Primary Thread IV: Texas Black Gold or Pennsylvania Coal for Clinton?

[Dinner]

To be fair most of the Republicans recently caught wanted it put in their behinds and not to have their own near women.

[asleepathewheel]

I haven't paid attention to these threads. Has Larry Sinclair been mentioned?

http://www.mahalo.com/Larry_Sinclair

crack, manlove, limo, obama

[Dinner]

Supposedly Larry Sinclair is a former mental patient who was actually locked up at a mental institution during the time in question.

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/tubesocktedd/Ctrg

I feel sorry for the guy but he's bonkers.

[Darius871]

Well, it looks like the whole thing's just academic now:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=174917

[EPW]

Here's an interesting article posted on electoral-vote.com:

If Hillary Clinton wins the primary and election, we will have a constitutional crisis because she is not eligible to be President. Problem? She's a woman. Article II, Section 1 of the constitution starts:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: ..."

Notice the word "He." Nothing about "He or she." But what about the 19th amendmnent, you ask? It reads in full:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Not a word about holding public office. Just voting. Thus the "He" in Article II, Section 1 is still operative. It hasn't been overridden. But Hillary could pull a fast one. She could choose Bill as her running mate, then resign immediately after being inaugurated. Wouldn't this run afoul of the the 22nd amendment? Nope. It starts out like this:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

So Bill can't be elected again, but nothing stops him from succeeding to the office in the event of the President's resignation, impeachment, incapacitation, or death. Some people might not like that, so they can vote for McCain to avoid these nasty constitutional issues. Well not exactly. McCain wasn't born in the United States. He's a Zonian.

What about Obama? He was born in Hawaii. When did it become a state, now? Ah. 1959. When was Obama born? 1961. So it was part of the United States when he was born, but not by much. It would have been kind of messy to have three candidates for President, none of whom was actually eligible for the job. SCOTUS would have had to work overtime to pick a President. Chances are Justice Scalia would have asked: "What was the original intent of the founders (Scalia is an Originalist). The intent was clearly that the President should be a propertied white male. Slaves counted for 3/5 of a person (Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3) and while women counted for purposes of apportioning seats in the House, they couldn't vote or hold office.

The problem with things written in the 18th century is that stuff changes. Suppose that in 200 years robots are much smarter than people (probably not that hard, actually). Could a robot be elected President? Not what James Madison and friends had in mind, though.

In short: Hillary Clinton and John MacCain aren't technically eligible to be President.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What a bull**** essay. How many "originalists" are on the court? Far more of a living document justices, and in that case "he", used in that way, encompases both genders, as it has in the rest of the English language.

Furthermore, the Panama Canal Zone was US territory when McCain was born there, so nothing precludes him from being elected President. It doesn't matter that we gave it back.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What a bull**** essay. How many "originalists" are on the court? Far more of a living document justices, and in that case "he", used in that way, encompases both genders, as it has in the rest of the English language.

Furthermore, the Panama Canal Zone was US territory when McCain was born there, so nothing precludes him from being elected President. It doesn't matter that we gave it back.

1) Its a joke
2)Its not so clear those born in the Panama Canal are "Natura born Citizen". The Zone was leased to the US, it wasn't an actual territory.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It wasn't presented as a joke. It seemed to be a look at this esoteric law thing I found!

And regardless of a lease or not, it still is US territory and thus people born there are still considered natural born citizens.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And regardless of a lease or not, it still is US territory and thus people born there are still considered natural born citizens.

Except thats not true, John McCain was given naturalization when he was 16, thus he was not a "natural born citizen".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, regardless of that () he was born to US citizen parents. Children of US citizen parents are considered natural born citizens.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, regardless of that () he was born to US citizen parents. Children of US citizen parents are considered natural born citizens.

Thats unclear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by EPW
Thats unclear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

No it isn't:

Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Some people will argue that the law doesn't mean what it clearly says, but that argument isn't really accepted. I mean, imagine telling military personnel overseas that their children can't be President because they aren't considered "natural born" because they were serving their country overseas.

[EPW]

I recommend reading the whole article before posting.

I'll even post it for your benefit:

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is some debate over whether other persons with citizenship can also be considered citizens by birth, or whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized". Current US statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," as opposed to citizens by birth.[4] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[5] Current State Department policy reads: "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."[6]

Others argue that foreign-born children who are "citizens at birth" under the law (on account of having been born to American parents overseas) are "natural born citizens" — citing the 1790 law to show that the early Congress considered such children to be natural born — and, as such, would be eligible for the Presidency.[7] Examples of persons who become citizens at birth (whether "naturalized" or "natural born") would include: birth to Americans overseas, or birth on U.S. soil, territories, or military bases overseas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I read it. The argument that you have to be physically born in the US and being born to US citizen parents isn't good enough is utterly ridiculous, as I pointed out.

[EPW]

I'd also point out that the 1790 act was replaced by the 1795 act, which doesn't have that clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795