supreme Court has a sworn duty to the nation and to the constitution, and it is a travesty that certain judges have chosen to meddle in partisan politics and misuse their office.

This is not an 'everyone does it, so its okay' sort of thing. There are standards, there are ethics, and there is honour. Certain Judges on the Supreme Court are simply not bothered by this. I can't overlook it and I won't respect it.
 
A literalistic "strict constructionist" interpretation of the phrase is nonsensical, as it would make ineligible every President from Washington to Jackson. They were all born British subjects in British colonies.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Relevant aspect being the second part.
 
On McCain, this was a matter of furious controversy at the time, which got so heated that the US Senate had to step in and affirm McCain's right to run. For all the hypocritical fuss about birtherism, they've never had to do this for Obama (in fairness, it should be pointed out that Senator Obama behaved entirely properly at this time, and indeed co-sponsored the resolution). The row only really died down after he lost the election. Birtherism was a leftist tactic adopted by the right, nothing more. To claim there was never a serious fuss about McCain's status is pure revisionism.

As for the substantive question, it's also wrong to say this has never been addressed. In fact, it was addressed in one of the first Acts of Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790 -

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens"

This act has never been repealed, though it has been updated, (without changing this clause) and its constitutionality has never been challenged.
 
On McCain, this was a matter of furious controversy at the time, which got so heated that the US Senate had to step in and affirm McCain's right to run. For all the hypocritical fuss about birtherism, they've never had to do this for Obama (in fairness, it should be pointed out that Senator Obama behaved entirely properly at this time, and indeed co-sponsored the resolution). The row only really died down after he lost the election. Birtherism was a leftist tactic adopted by the right, nothing more. To claim there was never a serious fuss about McCain's status is pure revisionism.

As for the substantive question, it's also wrong to say this has never been addressed. In fact, it was addressed in one of the first Acts of Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790 -

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens"

This act has never been repealed, though it has been updated, (without changing this clause) and its constitutionality has never been challenged.

Its not even a tactic that has a side its just a very banal attempt to discredit it.
 
Top