McCain is ineligible to be President of the United States.

Oh my god. Make another thread about hw you think SAT and IQ aren't linked and that they don't mean anything. This really isnt the point of this thread. But I will play.

1)So you think that the IQ tests used in the study don't actually represent IQ? Great go design another study and see if you get a different result. Until then you are talking out your ass.

From what I have seen Raven's Progressive Matrices doesn't even have a written section, it is multiple choice and UNTIMED, and measures IQ suchly:

"According to their author, Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary tests measure the two main components of general intelligence (originally identified by Spearman): the ability to think clearly and make sense of complexity, which is known as eductive ability (from the Latin root "educere", meaning "to draw out") and the ability to store and reproduce information, known as reproductive ability."

2)Of course SAT doesn't correlate well with GPA, GPA is not a good indicator of IQ, it is more an indicator of motivation.

3)"Studies on over 700 participants show that individuals with larger brain volumes have higher IQ scores. About two dozen studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the volume of the human brain have found an overall correlation with IQ of greater than .40 (Rushton & Ankney, 1996; P. A. Vernon, Wickett, Bazana, & Stelmack, 2000)."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Please pm if you have anymore questions about IQ, SAT, or brain size, THANKS!
 
i am in now way a mccain supporter but i think you need to quit bein so narrowed minded in your research read this off of uscitizinship.info

Is a child born outside the US to American parents legally eligible to become President?

\

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.

While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment), other legal experts believe the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

At least three Presidential candidates in recent memory were born outside the US proper:

theres your answer sadly mccain is eligible

 
I have addressed that very law on my own accord earlier in the thread, but thanks for insulting my researching abilites?

Like I said, that law was REPEALED and replaced after only 5 years. Obviously there was something wrong with it. In the replacement citizens born overseas are refered to in the same sense as citizens who are made such because they are under 21, immigrated into the US with their parents, and their parents are naturalized through legal channels. Neither would be considered "natural-born" according to the 14th ammendment. This was likely intentioned on keeping out British sympathizers, born of American citizens in Europe.

3 candidates, but never a president.
 
(2) Through birth abroad to TWO United States citizens

In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

[*]Both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born; and

[*]At least one of your parents lived in the United States at some point in their life.

Your record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of your citizenship. You may also apply for a passport to have your citizenship recognized. If you need additional proof of your citizenship, you may file a Form N-600, "Application for Certificate of Citizenship" with U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly known as the INS) to get a Certificate of Citizenship

once again mccain is eligible
 
No, they wouldn't. That's not a government site, it's a business. They just want people to use their services to immigrate.

"SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed."

The Naturalization Act of 1795

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html
 
Once again, there is no debate on if McCain is a US citizen.

The debate is regarding whether McCain is a "natural-born citizen" in the sense of the 14th ammendment.
 
your agrument is very good but dred scot was in 1857 todays supreme court could interprt the contsitution completly differenlty and rule the other way.
 
The 14th ammendment is pretty clear. There are two ways to become a citizen.

Born in the United States

or

naturalized (not natural-born)

The Dred Scott case is just supporting the case.

But of course the supreme Court can always rule however the hell they want as long as they give some kind of reason for it.
 
alright for mccain to gain citizenship through naturilization he would have had to been an alien. In order to be a alien he would have to have been a citizen of where he was born. So what you need to do is see what the country he was born in definition of citizenship is. Remeber he was born from to american parents on a goverment territory for the u.s. If that country accepts him as a citizen with all those circum stances then he had to of gained citizenship through naturalization. Thats one way of going about this.
 
I don't know how nobody has pointed this out yet but John McCain is a natural-born US citizen not because he was born on Coco Solo AFB but because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a region of Panama under US control from 1903 to 1979.

So as much as I don't want McCain to be President, he IS eligible.

 
The panama canal zone was basically a lease agreement. That in no way makes it part of the United States. The Panamanian government was even responsible for civil and criminal court cases within the zone.
 
ya word, im not down with menopausal fatasses sucking fat ones.

arnold on the other hand... well he was the fucking terminator! and commando and in a million other epic movies.

he's the man, and he has my vote anyday. unfortunately i'm not eligible to vote for those kneegrows as I am a canadian citizen.
 
Dudes John McCain is the man, he went on David Letterman and told a story of his childhood.

"When i was growing up my friend bet me 10 dollars that i couldn't drink a liter of motor oil, so i drank 2 liters of oil and got 20 dollars."

This guys knows how to make money, yet i probably will use my ghetto pass and vote for Obama
 
what makes you think that effort and natural ability are the same thing? Maybe your straight A students who do nothing but study are stupider than you think they are, and maybe the kids who are bored by the simplicity of the concepts you teach in class are smarter than you think they are.

unless if course you are living breathing Intelligence detector. What subject do you teach by the way?
 
"Some might define the term "natural-born citizen" as one who was born

on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790,

approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United

States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United

States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United

States." That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both

citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S.

naval base in Panama at the time of John's birth in 1936."

I'm not even a McCain supporter but you're wrong...give up.
 
Not to get into all the legal mumbo jumbo and all your interpretations but i have known many children born abroad on military installations and upon birth recieve a BIRTH certificate from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Now idk about you but its sounds to me like those children are recognized natrual born citizens of our country.

I know i did nothing to percuade u becuz now u will post more crap on how it should be interpreted but i just laugh at you for actually believing you understand this situation more than the army of workers mccain not to mention his opponents have working for them. If it could in any way shape or form be used against him it would have been done so by now!! JUST DROP IT you look foolish
 
Oh my god, read the thread or STFU. I've said several times that that law was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795.

And (next poster) stop saying:

"Oh, you don't think McCain and his staff haven't thought of that."

Of course they've thought of that. They just know that no one really cares enough to give a fuck. And that if they play their cards right only .01% of the population will realize it anyways. They sure as hell won't play it on FOX NEWS, and thats the news source for McCain supporters anyway.
 
From the FIRST PAGE of your article stating that a military base isn't US soil:

"7 FAM 1111.2 Citizenship

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization.

b. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal

principles:

(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a

person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied

in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and

nationality statutes.

(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under

which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This

rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in

the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have

changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also

changed."

It doesn't matter where he was born, his parents are US citizens, therefore he is a US citizen at birth, which makes him eligible to be elected for President.
 
I did read the post but heres some more:

United States Code

Title 8 Aliens and Nationality

CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Article PART I - NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION

WDDocument.gif%22
Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904



(a)

Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and

whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose

father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or

is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the

United States.(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or

after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date

of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the

birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed

by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad

Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the

United States.

say somethin.
 
You and every hardcore conservative out there...Rush hates him, O' Reily(I think, not sure),Glen Beck,Hannity, Mike Regan...McCain is not a conservative...It's as easy as that! In fact republicans in general are now supportive of big government fortunately not social like Hilary or Obama...but still BIG!!!

That really pisses me off...

Oh and stop looking at things in such a biased way...Everything I hear out of you is well researched but extremely biased info is given...seriously man, you are obviously intelligent enough...don't stoop to the level that the fucking New York Times journalists are at...try to think from all directions...
 
It is not clear that bloodline is enough to qualify as a natural born citizen as used in the 14th ammendment. Was a child born of American parents who had left America for Britain and had the child there elligible to be president of the US? What if those parents were infact British sympathizers? This is the key.

I would like to see legal proof of it though.
 
I'm actually voting for Obama in all likelyhood.

And guys, I know this argument is rediculous, but there is a chance it is technically valid on some level, and I would use that to keep a crazy man out of the White House.
 
I wasn't calling you a conservative...I'd be more than willing to debate with you on everything because most of the time you do it in an educated way...which is the great thing about America...just as long as you don't hold a grudge and do it for the sake of a good debate, further education, sophistication, and just not being another dumb fucking american...a liberal friend and I started a discussion group that goes from politics to philosophy over a cold brew....Oh, and I'm also a Biology major...we don't get to take many poli sci classes
 
SAT, ACT and soon LSAT. I do classes and private tutoring, and some of the most poignant cases I've seen came from one on one tutoring, where I went to a few students homes to help them. One guy had taken over 23 practice tests, done classes and refreshers, ect because he really wanted a high SAT score. Him, so he could go to college. His mom had given up, but he convinced her to do the private tutoring. His scores were kinda average, and even though he had a great GPA, the length of the test and the stress he kinda self induced upon starting one wore him down quickly and he started missing test questions. He didnt miss questions because he didnt know the material - we could go over tests and he would see the right answer usually immediately. But in a large long standardized test setting, he did poorly. He was driven, he was 'smart' by all standards (we had a good talk off the clock about the presidential candidates and his high school rock band, and while I do not claim to be any judge of intelligence, he, by all reasonable means seemed With It), but the SAT kicked his ass every time.

I just dont see a difference between effort and natural ability, at least not on what I teach. Maybe its an artifact of the SAT, I have no idea. Sure, some people are able to rock the SAT without any studying, but for a large portion of people, their SAT is significantly different than what their GPA would predict. Myself included = ).
 
Section 3 of the 1795 Naturalization Act:

"the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits

and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens

of the United States."

Furthermore, it seems that US law divides citizens into two groups: naturalized and natural-born. Since naturalized is defined as a foreign citizen who is converted to citizenship through immigration (or other legal process), and McCain (or his parents) obviously never had to go through any immigration processes, I would cite that as reason enough to consider him natural-born.

 
And honestly, as an Obama supporter, I'd rather see someone like McCain

get the republican nomination because it would cause many true

conservatives to stay home or vote against McCain. It's much better than

someone like Romney or Huckabee who is actually conservative.

This

is, of course, assuming Obama gets the Democratic nomination. If

Clinton gets it, Obama sure as hell better run independent, or we're

boned, because I see Clinton vs. [any 08 Republican candidate]

being a lose-lose election.
 
I'll admit it, I do come off as an ass in these discussions alot of the time. I'm not holding a grudge and I would castrate myself before I actually got angry about a forum thread. But it comes off like that, morso in threads where about a third of the first response is, "you are a fucking idiot", it kinda sets the tone for the discussion. But I don't mind it, I enjoy a rowdy debate every now and then. And it def doesn't mean I'm actually pissed off at anyone, just wanted to clear that up.

true dat on the bio lab courses taking way too much time, lol
 
not your fault, nobody ever bothers to read the entire fucking thread before posting the exact same argument as everybody else.
 
still you didnt tell me what subject you teach. I could understand your argument if you taught something like english. But for something like physics, you either get it or you dont, and if you get it in the classroom you WILL get it on the Sat.
 
Yes, the 1795 law says they are citizens, a change from the natural-born designation in the earlier law.

Infact, children born in the Panama Canal Zone DO have to file papers for US citizenship. I found a personal account on a blog discussing the topic.

"I was born in the Canal Zone to 2 US born Parents working for the Canal Zone Government.

Guess what? I am not a Natural Born US Citizen. At age 3 my parents applied for my Naturalization Papers and my mother guarded them with her life.

When I apply for a Passport, a birth certificate is not good enough, I must pull out that Naturalization Paper work.

My birth certificates state on them Ancon, Canal Zone, Republic of Panama.

Panama is unique. It has never held the same generally accepted laws as US Military bases in other over seas locations. Babies born in Panama are registered w the Panamanian Registro Civil. My marriage was preformed by a Panamanian Judge in a Panama Court house - My marriage to a US Army Soldier and me a dependent of US Civilian Parents.

Do a little real homework before staying the idea is wrong. In the end the US Supreme Court will have to make the ruling. There are enough cases on the books regarding CZ's status that any good lawyer can lay a claim McCain is not eligible by the definition in the constitution."

This is because the Canal Zone had its OWN government bodies! From the CDC website:

"From 1904 until 1979, the Canal Zone Government registered all civil acts of birth, death, and marriage in the Canal Zone for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals."
 
I did, I teach SAT, ACT and soon will teach LSAT. I work for a tutoring company, so I kinda have to be able to teach everything in terms of subject matter for individual tutoring. What I teach in a SAT class is pretty much just me just showing students alternative strategies for questions so they aren't confusing.
 
It would never happen. The entire basis of our military is now built on volunteering. Now people volunteer for various reasons (financial no doubt being the biggest reason) but regardless, they fight for their country and put themselves into that role when they enlisted. If a draft would be re-instated, a number of things would happen. (Vietnam all over again)

First, many people would simply refuse to go. There are so many hippy liberals in this country it would start a downright revolution, the white house would be overrun with protests and they would probably have to shut down Washington DC.

Secondly, our army would most certainly be less powerful. How cooperative would you be if you were just thrown into training and torn away from your daily life. Strength in numbers counts for so much less than it did when the draft was in affect. This war calls for heavily trained pilots, tactical recon teams, and special forces teams, not just regular army.

a draft will NEVER come back, it just cant work. The Government knows this. The world is a different place, and we're long past the time where a draft would do this country ANY good.

On a side note, I am by no means a democrat, but Im open to many views of democrats. Clinton is a communist, plain and simple. I listened to her speak this past saturday at my college and she further proved to me how much of an idiot she really is. On that note, I think Obama has a great message and would be a fine candidates for president. I do think he lacks the experience, but a fresh start would be welcomed. McCain is a smart man, strides ahead of the president we have now. We'll just have to wait and see how this all turns out.

 
i love political discussions on the site nobody ever nows any thing just either recite bullshit rhetoric or say a hole bunch of crap they dont understand.

 
believe it or not, out of the 100,000 people on this site, there might just be a few intelligent ones. this thread seems to have attracted the likes of both. and if McCain did get elected, i would be interested in seeing this brought up as I do not want to see another war hawk become our next president.
 
according to wikipedia (as retarded as that sounds): "The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979", which apparently makes mccain a legitimate candidate, at least according the cited source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top