The New York Times has recently published an article questioning John McCain’s constitutional ability to become President, based upon the fact that he was born on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone. Oddly, though the headline on the Times article says McCain’s off-shore birth “prompts queries,” the article doesn’t mention anybody as actually bringing up the subject. Indeed, the “queries” seem to come from nobody other than the Times themselves. Yellow journalism at its finest.
First, for clarification, I understand that there are many people who believe themselves to be intelligent, but haven’t managed to pull their heads out enough to understand the fairly simple language and intentions of the Constitution on this matter. Even the Times, though it repudiates it as being “potentially unconstitutional,” mentions a measure passed by the first congress which indeed takes the pains to define the “natural-born citizen” clause in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. A natural-born citizen, according to this measure, includes those children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States.”
Even without that measure as guidance, common sense ought to rule the day here. Clearly, the children of citizens are, themselves, citizens. If a group of missionaries have a baby in Africa, that baby is, in fact, an American citizen. If a soldier and his wife have a kid in Germany, that child is legally American. This is fairly clearly the definition of “natural-born.” I would further suggest that the only reason this definition would ever be called into question is as a distraction from actual campaign issues.
One wonders if the New York Times would be so quick to post this question if it had been Barak Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton born on a military installation.
Point number two: an American military base is, in fact, American soil. Just the same as a United States embassy is considered American soil. This is an internationally recognized convention. An individual questioning the “Natural-born” citizenship of a person born on a Panama military base might just as well question the status of a person born in Alaska.
The truth is, only an idiot would consider this anything but a frivolous issue. Only a complete moron would honestly believe that McCain ought to be disqaulified from the race based on this fact. It’s simple logic. So, the question we have to ask is, why is the New York Times so interested in it? Simply put, they aren’t honest.
The New York Times has no scruples, when it comes to seeing their desired outcome in this election. They backed McCain as Republican nominee, hoping to weaken the conservative base — and, given the timing, keeping this and that other little gem just waiting on the backburner. The Times has known what they were doing this whole time.
And you have to hand it to them. It would seem that there are still plenty of people stupid enough to believe them to be anything other than a glorified tabloid with an agenda.