New new election thread

[cryptique]

This argument has gotten some new legs:

 

July 11' date=' 2008

 

A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

 

By ADAM LIPTAK

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

 

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

 

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

 

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

 

“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

 

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

 

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

 

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

 

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

 

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

 

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

 

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.

 

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

 

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

 

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

 

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

 

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

 

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

 

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.

 

In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

 

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”

I doubt it'll get any traction, and personally I don't think it's a big deal, but it'd be highly amusing to see something like this end up in Antonin Scalia's strict constructionist lap. As Salon.com pointed out:

 

This issue has been kicking around constitutional circles for a while, and Chin's opinion is decidedly a minority view. Indeed, earlier this year "the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation's founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country."

 

That's almost certainly true. But it may be a tougher argument for McCain to make now that he's devoted to "strict constructionist" interpretations of the Constitution.

 

After all, if you start messing with the language of the Founders, next thing you know, you've got a constitutional right to privacy, and we can't have that, eh?

[Good Old Neon]

[bjorn_skurj]

“Personally, I’m in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can’t have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level--there’s little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I’m opposed to political fascism, I’m opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it’s pointless to talk about democracy.” - Noam Chomsky

 

Just a thought.

Here's another thought: Can you have freedom without freedom of trade? Would the restriction of association which socialism must bring with it be as antithetical to democracy as Chompsky says capitalism is?

[fatheadfred]

Speaking for no one but myself, that is more or less the way I took it and what i meant earlier. Saving money doesn't inject money into the economy. When times are tough (as in post 9/11), the smart thing to do is save money, not buy plasma televisions, but the economy NEEDS people to buy those things. [/gross oversimplification]

 

Yeah, that was great wasn't it? "The best thing you can do is go out and spend money." How patriotic is that? What a response to the 911 attacks.

[Good Old Neon]

Here's another thought: Can you have freedom without freedom of trade? Would the restriction of association which socialism must bring with it be as antithetical to democracy as Chompsky says capitalism is?

 

Chomsky is opposed to what he calls the

[fatheadfred]

?

 

Explain please!

 

Perhaps I am injecting my personal experience. It seems like the more I know about the goods and services available, the less I desire them.

 

1. 95% of the items in a grocery store

2. toys for my child

3. anything made of plastic

4. garden seeds

5. restaurant food

6. automobiles

7. movies @ theater

8. recreational crap (boats, atvs, & other little penis stuff)

9. gasoline

 

Shit, what do I buy?

 

1. Electricity, which I'd like to change

2. TV, internet, phone bills...like to change that also. Guess I am hooked, though.

3. Gas to see other places. I like to see other places.

4. Concerts. Wilco, Nels, Bruce are about the only shows though.

5. Chicken feed

6. Food

7. Beer

8. Bike tubes

 

I guess what I am saying is that the person who understands 'things' do not provide long lasting joy, doesn't purchase as much.

[bjorn_skurj]

Chomsky is opposed to what he calls the

[fatheadfred]

Yeah an informed consumer is vital to an efficient market, which is what capitalism is based on. Supply and demand coming together, etc.

 

Uninformed consumers make the markets less efficient, and screw up capitalism. Unless your point is that the "haves" of capitalism can more easily profit off of the "havenots" of capitalism if those "havenots" are uninformed. But capitalism isn't the enemy.

 

Efficient market means supply and demand being close to equilibrium? It has been about 10 years since I've taken econ.

 

I just typed several paragraphs to understand this...but it became circular. I'll just ask this: do you have an example, fictional or not, of an efficient market or market sector? And how do uninformed consumers screw up capitalism?

 

Yes, the uninformed consumer readily buys more things due to lack of knowledge. Like someone who continues to buy dirt cheap shit that will not last long. Or buying a crappy model of car, known to have defects vs. another model that is rock solid (uninformed consumer).

 

Yeah, capitalism and socialism isn't the problem.. it is the government implementation that seems to fail. And the people have a share of the blame as well. I believe either can be implemented if the people are informed.

[Good Old Neon]

OK. Maybe 300 years from now, people will be sufficiently non-selfish for such a system to work. Plus, there's the fact that some people are always going to be smarter and more ambitious then others.

 

Edit: This is harrison_bergeron

 

Or our current levels of gross over-consumption will ensure we won

[bjorn_skurj]

Or our current levels of gross over-consumption will ensure we won

[uncle wilco]

An informed consumer is the enemy of capitalism.

a disciplined consumer is the enemy of capitalism.

 

once upon a time, i worked in a sam's club. we were told that 70% of their sales came from impulse purchases. so, if everyone stuck to a budget. one would buy less. and sam's sales would drop like a rock. of course, that will never happen.

[fatheadfred]

That could happen, sure. One of my problems with socialism is that it removes the incentive to excel. Such incentive may be the thing that gets somebody or somebodies to come up with solution or solutions to our woe or woes.

 

If it were implemented correctly the incentive to excel would be for you, your family, and community in relationships and l-i-v-i-n-g. As opposed to incentive to earn capital.

[Good Old Neon]

That could happen, sure. One of my problems with socialism is that it removes the incentive to excel. Such incentive may be the thing that gets somebody or somebodies to come up with solution or solutions to our woe or woes.

 

I agree. Unfortunately, working collectively towards a more sustainable future is not something we humans excel at. But I often wonder how much of that is a result cultural conditioning directly related to our sort of bastardized version of capitalism. Specifically, in terms of how possessions are overvalued in our society, warping our sense of what

[Winston Legthigh]

I'll just ask this: do you have an example, fictional or not, of an efficient market or market sector? And how do uninformed consumers screw up capitalism?

Market efficiency can mean anything from improving delivery of goods, to improving the market itself (fully electronic stock exchanges, for example). I'm not sure or not the informed-ness of a consumer throws a monkey wrench into the process or not. Seems to me that the gears move either way, as long as we keep comsuming!

 

Perhaps the argument for "uninformed consumers screw up capitalism" is because they contribute to conspicious consumption. They are more apt to buy overvalued items. I remember the story (pre 20s stock market crash) of Montgomery Wards - they had a bottle of perfume for sale for $.25. Nobody bought it. So they marked it up to $10, and it flew off the shelves because people assumed that the price-tag = quality.

[EL the Famous]

I read a study in which it was determined that the relative level of happiness peaked in the 1950

[Beltmann]

I would love to hear about the flip flopping of McCain.

61 reversals by McCain

[MrRain422]

McCain is easily the least principled politician to run for President in my lifetime (or at least to get the nomination -- Romney probably tops him overall). He used to be so principled and respectable, but in the last few years, as he's become more and more desperate to be president, he's given up on all of that.

[mountain bed]

I don't know if this should have its own thread, but Tony Snow passed away from colon cancer as you've all probably heard by now.

 

There's not many good things I can say about anyone who has worked for this Administration, but imo Snow was a pretty class act. I thought he was doing better with the cancer - even though the chemo had robbed him of his hair he still seemed in good spirits recently.

 

53 years old. RIP Mr. Snow.

[tugmoose]

Snow was a pretty class act.

Agreed. RIP Tony.

[fatheadfred]

I don't know if this should have its own thread, but Tony Snow passed away from colon cancer as you've all probably heard by now.

 

There's not many good things I can say about anyone who has worked for this Administration, but imo Snow was a pretty class act. I thought he was doing better with the cancer - even though the chemo had robbed him of his hair he still seemed in good spirits recently.

 

53 years old. RIP Mr. Snow.

 

Damn, this is wrong regardless of the two frames it is derived:

1) sarcasm- not nice to jest of another's death

2) Snow, a class act? he pimped all of the White House's lies.

[mfwahl]

Just reading through this thread and I have 2 comments to add to discussion.

 

jnick, change your avatar; i can't handle the punching anymore.

 

Jules, don't change your avatar, ever.

[Guest Jules]

[sweetheart-mine]

jnick, change your avatar; i can't handle the punching anymore.

hallelujah, you brought this up! (i'm too new.) jnick, pleeeeeeeeez? how am i going to agree with you some of the time and not others if you don't change that damn thing so i can continue to read your posts?

 

my face is really sore.

[Good Old Neon]

hallelujah, you brought this up! (i'm too new.) jnick, pleeeeeeeeez? how am i going to agree with you some of the time and not others if you don't change that damn thing so i can continue to read your posts?

 

my face is really sore.

 

Ok and so but fine, but I'm using this one until I find something else - you bunch of sons a bitches.

[sweetheart-mine]

Ok and so but fine, but I'm using this one until I find something else - you bunch of sons a bitches.

and