Friday, May 02, 2008
The low bar of legal scholarship
The Post re-introduces a controversy that really isn’t: McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate
This is such an obvious matter that I can’t help but think less of the legal prowess of anyone arguing otherwise. It's simple - all U.S. citizens can be divided into two groups: Citizens-at-birth or naturalized citizens. …and no-one can be a citizen at birth who is not also the constitutionally-mandated “natural born”. Anyone really want to argue that Senator McCain wasn't a citizen at birth?
In summary: Any so-called legal scholar who claims that there is any kind of issue with John McCain’s eligibility to become President based on his birth place (the Panama Canal Zone) is either a partisan hack or a publicity-hungry law professor hoping to get quoted in the “A” section of the Washington Post...or both.
This is such an obvious matter that I can’t help but think less of the legal prowess of anyone arguing otherwise. It's simple - all U.S. citizens can be divided into two groups: Citizens-at-birth or naturalized citizens. …and no-one can be a citizen at birth who is not also the constitutionally-mandated “natural born”. Anyone really want to argue that Senator McCain wasn't a citizen at birth?
In summary: Any so-called legal scholar who claims that there is any kind of issue with John McCain’s eligibility to become President based on his birth place (the Panama Canal Zone) is either a partisan hack or a publicity-hungry law professor hoping to get quoted in the “A” section of the Washington Post...or both.
