iT IS NOT MY OPINION.... it was/is the LAW. sorry you can't seem to come to grips with that.
read 8-1403 AGAIN.... IT SPECIFICALLY LEFT OUT THE CANAL ZONE BIRTHS this was noted and corrected AFTER McCain was born. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So let me get this straight... > > You seem to believe that a child BORN to Citizens of the U.S. has his > "natural" part taken away depending on where he was Born? > > That is your position? > > And you wonder why I call you ignorant?!?!?!?!? > > > On Nov 3, 1:13 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FROM YOUR LINK..........it does not say he IS a Natural Born citizen now > > does it??? > > > > it is an issued opinion, not a ruling READING COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for > > provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. > > > > July 9, 2008 > > > > *Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. > > 08-14<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#> > > * > > > > *Abstract: * > > Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen > parents. > > The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was > not > > incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, > > distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson > > examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that > > Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current > > law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under > > exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth > > Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United > > States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that > > "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for > > constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons > born > > in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The > > Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained > citizenship > > by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the > > Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship > law > > applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, > but > > eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator > > John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born > Citizen" > > and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the > > Constitution. > > > > This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional law > implied > > by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases and > expanding > > judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by Congress, > > could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural born > > citizen. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Funny... > > > > > The COURTS Ruled on the matter. > > > > > Again, your ignorance of the matter notwithstanding... > > > > >http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87147 > > > > > Pretty sure the "Courts" are seperate from Congress. > > > > > As for Obama and proving his... > > > > > Perhaps you should READ the Document in question and get back to me on > > > whether someone ineligible can Serve as President, and then explain to > > > me how you believe someone not eligible should be allowed to run? > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:46 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A decision or law or resolution passed by "Congress" (McCain gave his > > > > records to the Senate, NOT Congress... your ignorance > notwithstanding, > > > but > > > > very telling) > > > > does not have the strength of nor does it supercede or set aside the > > > > constitution....your ignorance or wishful/fantasy thinking also > > > > notwithstanding. > > > > > > Why has Obama not acted in the same, or even a like manner, when such > > > > a thing is questioned of him? > > > > Show me the article, clause or law that says he should. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > I believe I have a Duty to uphold it in the terms "I" believe it to > be > > > > > written, and not simply go with what you and your's believe it to > be. > > > > > > > When questioned about such a thing, McCain gave ALL of his Records > to > > > > > Congress, and let them decide if he was or was not able to Serve as > > > > > President. > > > > > > > Why has Obama not acted in the same, or even a like manner, when > such > > > > > a thing is questioned of him? > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:34 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I did not write the laws you find lacking.......... However we > BOTH > > > have > > > > > a > > > > > > duty to see it upheld AS WRITTEN.....not more not less. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Gaar < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:28 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I do not believe , I know, the constitution has the force of > law. > > > So > > > > > far > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > has not been broken. > > > > > > > > > You and your's attempt to do just that notwithstanding... > > > > > > > > > If he Wins, and it is proven he cannot Serve, do you think all > > > those > > > > > > > people were planning on their Vote going to Joe Biden? > > > > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > > > > And so we have you and yours intentionally trying to change the > > > > > > > outcome of an Election, simply because you were not of the > mindset > > > to > > > > > > > check your Candidate for his ability to Serve under the terms > set > > > > > > > forth in the Document you "claim" to cherish... > > > > > > > > > Interesting. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... > Me- > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me- > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me- > Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
