You wouldn’t know that the Times recently endorsed McCain for President by their recent attempts to derail his campaign. First, they re-printed an old, already discounted rumor. Second, they question his eligibility to become President.
Idiots. Is there not one editor at that paper who has not had a class on US History, where the US Constitution is studied?
Am I more intelligent than the editors of that paper?
The latest sliming by the Times was forwarded to me by a local lefty blogger.
WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
Source: New York Times
I responded thusly:
I see the New York Slimes lives down to it’s poor reputation and is bereft of knowledge common to me since High School US History Class, and a simple reading of the US Constitution by anyone with half a brain. (I know today that seems to exclude the majority).
In recent history, three people have run for President who were born outside the Union proper, George Romney (born in Mexico), Barry Goldwater(born in Arizona before it became a state), and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone to US Parents, one of whom was serving in the military).
You may argue that the Canal Zone is no longer US Territory (thanks, Jimmah), but Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10 prevent an ex post facto conviction. So, yes, he WAS born in the United States, even though it is no longer our territory. [Eligible #1]
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” [Eligible #2]
I could go on, but there is no need. This does, however, give me an opportunity to note that the New York Times is engaged in tabloid journalism, creating controversies where none exist, and attacking a candidate for public office to the right of their position.
The question is settled law.
Feel free to email me if you have any further elementary questions regarding the US Constitution.
I had those references already on file due to having run across this problem before by reading through the fevered swamps of several Ron Paul forums  , and the equally fevered ramblings of Ted Samply, who (if he believes his allegations) should have pursued his crapola to get McCain removed from the Senate…and not wait until the man has the GOP Nomination locked up.
Previously on this blog:
John McCain IS A Natural Born Citizen