Obama Weaves Silly Issue Of McCain’s Citizenship Into Gold

Obama may be a policy lightweight who uses flowery, feel-good rhetoric to cover up his radicalism but there’s no denying that he’s a deft politician. When the New York Times decided to make McCain’s birth on a US air base in the Panama Canal Zone an issue (some are trying to define the Constitution’s requirement that Presidents be “naturally born” Americans to only include citizens born within the borders of the US and not born to US citizens living, or deployed, abroad) I was quick to say that bringing up this issue was a good way to unite people behind McCain. After all, how more mean spirited can you get than to question the citizenship of a US Senator born (albeit while abroad) to the Admiral son of an Admiral?
Especially when that Senator spent five and a half years being tortured by Vietnamese socialists while serving his country?
But Obama has found the perfect way to defuse the issue. Rather than jump in with the ravenous left-wing hordes led by the Times down this rather stupid line of argument, Obama joined with Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill in sponsoring a bill (scrawled on note paper by McCaskill upon learning of the Times article) that would define “naturally born citizen” as including children born to deployed US troops.
A rather magnanimous gesture sure to inoculate Obama from the criticisms that are, and will be, flung at those questioning McCain’s citizenship.
Exit question: Was this entire story, which seemed too stupid for even the Times to run, a “set” to Obama and McCaskill’s “spike?” In other words, was this a set up to produce an absurd left-wing talking point that the left itself could attack in order to make its rather radical and far-to-the-left Presidential candidate look more mainstream?

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array pparets

    Simple, Rob: Article I gives congress sole power to define natural-ization for anyone desiring to become a citizen, as opposed to those who are natural born: i.e., born of an American citizen-parent, no matter where they are at the time of birth.

  • WOOF

    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]

    Da Wiki

    SCOTUS counts the angels dancing on the head of the pin by its’ own
    axioms.

    You can go with this
    or you can go with that

  • Dan Collins

    I agree . . . well bethought.
    However, I think “natural born” is meant. I imagine people can be naturally born just about anywhere.

  • Hannitized

    The Times article seemed so…. STUPID! Until now….

    Great insight, Rob!

    Ha! (snort)

    Beautifully said.

    Of course any decent person knew it was a stupid question to push.

  • http://vdvfamily.com/ Sphagnum

    Was this entire story, which seemed too stupid for even the Times to run, a “set” to Obama and McCaskill’s “spike?”

    Wow… That is a question that is worthy of Rush spending an hour discussing… The Times article seemed so…. STUPID! Until now….

    Great insight, Rob!

  • Todd

    What’s silly about this issue? I’d like to know for sure that my candidate of choice was constitutionally eligible before voting for him.

    Then again, I still support the Constitution, so my opinion doesn’t count for much on a conservative blog.

  • Scrapiron

    This bill simply makes an ass without the jack in front of it out of everyone involved in it. I guess this is what you get when you put the clowns in charge, a circus broke out and must continue.

  • Bat One

    Hopefully I won’t hear anymore originalist constitutional arguments…

    Don’t bet on it! By the way, where’s that list?

  • WOOFX

    Hopefully I won’t hear anymore originalist constitutional arguments , now that your Great Ox
    John is in danger of being gored.

    “Originalism” is a legal philosophy that says the Constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was drafted in the summer of 1787, making no allowances for societal changes. It also says the Constitution’s meaning can only be changed by amendment, a difficult process that requires two-thirds approval by each house of Congress and three-fourths of the states

    Weave straw into gold?
    Rumplestiltskin.

  • WOOFX

    Orders from the Bat in the Belfry?

    By the way, where’s that list?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Poodle, can you demonstrate for us that the founders original intent in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution was for “naturally born” citizen to mean something other than someone who was a citizen from the time of birth onward?

    That being a distinction from someone who became a citizen at some point later in life?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development