The NY Times is now questioning McCain's eligibility to run for president:

You're kidding me right? First the Times alleges an affair, the DNC trumpets that McCain is "breaking the law" and complains to the FEC about his intention to withdraw from the matching funds program - even though the bank that loaned him the money said "the loan terms specifically excluded from the collateral any potential share of public matching funds McCain was entitled to receive." Now the Times is questioning his eligibility, even though he was born to American citizens serving their country where the government had sent them on an American military facility.

Do the Democrats just want to win by default? Is his eligibility really an issue? This is schoolyard nonsense, isn't it time for politicians and the media to grow up?

excon

Hello Steve:

Isn't this delicious? We've got a Hussein running against a wet back.

Can it get MORE interesting?

excon

ebaines

I do think it's interesting that this issue has not had a precedant. I don't read in this article that the Times or anyone else is arguingthat McCain is ineligible. One of the things I enjoy about the Times is that they bring up topics like this as an intellectual point of interest. It's not unlike questioning whether it would be legal for Hillary (if she were to be the candidate) to select her husband as VP, win the election, then resign so that Bill could have a third term as Pres. An interesting point of theory, but not at all realistic. By the way, I am a lifelong Republican and a life-long subscriber to the NY Times. You should get it if you don't already - I lived in TX for a while and subscribed to both the Times and the Dallas Morning News. I would read the Times for the national and international news and occasional OpEds and the Dallas paper for local events and editorials.

speechlesstx

LOL, leave it to the ex mon to put it that way.

tomder55

Only a very contrarian NY Slimes could suggest that McCain is not a natural-born citizen. I refer all to this 1790 act of Congress :

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0200/02280104.tif

This question usually comes up when Republicans are involved for some good yuks . George Romney was born in Mexico and Barry Goldwater was born in Az. before it was officially a state .Since both were born of US citizens then they were eligible and so is McCain .......but then again ;the NY Slimes knows this .

speechlesstx

Thanks for your response ebaines. There are precedents listed in the article. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it was a state and George Romney was born in Mexico, both ran for president. Personally I think the odds that Times ran this as an "intellectual point of interest" are about as good as their story alleging McCain's affair was ran as an "intellectual point of interest." It seems like a no-brainer to me, if you're born to American parents you should be considered "natural born," especially if it is on US military installation. He can't help it if his parents were sent there by our government.

Now that is an interesting subject, the 22nd amendment limits its wording to "elected to the office of the President more than twice." In this case he would be elected as VP and theoretically could succeed his wife. It seems the authors of the amendment weren't considering the possibility of a first lady running for the office. Or were they?

speechlesstx

Good work tom. I noticed in that document a footnote that says "the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress" and cites this SCOTUS ruling. Current US Code leaves no doubt.