(07-31-2009 08:21 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 07:55 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 06:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 03:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Isn't it a little strange to be publishing an autobiography before you've ever actually done anything?

It's not unheard of. The book which was arguably the most influential autobiography of the 20th century was exactly that. (Hint: it was published in German.)

Careful! You are rapidly straying into a theological discourse regarding whether divine inspiration is the same thing as self written such that the Bible would be an "autobiographical" work. By the way, the Gutenberg press churned out what, for the time, was an astronomical number of these little gems.

The book I was referrring to was actually a badly-written 1920s prison diary. I don't think Gutenberg would have touched it.

I figured you were being selfish: something starting with "MINE"!

(07-31-2009 08:11 PM)gsloth Wrote:  As I found on Wikipedia, the Canal Zone even had its own US District Court. It was an interesting governmental set-up.

Indeed! When the the U.S. District Court for the District of the Canal Zone was disbanded, the judge (a Tulane grad) had the judge's bench relocated to the moot court room at Tulane Law School. We called it the "Panama bench". Arguing there sort of begged for a linen suit...

On a musical note:

Obama's birth certificate reflects that he was "Born in the USA" but IMO his politics shows that he is "Back in the USSR"...

I do not think there would be any case law interpreting Article II, clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution about what "natural born citizen" means. I think it probably means it requires someone who was a citizen at their birth. Obame would have that since he would get the US citizenship of his mother at birth regardless of place of birth. I assume the he was born in Hawaii which would be another ground for citizenship. McCann had US citizen parents so it is unneccessary to figure out the status of the Canal Zone at that time. The US gave it back to Panama in 1977. Arnold definitely would be ineligible to be US President since he had to be naturalized to become a United States citizen. the provision was included to prevent naturalized citizens from becoming President.

(07-31-2009 06:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 06:20 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  and he [McCain] was born in a US military base "overseas", which under US law is considered to be US territory, making him "natural born"

Actually, I don't think being born on a US base is what makes him eligible to be President. I don't think a German woman can produce an American citizen simply by having her kinder inside the gates of Wiesbaden. Bases are generally leased land, and while the host country might allow the US to regulate the territory for the sake of convenience and comity, ultimate sovereignty of that land certainly lies with the host country, unless there has been a genuine transfer of that sovereignty, which is pretty rare. What makes McCain eligible is that, by law, he was a U.S. citizen at birth*, because he was the child of U.S. citizens. Thus McCain would be equally eligible if he had been born off the base in the middle of Colon city.

*Assuming that the statutory phrase "citizen at birth" satisfies the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen". The alternative view is that such "citizens at birth" are not really "natural born citizens" but have merely been automatically, instantaneously and involuntarily naturalized. It all certainly seems like a Jesuitical argument, but empires have changed hands on less -- witness the "Salic law" issue in the Hundred Years War, colorfully played out in Kenneth Branagh's 1990 production of Henry V.

A hint-the title when tranlated into English was My Struggle and the German it was written in was not very sophisticated.

Gutenburg had enough sense to publish a Bible instead something hateful like the trashy 1923 book mentioned above.

(07-31-2009 08:24 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 08:21 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 07:55 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 06:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 03:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Isn't it a little strange to be publishing an autobiography before you've ever actually done anything?

It's not unheard of. The book which was arguably the most influential autobiography of the 20th century was exactly that. (Hint: it was published in German.)

Careful! You are rapidly straying into a theological discourse regarding whether divine inspiration is the same thing as self written such that the Bible would be an "autobiographical" work. By the way, the Gutenberg press churned out what, for the time, was an astronomical number of these little gems.

The book I was referrring to was actually a badly-written 1920s prison diary. I don't think Gutenberg would have touched it.

I figured you were being selfish: something starting with "MINE"!

(07-31-2009 06:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-31-2009 06:20 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  and he [McCain] was born in a US military base "overseas", which under US law is considered to be US territory, making him "natural born"

Actually, I don't think being born on a US base is what makes him eligible to be President. I don't think a German woman can produce an American citizen simply by having her kinder inside the gates of Wiesbaden. Bases are generally leased land, and while the host country might allow the US to regulate the territory for the sake of convenience and comity, ultimate sovereignty of that land certainly lies with the host country, unless there has been a genuine transfer of that sovereignty, which is pretty rare. What makes McCain eligible is that, by law, he was a U.S. citizen at birth*, because he was the child of U.S. citizens. Thus McCain would be equally eligible if he had been born off the base in the middle of Colon city.

*Assuming that the statutory phrase "citizen at birth" satisfies the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen". The alternative view is that such "citizens at birth" are not really "natural born citizens" but have merely been automatically, instantaneously and involuntarily naturalized. It all certainly seems like a Jesuitical argument, but empires have changed hands on less -- witness the "Salic law" issue in the Hundred Years War, colorfully played out in Kenneth Branagh's 1990 production of Henry V.

I could be wrong, but I think that McCain is considered "natural-born" not because he was born on a military base, but because that military base was part of the Panama Canal Zone - which, I believe, was actual "sovereign" U.S. Territority at the time...

(edit: gsloth beat me to it)
(also, 75src, you're spot on regarding the provision being focused on preventing naturalized citizens from being President, as far as I understand)

(08-03-2009 11:43 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  I could be wrong, but I think that McCain is considered "natural-born" not because he was born on a military base, but because that military base was part of the Panama Canal Zone - which, I believe, was actual "sovereign" U.S. Territority at the time...
(also, 75src, you're spot on regarding the provision being focused on preventing naturalized citizens from being President, as far as I understand)

I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time and certainly not the last), but I think US Military bases are considered to be "Sovereign US territory" for purposes of determining citizenship. The Panama Canal Zone layer was an extra bonus in terms of McCain's claim to being a "natural born" citizen.

And I think you and 75src are correct that the Constitutional provision is aimed at making sure naturalized citizens don't become president. That is why Obama's birthplace and his "re-naturalization" following his Indonesian education are an issue while McCain's status was not in question.

(08-03-2009 11:43 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  I could be wrong, but I think that McCain is considered "natural-born" not because he was born on a military base, but because that military base was part of the Panama Canal Zone - which, I believe, was actual "sovereign" U.S. Territority at the time...

(edit: gsloth beat me to it)
(also, 75src, you're spot on regarding the provision being focused on preventing naturalized citizens from being President, as far as I understand)

McCain is a "natural-born" citizen by lex sanguinis (or jus sanguinis, "law of blood") because his parents were both US citizens (one would have been enough). Had that not been the case, then the location of his birth would have mattered (lex solis or jus solis, "law of the soil"), and in that case you are correct, the status of the Canal Zone would have been determinative.

This all came up in the 1960s when George Romney (Mitt's father) was a possible republican nominee for the presidency. George was born outside the US (Mexico IIRC) while his parents were on a Mormon mission. The top constitutional scholars of the day took a look and said, "No problem, he's a natural-born citizen because his parents are. Either lex solis citizenship or lex sanguinis citizenship satisfies the constitution." I really thought that put the issue to bed, but obviously not. I'm amazed at the lack of understanding today.

In Obama's case, there is the question that he might have to satisfy lex solis, because his mother did not meet the standards of the then-existing statute governing lex sanguinis (parent had to have spent 5 years in the US after age 14, and she was only 18 years of age). This is obviously a non-issue if he satisfies lex solis (born in Hawaii). If it came to light that he didn't, I'm about 99% sure that the Supreme Court would simply overturn the statute as imposing a overly burdensome requirement, and rule him a natural-born citizen by lex sanguinis. I think that's the right answer, but more importantly it's the politically expedient answer, and the latter typically matters more to the court than the former. At the end of the day, I think the birth certificate issue is a silly one to pursue, because even if they won they'd still lose.

Where I do think the concerns are legitimate is the huge body of undisclosed subsequent information--transcripts, writings, medical records, passport history, etc. As I understand it, much information that has historically been openly disclosed by prior presidents has been sealed regarding Obama. I think that is a legitimate concern. I think that focusing on the birth certificate rather than these other areas just makes them look silly or stupid, and deflects attention from the real concerns. Of course, maybe that's exactly what Obama wants, and he's all too willing to drag this out as long as he can. There I go, being cynical again.

I'm much less concerned about whether Obama is a natural-born citizen than I am about whether Obamanomics and Obamacare will destroy the US beyond livability.

(08-03-2009 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...
This all came up in the 1960s when George Romney (Mitt's father) was a possible republican nominee for the presidency. George was born outside the US (Mexico IIRC) while his parents were on a Mormon mission. The top constitutional scholars of the day took a look and said, "No problem, he's a natural-born citizen because his parents are. Either lex solis citizenship or lex sanguinis citizenship satisfies the constitution." I really thought that put the issue to bed, but obviously not. I'm amazed at the lack of understanding today.

...As I understand it, much information that has historically been openly disclosed by prior presidents has been sealed regarding Obama. I think that is a legitimate concern. I think that focusing on the birth certificate rather than these other areas just makes them look silly or stupid, and deflects attention from the real concerns. ...There I go, being cynical again.

I'm much less concerned about whether Obama is a natural-born citizen than I am about whether Obamanomics and Obamacare will destroy the US beyond livability.

I'm with you 100% here, although some of us weren't around to see the George Romney issue debated and haven't studied it. I suspect that the birth certificate issue was NOT pushed hard by the GOP because they reached essentially the same conclusion you and I have - even if you win that battle, you lose the war - you just don't get where you want to go that way!

BTW, one person's cynical is another's realistic. IMHO, we are equally cynical and realistic!

The first time I remember the Romney issue being discussed was in a magazine article. The same magazine included another article about Houston, written by a Rice grad, and it was that article that really sparked my interest in coming to Rice.

I stand corrected. The birthers have found Obama's real birth certificate:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

Interestingly, the Obamas managed to get a Republic of Kenya birth certificate several years before the Republic of Kenya even existed.

Devious people indeed!

Interesting find JAAO. Before you get too tongue in cheek with your commentary, I suggest you re-read the article. It expressly notes that, "But Kenya's official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government
documents during that time period. At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated. The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History." Thus there are reasonable explanations for the Republic of Kenya issuing the birth certificate on Feb. 17, 1964.

Devious parsing of the article and the stated facts indeed!

Actually it was the Dominion of Kenya from December 1963 to December 1964, when the name changed to Republic of Kenya.

When did Dan Rather change sides?

Interesting also that the name field is labeled "Christian Name". Clearly an attempt to cover up his status as an Islamic/communist sleeper agent.

Why do I get the impression that there are enough bogus "governement issue" documents to support both sides of this debate and that the person who SHOULD be able to point to the correct ones has refused to do so for some unknown reason that simply lends credence to the other sides' supposition? For that matter, have the folks pushing the issue thought about what they get if they win? Is it really any better? Does it just lead to a figurehead that Pelosi can run roughshod over? That may be even scarier!

(08-03-2009 04:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Interesting also that the name field is labeled "Christian Name". Clearly an attempt to cover up his status as an Islamic/communist sleeper agent.

"Christian Name" is not that unusual. Kenya was a British colony and "Christian Name" is in pretty common UK usage to denote first and middle names (all but surname). Since government forms would have been designed by expat Brits, that's how I would expect to see it.

(08-03-2009 04:29 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  Why do I get the impression that there are enough bogus "governement issue" documents to support both sides of this debate and that the person who SHOULD be able to point to the correct ones has refused to do so for some unknown reason that simply lends credence to the other sides' supposition? For that matter, have the folks pushing the issue thought about what they get if they win? Is it really any better? Does it just lead to a figurehead that Pelosi can run roughshod over? That may be even scarier!

I'm with RiceDoc on this one. With "Gaffe-A-Minute" Biden in the White House, I'd argue we'd be worse off. I mean, with some of the things that Biden continues to do and say, if this were Dan Quayle, the media would never be able to shut up about some of it. I'm not trying to defend Quayle, but Biden just cannot stay out of his own way.

(08-03-2009 07:44 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(08-03-2009 04:29 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  Why do I get the impression that there are enough bogus "governement issue" documents to support both sides of this debate and that the person who SHOULD be able to point to the correct ones has refused to do so for some unknown reason that simply lends credence to the other sides' supposition? For that matter, have the folks pushing the issue thought about what they get if they win? Is it really any better? Does it just lead to a figurehead that Pelosi can run roughshod over? That may be even scarier!

I'm with RiceDoc on this one. With "Gaffe-A-Minute" Biden in the White House, I'd argue we'd be worse off. I mean, with some of the things that Biden continues to do and say, if this were Dan Quayle, the media would never be able to shut up about some of it. I'm not trying to defend Quayle, but Biden just cannot stay out of his own way.

I laugh at the wing-nuts who really believe that Obama is some sort of Manchurian Candidate sent here by some evil entity to destroy America from within.

IMO opinion someone has been listening to excessive amounts of Alex Jones and/or staying up all night listening to Coast To Coast AM.

There are plenty of things to oppose Obama on. The Birthers need to STHU and let Obama and the Democrats crash and burn on their own with this insane taxation and spending.

(08-03-2009 04:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  "Christian Name" is not that unusual. Kenya was a British colony and "Christian Name" is in pretty common UK usage to denote first and middle names (all but surname). Since government forms would have been designed by expat Brits, that's how I would expect to see it.

Yeah, I know, I just couldn't help myself.

(08-03-2009 07:54 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I laugh at the wing-nuts who really believe that Obama is some sort of Manchurian Candidate sent here by some evil entity to destroy America from within.

IMO opinion someone has been listening to excessive amounts of Alex Jones and/or staying up all night listening to Coast To Coast AM.

There are plenty of things to oppose Obama on. The Birthers need to STHU and let Obama and the Democrats crash and burn on their own with this insane taxation and spending.

Hey, something me, WMD Owl and Ann Coulter can all agree on.

(Except for the Obama crash and burn bit, of course...)