McCain is ineligible for presidency.

Post Reply New Topic

The man was born on a military base to a military officer, the very spirit of these laws is to prevent a person completely foreign to the US from getting into office. Legal experts there do believe that McCain can legally get into office, and the very issue you bring up is more one of legalistic, nutjobbery than it is one of true concern for the US.

The constitution doesn't have a face, and electing McCain does not go against the spirit of the laws in the constitution. Frankly, I would be more upset about handling a person's future in such a dogmatically legalistic fashion than I would about my rights being pissed away by this. This does not upset any rights based precedent, it does not interfere with any element of my life, and frankly I would consider McCain more of a citizen then I would consider myself.

Why should we keep it that way? There is no real reason at all to prevent people such as John McCain, so I don't see a utilitarian reason for doing this, your argument just seems to be a slippery slope argument where if one thing happens then something very unrelated happens as well, I don't see how this reduces liberty, I don't see how having this as being immoral. I mostly see your case as being based upon a too strict legalism, and probably more based upon a dislike of the candidate for that reason.

I agree that he has always been a citizen and should be allowed to run for president. The issue relates to whether we strictly interpret the Constitution, or treat it like a living document. Do we go by what the Constitution says, what the writers meant it to say, or what we want it to say?

The military claims that people on Guantanamo are not subject to the US Constitution and its protections - because that military base is not US soil.

The State Department 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."

I'd probably try to argue intent rather than the other 2 options.

These are the same people who claim waterboarding isn't torture. Laws and logic mean nothing to them.



This much is true. If foreigners wanted their child to be a natural-born US citizen, they would need to first obtain US citizenship or have the baby in the States or another incorporated territory.

John McCain's parents were both US citizens, and McCain was raised in the United States. Under both the letter and the spirit of the law, there's no question he qualifies.

See, this is the reason why The New York Times is the dumbest newspaper on the face of the earth and why nobody takes it seriously anymore. What is the purpose of this ridiculous article? If his parents are U.S. citizens, so is he regardless of what territory he was born on. Just because you're born somewhere else DOES NOT automatically give you dual citizenship or make you un-American. If the writers at The New York Times don't know that, they shouldn't be writing for a national paper.