McCain not eligible to be president?

[Cali Coug]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us...nt&oref=slogin

I doubt that is the legal answer (nobody really knows, it hasn't ever been litigated and probably won't be here either), but it is an interesting theoretical question.

I do expect that conservatives will only rely on original intent to make their case (which would be a much tougher argument to make than one not relying on original intent) in order to be consistent. And yet something tells me...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us...nt&oref=slogin

I doubt that is the legal answer (nobody really knows, it hasn't ever been litigated and probably won't be here either), but it is an interesting theoretical question.

I do expect that conservatives will only rely on original intent to make their case (which would be a much tougher argument to make than one not relying on original intent) in order to be consistent. And yet something tells me...

I would love to see Hillary or Obama start some litigation on this.

[BarbaraGordon]

I thought that angle was interesting. I doubt anyone will make anything of it though. To try to assert that McCain is somehow not American enough seems absurd.

McCain and Obama sure were going at it yesterday. Pretty good indication that if McCain gets his way the general election discourse will be all about the war...staying the course....gates of hell...etc.

Also, interesting press release out today: the RNC publicly chastised the Tennessee Republican Party for overusing Obama's middle name in attack ads. It's the first time I know of that the national party has said, hey, we don't want anything to do with this. I think they realize that that kind of rhetoric doesn't go over well with the voters, and it could actually be harmful for their nominee.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Also, interesting press release out today: the RNC publicly chastised the Tennessee Republican Party for overusing Obama's middle name in attack ads. It's the first time I know of that the national party has said, hey, we don't want anything to do with this. I think they realize that that kind of rhetoric doesn't go over well with the voters, and it could actually be harmful for their nominee.

Like I've said, the local afternoon drive guy uses it all the time. It doesn't go over well with moderates and independents, hence the move to prevent use by official Repubs and at McCain rallies. But I suspect it can be a motivator to get a certain segment out to vote.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I would love to see Hillary or Obama start some litigation on this.

An interesting legal question is whether either of them have standing to sue (or for that matter, who does).

Neither of them would do it directly. They wouldn't be that foolish. But I suppose a strong argument could be made that any voter would have standing on this issue so presumably the suit could be brought by millions of people who are totally unconnected to either campaign.

I can't imagine the Court being excited about that case. What a mess it would create if they ruled against McCain. Then what? What if it is after convention? What if it was after the election and McCain won? Are all acts of his null and void? Can the VP become the president when he ran with someone ineligible to be president? None of this will ever happen, but it is kind of fun to think about in theory.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

An interesting legal question is whether either of them have standing to sue (or for that matter, who does).

Neither of them would do it directly. They wouldn't be that foolish. But I suppose a strong argument could be made that any voter would have standing on this issue so presumably the suit could be brought by millions of people who are totally unconnected to either campaign.

I don't know if they'd have standing or not either, but it wouldn't matter. Any movement of this nature, attributed to them or not, would only have a backlash effect.

Thus, I would love to see it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know if they'd have standing or not either, but it wouldn't matter. Any movement of this nature, attributed to them or not, would only have a backlash effect.

Thus, I would love to see it.

It could, but I don't know that it would be as strong of a backlash as you think. It is a legitimate question to ask, and it could actually gain traction if someone had the guts to bring suit.

I would love to watch the conservatives make all sorts of legal arguments on the topic, none of which have anything to do with original intent. Original intent is always nice to use when it supports your position.

We won't ever find out, I think.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It could, but I don't know that it would be as strong of a backlash as you think. It is a legitimate question to ask, and it could actually gain traction if someone had the guts to bring suit.

I doubt it. As Barbara noted, it'd be about on par with saying "Barack Hussein Obama" all the time.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We won't ever find out, I think.

Probably not.

[il Padrino Ute]

What a surprise that the NY Times would run a story like that. Coupled with the garbage it ran earlier about McCain, is there really any doubt that some (including me) think that paper has a bias against conservatives?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

What a surprise that the NY Times would run a story like that. Coupled with the garbage it ran earlier about McCain, is there really any doubt that some (including me) think that paper has a bias against conservatives?

Do you not think it is a legitimate issue to point out? If not, why?