Rick Reuben wrote:Linus Van Pelt wrote:FYP.
Nope. Foreign US military bases are leased property and not US territory, but you can't accept that the controlled media will not give you the straight facts on McCain's eligibility, just like you can't accept that the controlled media is not giving you the straight facts about who owns the Federal Reserve.
When the facts conflict with what you
need to believe, just relax and let the soothing emissions of American television waft through your brain, Linus.
Who cares about whether foreign US military bases are leased property or US territory? And who cares about the controlled media or American television? How could I have gotten my information from TV when, as you correctly point out, TV is ignoring this non-issue? You're chasing a red herring. If McCain had been born to Panamanians on a military base, it would be a different story. McCain's parents were U.S. citizens, and so is he. He was never naturalized. He was born a citizen. He's a natural born citizen.
The intention of the authors of the Constitution was that no person born outside the geographical boundaries of the several States of the United States of America be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Animus ad se omne jus ducit - It is to the intention that all law applies. Animus moninis est anima scripti - The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument. 3 Bulstr 67 - Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.
Animus moninis on that for a while. I'm not denying that the courts will fix this for McCain if they have to, but so what? Since when does the Constitution intrude on what the Corporation of the United States needs, especially when the manufactured reality of the controlled adversaries is at stake?
Animus moninis est anima scripti, huh? I don't know if I subscribe to that, but I find it interesting that you do, in light of 1 Stat. 103-04. What is it? It's only a statute passed by Congress in 1790. It seems like what the First Congress had to say would shed some light on the Founders' intentions, doesn't it? I mean, we can debate about how important the Founders' intentions actually were, but one great source for finding out
what the intentions were would be statutes passed by the First Congress. Let's listen in on that conversation from the distant past, shall we?
1 Stat. 103-04 (1790) wrote: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. . . .
Personally, I don't know if I like the animus moninis approach. Bouvier's Dictionary is certainly not controlling authority, I know that much. But - once you subscribe to that approach, it's pretty hard to ignore that animus when you see it, huh? You'll find a way, though. I have faith in you.
I also have faith that if Ron Paul's mother had her pinky toe in Ontario when he was born, you wouldn't be hearing about 1 Stat. 103-04 for the first time from me. We'd be seeing that shit from you in oversized green or red or blue letters.
But by all means, show me something from the Founders indicating the opposite. The
blog you lifted that quote from didn't; it only had speculation about what the Founders must have been thinking.
The fact is, the conversation is useless. No court has decided the question (because courts only decide cases and controversies, and this issue has never come up). The Constitution is not unambiguous about the issue either. And in the end, either result is a victory for you - if the Court rules McCain ineligible, you win because you're right about natural born citizenship. If the Court rules McCain eligible, you win because you're right about the CFR lizards subverting the Constitution.
I think there's a point to be made here that a position that is crafted to be unlosable is essentially vacuous or meaningless...
Take the last word:
