The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 238 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 2
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 2

Their were also rumors that Chester A Arthur had been born in Canada.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
IN each of those cases, though, the place where they where born was part of the United States Of America by the time thye ran.

Similarly, if the United Kingdom joined the United States ( I am not porposing a serious possibility, this is hypothetical) then those Born in England, Scotland, or Wales before Union would be eligable o run.

The clause regarding Natural Born Citesens extends to those who are Naturally born in a terrirotiyy that becoems part of the United Sttaes at a later time.

Citesenship is, by default, added to the new territory after-the-fact.


However, in the case of McCain, the situaiton is reversed, and the terriroty was US held before he was born, and when he was born, and for a while after he was born, but no longer is.

Similarly, if California Ceeded from the Union next year, people Born in California woudl have their eligability questioned in regard to runnign for th office of President. Even thguh they where Biorn American Citesens, and even if thye had move dout fo California to one fo the other states prior to seccession.

On that note, I too think the McCain affair is silly. The Panama Canal Zone did not Seceed form the Union, rather it was a temporary territory of the United States for a specified period of time. Obviously, American Citesens woudl need ot be there to secure their interest sint h region, and it was considered American territory and all its citesens American.

Unliek withhte Civil War, it didn't attmeot seccession, and thee is no evidnec that McCain is loyal at all to Panama.

Nor woudl he be, since he was Born in a US Held area.


Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
This is somehtign I hate about these discussions. I mean no offnecebut, the Constitution seems rather misunderstood in its role in law.

Well - in practice the Constitution has always been used as a coercive document -

No, it was used as a legal framework to set up a lawcode bindign on all of the States, and unite them under a common susyem, to ensure certian rights, and ot outline a Govenrment. Originally it limited he Govenment too 18 Ennumerated Powers.




how else can the Supreme Court claim the same document supports slavery in the 1800s, but condemns it in the 19th?


It didn't.

SLavery was not abolished by the Supreme COurt , it was abolished by the 13th Amendment, which was passed int eh Hosue of Reprtesentitives by a two-thrids majority, passed ot the senate, and won a two-thirds majority, then passed to the states for a two-thids Majority.

I had htis same argument with soemone else on another baord only over the supposed Seperation of Chruhc and Sttae menaign we cant allwo prayer sin school. They too thoguth the same constitution was used ot support slavery, then later to abolish it.

But in the case of slavery, it is an exampel of an amendment being made to the COnstitution.

The COnstitution, as it was originally written, wa snot reintepreted, much less by the SUpreme COurt, to allow the abolition of slavery. The ABolition of slavery was never decided in curt, and the USpreme COurt had nothign whatsoever to do with it.

The 13th Amendment was passed in 1865.

How can it be against civil rights for 200 years, and then later for it?


See above.



I think the fantasy of the 'authority of the text' is more fluff than substance - but the aura of authority keeps people in line.


And I think that some peopel need to read the jhisotry of the COnstitution, and not asusme that it has been intepreted in each new generaitomn to suit their own time period.

The COsntitution wasn't Reitnepeted byt he SUpreme court to discontinue slavery to grant civil rights, it was amended. By a proccess outliend nt eh COnstitution.

Doesn't that prove the point even more? The Constitution is derived from English common law, which is based on precedence and tradition - in the case of the USA, particularly the Declaration of Independence, which was ignored or interpreted differently (depending on how one views this) for centuries.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
No.

When dealign with the Constitution, and Constitutional law, we must view the COnstitution as the Bindign law of the United States and its member societies.

THus, we must still operate udner the Charter as wreritten, and the interpretation fo the document shoudl b derived fromt eh Framers intentions.

English Common law was, and still is, a fluid thing which is by natre undefined, and the Constitution, while derived form English Common Law to a degree was designed to correct the problem of British Law that occures wiht htis fluidity. If we rtreat the COnstitution as a "Living Document" to be intepreted as we see fit, we defeat its purpose. At leats to an extent.


Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 140
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 140
The child of two United States citizens is a citizen of the United States automatically. When he reaches majority the child can opt to become a citizen of the place of his birth, but that would mean abrogating his american citizenship.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 3
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Although it's often ignored, the rule for interpretation of such laws is to try to understand the mind of the lawgiver. In this case, it was clearly a matter of not wanting someone as president who might have lingering loyalties--possibly coerced--to a foreign government.

I would expect the courts to pass on this, leaving it to Congress when accepting or rejecting the electors as a "political question." If Congress passes a law to codify the issue first, then the court would likely address that law (as in Bush v. Gore), which could conceivably make a difference in which electors were placed on the ballots.

Originally Posted by Nan
...the Constitution is considered a living document and the interpretation thereof has evolved over time. What was in the minds of the framers has to be adapted to go with the times.

That is one of the theories of interpretation, but certainly not dominant . . .
hawk, esq.

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 155
Nan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 155
Still a valid theory, and explains how the definition of citizenship with voting rights evolved from mostly protestant white men who owned property to people who were born in this country or became naturalized citizens with no regard to their property-owning status, religion, ethnicity, gender, ability to pay a poll tax and/or literacy, only in certain cases due to constitutional amendments.

Last edited by Nan; 03/05/08 01:41 AM.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
AS some of you know, John MCCain, the Republican frontrunner in the 2008 PResidential Campaign, is now being challenged over his eligability for the office of PResident due to his Birth.

The COnstitution of the United States Of America stipulates that in order to be the President, one must be a Natural-Born citesen.

McCain was born in Panama, but in the US Panama Canal Zone. This makes him a US National. Others claim it also make shim a Natural-Born citesen, sicne he was Born in territory occupied by the United States of America, and to American Parents, at the time.

Yet, others disagree , sayign that it was not a part of the United States of America.

So, lets discuss this.

What are yout htoguths regarding John McCains eligability, and if his Citesenship was native.

Sorry this post is a bit sloppily worded, it was in a hurry, and Im nto feelign quiet up to sorts.


John McCain is constitutionally allowed to become President, there is really not a doubt about this. When Barry Goldwater ran there were questions as to whether or not he was eligible because he was born in Arizona before it became a state. That also was bantered about, but was not a real issue.

Eligibility is not the question for John McCain, the real question is why anyone would support a candidate who believes that the rule of law should not be followed and would allow our border to be wide open and allow an invasion of another culture and language on this country. Put that with campaign finance, opposing tax cuts, saying that we'll be in Iraq for 100 years, etc. and it's mind boggling that he is the Republican nomination for President of the US.

Monomakh

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 2
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
Likes: 2

And as Pat Buchanan recently said "John McCain will make Dick Cheney look like Gandhi"

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Why do you say this?

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5