But CNN said that none of the Republicans really targeted Missouri -- and Romney came there only as an afterthought.

RALPH! Don't you DARE!!! Remember what a messyou made in 2000? Do something for your country. Endorse Obama!

First, my background: I graduated from Harvard Law and was for some seven years a law professor, specializing (in part) in citizenship issues and related matters. My point is that I have a lot of expertise in this area. (I am presently retired and living in Canada)

Today, I learned something fascinating from your blog: John McCain was not born in the US. That means he is not a "natural born" citizen in constitutional law terms. He was born in the Canal Zone, and accordingly is only a citizen because his parents were both US citizens and Congress grants citizenship to those with two parents born abroad. There is a special law (Title 8, Sec. 1403) which gives US citizenship to those with at least one American parent born in the Canal Zone. See also www.aca.ch/oncitz.pdf. (which correctly notes that the issue of "natural born" citizenship and its relationship to presidential qualification has never been specifically decided). (I include this reference because it is a nice summary of the leading cases).

Apparently, McCain's issue is starting to surface. According to the last news items I read, Attorney Ted Olsen has been asked by McCain to "look into" the issue. In my view, this issue will become a hot item, once someone with clout starts raising it.

Here's my take

McCain became a citizen not because of the constitution but under a law as established by Congress. It is not the law as established by the Constitution. The term "natural born" is used both in connection with the provision concerning Presidents and in the 14th Amendment. To be "natural born" one must be born within the territory of the US. The Canal Zone was never a formal state or territory of the US. McCain was basically born on a military base in a foreign land (under US control pursuant to treaty).

Congress specifically clarified the law when it legislatively stated that persons born of two foreign parents in the Canal Zone are not US citizens. Neither, by the way, are such persons born of two foreign parents in a US military base, or -- for that matter -- in a US embassy. If any of those places were really "US territory," then birth alone would be sufficient to give citizenship. Congress, in other words, would not need to pass a special law. (Or put it this way: if Congress can pass a law which made John McCain eligible as "natural born," why couldn't it do the same for Arnie S.? Yet no one believes that's possible).

(My own daughter was born in Canada of two US citizens. I don't think she is "natural born," either. She's not planning on running for president, fortunately).

I don't think McCain is eligible to be President. But the question is whether the DNC or someone else is going to raise that.

Personally, I think this is a hot issue. It was raised when George Romney was running for President (Romney was born in Mexico), but he never got close enough for the issue to catch on. This time it may well be different.

I support McCaskill's attempt to change the Constitution by a statute, but I question whether it works. If Congress can "declare" that a person born on a military base is a "natural born citizen," can it not "declare" that a person born in Austria of Austrian parents who is later naturalized is also a "antural born citizen"? If so, Arnie S. can be president! (Why were we thinking that he couldn't?)

I've never heard that Congress could change the Constitution unilaterally. Whatever "natural born citizen" means, I doubt that a mere statute can modify that meaning.

While train and bus ridership is going up, in this day and age the contest shouldn't be between the automobile and the larger modes of transportation. Rather, the problem is the private auto -- which is used only part of the day, causes traffic congestion and parking problems, and the like. The larger forms of vehicle (busses, for example) have their own problems, because they are forced to run on fixed schedules and must have heavier ridership to be economical.

Today, with mobile phones, computers, and "smart cards," there should be no more private autos. Autos should be rented by the minute (that is, when used), dropped off in public lots and picked up anywhere, reserved online by computer, and the like. Companies like Zipcar have this model available, but they are very small -- but that is the wave of the future. A mix of easily rentable cars, plus larger forms of transportation -- that is what will lower greenhouse gas emissions, help solve energy problems, and lower traffic issues. Why aren't we going there?

I've been against Hillary from the start -- despite the fct that she's a woman! She's just bloody political and always looking for the angles and I really wanted something different. I can think of lots of women I would vote for, even over Obama or -- my original candidate -- John Edwards. But none ofthem were running.

If Lori Drew entered into the contract with MySpace, intending at the time of entry to violate it, that might be construed as intentional fraud, which is a crime. Of course, the crime isn't really directed at the harm to Megan, but if you're fishing for a crime, there it is. It would be difficult to prove, I'm sure.

I mean, it was a quip without a lot of real meaning. I'm no fan of Huckabee's, but I've got to say, I've heard a lot worse from a lot of politicians.