Which of these Mavericks is actually foreign-born and may not have been qualified to run for President?
A. Samuel A. Maverick (for whom the term was coined)
B. James Garner (TV's Bret Maverick)
C. Mel Gibson (Film's Bret Maverick)
D. John McCain (The GOP's Maverick)
Check the Comments for the answer.
Posts
1 comment:
I know what you were thinking: Mel Gibson. But our favorite ‘80s Aussie actor was actually born in Poughkeepsie, NY. Samuel A. Maverick was born in Pendleton, SC, and James Garner, in Norman, OK.
Nope. It’s Johnny Dangerous. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 (yes, three years before Hitler invaded Poland). Apparently, it’s never really been unequivocally determined what the Founding Fathers meant by “natural-born citizen” in the Constitution. Apparently, the First Congress in 1790 stated it meant that, "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." However, that was amended, and the law of the land at the time (8 U.S.C. 173 (1925) stated: "The term 'United States' shall be construed to mean the United States, and any waters, territory, or other place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, except the Isthmian Canal Zone."
In 1937, the law was amended again to include the Panama Canal and was made retroactive. However, at the time of his birth, John McCain was most likely not a “natural-born citizen.” Actually, I thought that was one of the sillier controversies this year taken to new heights of absurdity when Senators Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama were trying to rush a bill through the Senate to clear up any questions of McCain’s presidential eligibility. After all, George Romney was born in Mexico, and he ran for President. Hadn’t it already been cleared up?
But it does make one wonder who really is qualified to be President. Hmmm…
Post a Comment