Thursday, February 28, 2008

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth
Prompts Queries About Whether
That Rules Him Out

by Carl Hulse - February 28th, 2008 - The New York Times

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.

Fresh from their humiliation over trying to enmesh McCain in a sex controversy with no evidence at all, The New York Times is now trying to raise the idea that John McCain is not a "natural born" citizen and is thus ineligible for the job.

This attack has two advantages for the "Times". They can create uncertainty about McCain and they can pretend that the Constitution needs modern judicial interpretation in order to be meaningful. Like most liberal institutions, giving more power to the nine unelected judicial tyrants on the Supreme Court is considered by them a good thing.

Hopefully they will be as quickly humiliated over this concept as they were over the sex scandal. It is contemptible to try and pretend that a man who was born of two patriotic American citizens, who were stationed overseas due to being on military assignement, is not a citizen. It is not a close call despite their finding some stupid law professor to babble on about why she sees it as an important question.

It is an insult to the very idea of American citizenship. The liberals in North Vietnam had no doubt that McCain was a "natural born" American when they tortured him for five years while he served his nation. These same liberal law professors are overwhelminly of the opinion that an atheistic socialist from a foreign land, dedicated to our destruction, can sneak across our border and have a baby that same day who automatically becomes a citizen. They claim this because on this issue they say they adhere to the meaning of words and not intent. At least that is their claim on this issue.

However these same liberal law professors are equally adamant that the meaning of words is not important, but some vague intent they can conjure up is, when they want to ignore the words. Like when they invent a right to abortion that goes past "viability" of the infant. This right is absolute because they "say it is". It even embraces killing a child that is 90% born during "partial birth abortion".

It is time we stop having respect for the "rule of judges" and return to the "rule of law". That rule must pay much more attention to what the people think laws mean. Not what the left wing radical judges and professors think it means.

John McCain is a "natural born" American citizen. The children of illegal aliens are not. Our courts are incompetent to rule. Please do not forget. The Supreme Court tyrants were the buffoons who ruled in Dred Scott that owning slaves was a Constitutional right. Who can respect an insitution that gets such an obvious issue that wrong?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home