~When the Experts Are Imbeciles
~When the Experts Are Imbeciles
(some observations of stupidity)
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: July 11, 2008
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
[note: ANYONE BORN TO CITIZEN PARENTS IS A NATURAL CITIZEN just as anyone born to Pigmy parents is a natural Pigmy, anyone born to Eskimo parents is a natural Eskimo. It's a law of natural inheritance]
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
[This law professor should lose his license for pontificating on a subject about which he is ignorant in regard to one of the most basic truths in the foundation of any constitutional democratic republic. That truth is that the government has no authority to confer that which the citizens already posses by Natural Right, just as they posses the right to Life and Liberty, and that right is automatic citizenship/membership for all that are their off-spring. Congress has no authority to confer citizenship on natural citizen. Its only authority is in regard to naturalization of foreigners and their children. American children born abroad are NOT foreigners! They are Americans, natural Americans, -not naturalized foreigners, and are therefore natural citizens.
That citizenship pre-dates Congress and the Constitution. It began in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, which converted all born in the colonies from being British subjects to being Citizens of the union of American states. That was a mass naturalization from one nationality to another. Anyone born to those citizens was born a natural citizen and native of America. This is common sense! -not rocket science or esoteric nuanced philosophy. -law professor my ass!]
“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional(?) text that we have.”]
Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it. “No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits(?) of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.
Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.
In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country. [completely forgetting children born to Ambassadors, Diplomats, Consuls and State Department employees of the U.S. government].
A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.
[ such a lawsuit results from the wide-spread misconception that one's place of birth is relevant to U.S. natural citizenship, -this misconception is over 200 years old.]
There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways(?) to become a natural-born citizen.
[WOW! The wise professor should be figuratively taken out and shot for such professionally unforgivable ignorance. There is only one way to be a natural American citizen and that is by birth, not to an alien father, nor on U.S. soil, but by birth to American parents. Just as there's only one way to be a natural human, and that is by birth, not to gorillas, but to humans.]
One [way], specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States.
[Nothing in The Constitution of Government of The United States dictates anything in regard to the basis of citizenship. He stupidly has mislabel the amendments as being part of the Constitution. That is a totally false impression! Nothing could change the Constitution once it was finalized and sent out for ratification. What came later were additions and revisions, but the Constitution itself remains unaltered. The Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution, that's why we refer to "The Constitution and Bill of Rights" -because they are separate and distinct. Only a few amendments actually revised what was written in the Constitution, others expanded on what it contained, while the rest simply augmented the amendments with new stated rights that are to be constitutional rights, not merely legislated rights.]
The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.
[as stated, Congress has no authority to enact any legislation limiting the rights of the off-spring of natural American citizens. It cannot "make" any such child a citizen because they already are a citizen. All Congress can do is mandate that the executive branch recognize the nature and rights of Americans born abroad. Those rights pertain to the children born and raised abroad, (but not to the grandchildren born and raised abroad because they are natural natives of the country in which they were born and are no longer American by any definition). The first Naturalization Act -1790, protected those rights and in effect ordered the State Dept. and all federal officers and judges to considered such children as natural born citizens, -because that's what they were.]
Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
[ What a fool. The 14th Amendment has and had nothing to do with natural citizens. Its citizenship declarations were written solely to grant and protect the citizenship of freed slaves and their children, and children of immigrants. While its description includes 99% of natural citizens, it does not include those born abroad, and that is because it was not written to deal with them, -only foreigner's children. If the 14th Amendment did not exist, nothing would change regarding the nature and rights of natural born Americans. It is irrelevant. How did this guy get a law degree?]
A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people [Panamanian] born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.
The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.
[This claim is a figment of the Supreme Court's imagination, a presumption that what is not said is somehow permission to assume authority not granted. That has been the bastardized attitude of Congressmen and others in government from the beginning, and the founding fathers warned us of the danger that such an attitude posed. The authority Congress was given in the Constitution is solely to write naturalization law. No person born to an American citizen needs to be naturalized because they are born as American citizens with the same rights as their parents.]
At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.
[as stated, location of birth is irrelevant to natural citizenship, but even if it were, the U.S. personnel in the Canal Zone were directly under the full jurisdiction of the United States, even though the Panamanians were not. Therefore a reasonable interpretation of "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" should not mean out of the physical limits but rather, out of the limits of its jurisdiction. Think about the size and population of an American aircraft carrier. If an American woman gave birth aboard one on the high seas, she would be totally under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, so national borders would not be relevant. He child would be an American by being the progeny of American parents.]
In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen,but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.
[again, what Congress enacted did not "grant" citizenship, it merely recognized the natural citizenship which such children possessed by Natural Right. The legislation was not enacted to "make" U.S. citizens, but to proclaim and protect their pre-existing citizenship.
Understand this, it was the citizens of the United States that "made" Congress, Congress did not make them. Like Bill Cosby's father told him, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out!" The insidious disease inherited from centuries of colonists being the property of the King of England has left an indelible impression in the psyche of many people who still think that the government owns us and can dictate rules that "give" us our natural liberty and natural rights, but government is the one that is given authority and it is not given by itself, but by the People. It has no authority whatsoever over natural citizenship nor to define it as being dependent upon where one's mother gave birth.]
In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.
In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth,(?!) the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country(?).
[Those two, mutual liberal friends, ignorantly or more likely, deliberately concocted a bastardized philosophy that mixes both jus soli (law of the soil) subject-hood with jus sanguinis (law of blood) citizenship. They are oil and water, they do not mix! Natural citizenship is unrelated to place of birth, and that's why the framers of the Constitution only required natural citizens to have lived in the United States for only 14 years. (21 to 35 years of age =14 years) It didn't require that they be born or raised here, only that they be born to and (presumably) raised by American parents.
John McCain could have remained in Panama, working perhaps for the U.S. government until he was 58 years old, before finally emigrating to the U.S., living here for 14 years, than at the age of 72 running for the presidency. His loyaly and allegiance to the United States would have been unquestionable because he was not born to a father who was a foreigner and owed allegiance to another country. Where one's mother gave birth is irrelevant, but where one's father was born and raised, and to whom, is totally relevant]
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.
Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.” [yes, too much irrationality is connected to views about natural citizenship]
Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.
In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue. [the same illegitimate basis used over and over by Obama's lawyers, successfully.]
Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”
Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
if [it was nearly impossible for any court to be inclined to rule on merely the eligibility of a candidate for the presidency, how much more disinclined would any federal judge be to have to rule on the eligibility of a sitting President? Four root canals in one day would be preferable. But state judges need feel no hesitation to decide whether or not a candidate is eligible to be placed on their state ballot when the state law is clear on their authority and the law regarding elections. That is the case in Georgia, which may soon change everything.] A.R. Nash