Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
John McCain: Natural Born Citizen?
A question we should be sure we can answer
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | John McCain — Comments (169) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With the political comeback of John McCain in this race, there's a question I'd like to throw out to the community that I think we need to be able to answer in the event McCain wins the nomination: is John McCain a natural-born citizen?
As you all know, that's what the Constitution requires to be eligible for the Presidency. And knowing their cutthroat tactics, it's a question the Clinton campaign would almost certainly raise through someone unaffiliated with their campaign...just as some raised questions about George Romney (born in Mexico), it just never got resolved before he dropped from his presidential race.
McCain has faced questions about this issue before. He was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens. It's a common misunderstanding that the zone was a U.S. territory - in fact, the U.S. had lease rights, but not territorial rights. And according to some lawyers who work in this field, past citizens in the Canal Zone - again, born to U.S. citizens - have not been considered "natural born."
Yet according to the Naturalization Law of 1790 that sought to define the term: "And 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."
See also: Weedin v. Chin Bow 274 U.S. 657 (1927): "A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth." So in other words, had McCain stayed in Panama after being born there to US citizens, he still would have been a citizen but any progeny he may have sired while there (if he didn't come live in the US before then) would not have been citizens. But since his parents HAD lived here, he's good to go.
The odd quirk here seems to be that one could argue the child of illegal immigrants, who came to America and then gave birth here, would have a better claim to a legal right to be president than John McCain. I still believe he ought to qualify fully to be president - he was on a U.S. Military Base for crying out loud - but we ought to have our legal ducks in a row on this point should he become the nominee.
« Lefties get angry as Obama exposes his confused self — Comments (1) | McCain's Money Problem — Comments (28) »
John McCain: Natural Born Citizen? 169 Comments (0 topical, 169 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
this is hilarious
by redguyinbluestate
Wow. If this is what the debate has come to McCain is running away with the nomination. What's next? McCain wants comprehensive immigration reform to legalize himself before he ascends to the presidency? Please.
what the hell is this?
by Brandozilla
is this something that we really need to even discuss?
This is pathetic.
military base
by absentee
A baby born on an overseas military base is considered to have been born on U.S. soil, right? That's always what I understood while in the Marine Corps.
absentee
| 
| 
Military bases
by zuiko
Are considered U.S. soil. Same with American embassies. I got no idea about the canal zone. It is possible there is some legal difference.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
canal zone
by absentee
The OP says in the canal zone on a base. The base is what matters. It is American soil, locale notwithstanding right? .
absentee
| | |
Missed that bit at the end
by zuiko
I would think that would be case closed right there. Unless there's something specific to the basing agreement in Panama (if there even was one here) that would confuse the issue. I don't think he's got anything to worry about, anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That Would Be My Understanding
by Bourbeau
Moreover, I'd be curious as to why in Senator McCain's 72 years, this question has not come up in any manner, shape or form. I can't count the number of times I've been asked that question, so I'm sure he's had to do the same. And yet there's still some doubt? I'm incredulous.
re: canal zone
by Consul At Arms
@absentee,
Okay, now I had to go get my copy of the law (Immigration and Nationaly Act or INA) and look it up. Here's what I find:
1. INA Title III is titled "Nationality and "Naturalization"
2. Chapter 1 thereof is titled "Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization"
3. INA Section 303 therein is titled "Persons born in the Canal Zone"
According to Ben's post, Sen. McCain was born in the Canal Zone to two U.S. citizen parents on August 29, 1936. IIRC, one of those parents was then a serving U.S. Navy officer.
INA Sec. 303 is also 8 U.S.C. 1403, "Persons Born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or After February 26, 1904."
This obviously applies to Sen. McCain, even as old as he actually is he doesn't predate this timeframe.
INA Sec. 303(a) states:
"(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, 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."
This seems to be one of the provisions dealing with collective naturalization, so if we backtrack to INA Sec. 301, "Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth," we find, in INA Sec. 301(c), the following:
"(c) "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions , prior to the birth of such person;"
80% of Panamanians wanted the US Military to stay but Clinton
by BatMasterson
closed them anyway. McCain was probably born on one of the 8-12 military base hospitals so it will be no problem.
End of US Bases at the Panama Canal
By Robert R. McMillan
One of the silent foreign policy failures of the Clinton administration relates to negotiations to maintain US bases in Panama after the canal is transferred at noon on Dec. 31, 1999. A few weeks ago Panama and the United States announced the termination of talks. World shipping interests are alarmed, and the Panamanian economy will also be hard hit.
Pools constantly show almost 80 percent of the Panamanian population want the bases to remain. While they certainly enjoy the economic benefits, they also favor the bases because of the stability represented by the US military in Panama. After years of dictators, the US military became one stabilizing factor and a boon to the Panamanian economy.
World shipping supports the presence of US bases because of the perception of stability they provide. With a US military presence in Panama, shippers feel that canal traffic flow is less likely to be impeded.
(Panamanian Foreign Minister) Gabriel Lewis clearly stated to me that bases could stay, and they could stay under the cover of being there for drug related purposes. There was to be no narrow construction about the purpose for the bases. That information was passed on through appropriate channels of the United States government. Yet, no concerted effort was made to keep the bases even after Presidents Clinton and Perez Balladeres met in early 1995.
Just another one of Clinton's multitude of Blunders
re: 80% of Panamanians wanted the US Military to stay but. . .
by Consul At Arms
@BatMasterson,
Actually it does matter, but INA Sec. 303(b) would cover it even if he were born in the Republic of Panama:
"(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 Act, 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 Goverment 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."
It's my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that Sen. McCain's father was at that time a serving U.S. Navy officer, which certainly counts as a U.S. Government employee.
re: Military bases
by Consul At Arms
@zuiko,
Negative and negative. However, there are/were special rules about the Canal Zone; I'd have to look them up.
McCain, being the legitimate (i.e., born in wedlock) child of two U.S. citizens was unquestionably a U.S. citizen from birth.
However, the question as to whether "citizen from birth" means the same thing in jurisprudence as "natural born citizen" is something that has never before become an issue in a presidential race.
@absentee,
Negative.
U.S.
by Consul At Arms
@absentee,
Negative.
U.S. territory includes the U.S. state, territories, territorial waters, and airspace. Anyone born therein, with very limited exceptions such as children born to accredited diplomats or hostile invaders/occupiers, is a U.S. citizen. This is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
There's a lot of misunderstanding about that sort of thing.
even if the clinton's brought this up during a general
by Brandozilla
election, it would only help McCain, as it would come across as petty and pathetic as this post is.
Calm down. This is related
by Erick
Calm down. This is related to an email discussion. I think we can all agree here. But we need to start thinking about the arguments.
At some point the media is going to latch on this story. We might as well discuss it here so when the time comes we can legitimately say we've been there done that.
In re Dem hardball:
by streetwise
check this out from Peggy Noonan:
And if we are to believe the new voice will be a softer, more conciliatory and more engaging one, how to square that with what is going on at HillaryIs44.com, a Web site that is for all intents and purposes a back door to her war room? There you will see that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will soon "destroy" Barack Obama in a "scandal" involving an "indicted slumlord" who is Mr. Obama's "friend of 17 years" and with whom Mr. Obama has been involved in "shady deals."
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120000928241482363.html?mod=opinion_main...
This isn't petty
by Ben Domenech
My grandfather was born in a territory, and I have relatives born in the canal zone.
I think the reality is that the Clintons play dirty, and we should be prepared for everything they can throw at a potential GOP candidate. Immigration law is dicey stuff, and I just want to make sure we all know the merits and aren't swayed by email blasts to anti-immigration lists by Clinton cronies saying "McCain isn't Constitutionally Qualified!" etc.
Good points both B & E...
by matpruitt
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
attack McCain's citizenship.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
This isn't petty
by Consul At Arms
@Ben,
You're right, it's technical but it's also a matter of the U.S. Constitution.
INA Sec. 301, you find the following language:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
That language is lifted verbatim from the 14th Amendment. What concerns me is whether a court (perhaps even the SCOTUS) were to hold that the following subsections, including INA Sec. 301(c) under which I believe Sen. McCain derives his citizenship, might _not_ be "natural born citizens."
I don't know if this has ever been settled or tested as a matter of constitutional law before in connection with presidential qualifications. After the 2000 election debacle, a Democratic Party last-minute strafing run at the constitutional qualifications of a Republican presidential candidate, especially if he wins against Sen. Clinton, can't be lightly dismissed.
That sort of thing leads to civil war in less settled republics.
?
by darwinianlurch
Weird non-issue. Germany, South Korea, etc all have large populations of family members of service members. I have a hard time believing that the citizenship status all of those kids born on base hospitals is remotely in question. Anyone who tries to bring this up in the general will be laughed out of the room.
re: ?
by Consul At Arms
@ darwinianlurch,
The U.S. citizenship status of children born in U.S. military hospitals overseas (i.e., outside the U.S. or its possessions) owes nothing to their location, but in those cases is solely due to "jus sanguinis" citizenship dirivation. That is, they get from one or both of their parents being U.S. citizens who are qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children.
Transmission qualification is kind of a technical matter that I don't want to get into, but suffice it to say that children of German or South Korean parents who happen to be born in U.S. military hospitals in those countries don't qualify for U.S. citizenship from birth either.
There are so many other reasons...
by Steve Foley
...why this man shouldn't be POTUS -- from Mark R. Levin at NRO - The Real McCain Record
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
Not to mention
And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
While his citizenship, or lack there of, is intriguing there's plenty of substantiated evidence of misconduct on the part of John McCain to the conservative movement!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Jack? Mr. Jack? Is there a Mr. Thread Jack in the house? nt
by Dan McLaughlin
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Ok my appologies...
by Steve Foley
...Ben & Dan. But it doesn't negate the argument!
Just saying.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Plus if this is an excercise...
by Steve Foley
...in how we are to defend Mr. McCain on the questionable issue of citizenship it begs the question of how we're supposed to defend these issues which are far more serious.
Unless Ben's intention was just to be flippant and throw this out for that cat... and I just missed it? In which case I'll shut up and go away!:)
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
John McCain's parents were citizens. That is all he needs.
I think even the Clinton camp wouldn't dare touch this with a ten-foot pole.
Besides, McCain comes from a long line of military officers and attended Annapolis himself. IIRC, you must be a citizen to attend the military colleges. Do you have to be natural born? Dunno. My guess is that at the time McCain went, you wouldn't have found one that wasn't anyway.
There are lots of places to hit McCain. This isn't one of them.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
somewhat off-topic aside
by zerodivisor
Foreign nationals can and do attend our service academies. As I understand it, we have exchanges with various nations, similar to the inter-service exchanges (had an Indonesian and a Air Force Academy cadet in my company).
natural born is the key not citizen
by jescando
Actually there is only two issues here "natural born" and "US" in the constitution that make him look ineligible.
He is a citizen by instant naturalization by statute on the canal zone and panama region US code.
But that doesnt mean he is naturally born, nor does that mean this was official under legal terms US sovereign.
Even the state department warns people of these matters for soldiers
"7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United
States"
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
...c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship."
Time for mccain to step down and for a constitutional ammendment to be proposed and ratified before the next election so no other candidate will be effected.
We still have romney, huckabee, and maybe others that have delegates.
oh, now I get it
by Marcus Traianus
This is probably the Genesis of his penchant to always "bridge the gap".
Honestly though, who cares. His record on conservatism and constitutional issues is enough to realize McCain is not POTUS material.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Yeah Ben, have to agree with some of the comments...
by matpruitt
although I think the word "pathetic" is a bit much, and also a word I would only use when talking with somebody I don't agree with 95% of the freaking time. This is just politics Brandozilla... whoah!
Big fan of yours BD... been reading your stuff for years, but this seems sort of like your are trying to make a point that isn't clear and can't really make with a straight face because there is nothing to the story. Maybe I am missing something, but who cares?
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Not really
by Ben Domenech
I just have a lot of folks who forward me crazy emails that I have to refute using Snopes. Just trying to head that off at the pass.
The fact is that John McCain should be absolutely considered qualified, and we should be prepared to refute it with the 1790 law.
Good point. I agree. <n/t>
by matpruitt
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
issues when they ran off Tom Delay, I would not put anything past them.
That must be one of the many reasons why they are hoping we screw up and nominte McCain. The dhimmies got friendly courts and lazy judges to block the Republican party from replacing Delay on the ballot in his district. Not linke in New Jersey or Missourri at all, of course. So you can just bet on how the dhimmies would seek to make things a bit easier on Hillary by keeping McCain off the ballot completely. And how I am sure the 9th circuit court of great patriots and freedom lovers would respond to this.....
Another is certainly the Keating five scandal, where McCain was on payola of the Ken Lay of the day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Face it: McCain talking about integrity is way more than just sanctimonious. He was a crook.
And just to remind us all that the campaign finance 'reform' McCain foisted on us is nothing more or less than censorship of free speach, we should not forget about how a movie about Hillary is now considered speech to be controlled by the government:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U35BSG0&show_article=1
And McCain is a conservative -someone who respects our freedom and rights exactly how?
And his winning stand on immigration is and his subsequent dodge and weave game is in the fresh memories of us all.
And how is the wall construction going, btw?
See my comment above nt
by Dan McLaughlin
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
With all due respect
by hunter
I thought the issue was making sure that McCain is not vulnerable to some sort of dhimmie attack that would derail his candidacy. I offered some specific examples of why citizenship would be a perfect dhimmie tool as well specfic documented examples of why McCain could easily be a magnet for disastrous general election candidate.
It seems to me that is not thread jacking at all, no matter how uncomfortable documenting the many problems McCain faces might make someone.
I can understand throwing
by jpers36
I can understand throwing this out there to try to defuse any controversy, as Erick states. But this really is a non-issue. Nothing in the post gives a legal basis for even questioning McCain's natural citizenship. IMO the question mark should've bene left off of the title, at the least.
-
NARF
and BTW
by jpers36
This is coming from someone who currently considers McCain to be unsupportable.
-
NARF
i agree
by Brandozilla
about at least leaving the question mark off.
Everything you said seems to
by RandomGuy
Everything you said seems to say we have no problem.
Frankly, even if some lawyer could dream up something, A. I doubt that the courts would enforce it, it would probably be considered a non-justicaiable political question, B. I doubt the courts would take the case, knowing it would be a powder-keg, C. Even if there was a chance that they did, nobody would try to file one. If he won the election, and the D's sued to overturn on these grounds, even if they won, they would enter office with about 5% approval ratings.
I'd spend more time worrying about winning the election then crazy worries like this.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
get real...
by braden
swiftboating our only hope of winning in november is a sure way to get shrillary in the white house. he almost died many times for his country...I think the american people will give him a pass just on that.
You know, Neil, Swift Boating.
by Leon H Wolf
Accurately representing a candidate's historical past.
Same thing it's always meant.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
sorry kids..
by braden
Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used (primarily) as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker consider unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.
thus, it has no connotation as to whether it's factual or not.
No it's not
by jpers36
Swiftboating is liberal blogosphere jargon, not American political jargon. Those who understand who the 2004 Swiftboaters were and what they said would never use their name in such a sense. It's Orwellian to do so -- attempting to change remembered history through repeated misuse of a term.
-
NARF
Define "Clintonian" nt
by Dan McLaughlin
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Actually, sparky...
by Leon H Wolf
its actual usage connotates that the speaker is whining about a true attack that is especially damaging. By labeling it "Swift Boating," it is hoped that the public will believe that said attack is false, and then later it will be "confirmed" that the attack is false by the repeated invocation of the phrase "Swift Boated" (it's like magic!).
The majority of the American public believed the Swift Boat vets' completely credible claims (did you notice who won the election?). Only idiot lefties consider it to be a perjorative since it basically caused their guy to lose.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I was just...
by braden
defending John McCain, our next POTUS, not that weasel Kerry.
Given that you're talking to conservatives,
by Leon H Wolf
You should perhaps have avoided using the phrase "Swift Boating."
A conservative would have known that.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Well done
by Neil Stevens
I like how my bullfighting post became a straight line for you to use, heh.
dont think so
by jescando
in this case what would happen is all his delegates would be released. All parties that have filed in all states for the republican ticket would probably get the option to restart their campaigns so any number of good candidates could replace mccain.
Also it appears republicans are leaving to vote apparently for Obama to stop hillary and to help obama beat mccain.
So this is not good at all.
The base is very mad and is moving against the east coast power house in DC and NY centric media/govt control spots.
This could give us a real chance then to win where it appears the loss is going to be very frustrating from my perspective like clinton and bob dole's election
McCain has always been the
by jimmuy8
McCain has always been the sole citizen of McCainiac Island, of which, by the way he votes and the bills he sponsors, we are all merely residents at his whim.
If he wants to tell us to shut up--he will.
If he wants to tell us what cars to drive--he will.
If he wants to let millions more come in--he will.
Etc., etc.
It's John McCain's Island and we all need to get used to that fact.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. Explanation, please?
by MrsNachos
I don't understand why you thought what you just said pertained at all to this post? It seems like you needed a place to rant as opposed to making a valid point. While I understand the draw of that, and have been rightly accused in the past of going so off topic that I was back on topic, it seemed excessive to me.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
Oh, and vote McCain.
by MrsNachos
Hater.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
MrsNachos....
by MrMosis
Hope you don't mind my asking, but would you mind pointing me in the direction where I might learn about your rationale for supporting McCain as opposed to say.... Fred or Mitt? If there is a blog here or elsewhere perhaps? Or perhaps you would like to run through a brief version here? Many thanks!
MrMosis,
by MrsNachos
When Leon became Sam Brownback's ecampaign manager, I removed all my blogs because people were looking for ANYTHING to discredit him. I'm fairly unconventional and I decided that rather than deal with any backlash that I would just remove my stuff. I'm pretty sporadic on the site depending upon my free time.
There are currently no comments nor are there any blogs that explain my position, but I may consider writing one this weekend, as I will have a bit of free time.
Thank you for asking.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
Alrighty MrsN
by MrMosis
Thanks for the reply, that is certainly understandable. Look forward to whatever you come up with when you have the time.
Congratulations on having some free time coming up this weekend too, by the way. It must be nice!
It is.
by MrsNachos
Free time has been more plentiful this week and it has been awesome.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
legal advice
by borntoraisehogs
This sounds like something that lawyer hating lying bully pervert sexual harasser O'Reilly would come up with .
I am.
I am sitting in front of my monitor chuckling at the idea that a guy who has gone out of his way to support illegal immigration and birthright citizenship for the children of illegals might be denied the right to run for the Presidency because he wasn't born on "US soil".
Heh.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
And I agree that it's a non-issue. nt
by mbecker908
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I really think that this is a non-issue...
by dba31498
And the worst thing that would happen is McCain decides that he will drop out and endorse Fred
See, here is the plan
by Dan McLaughlin
1. Nominate McCain. He's the most electable.
2. Pick very conservative running mate. E.g., Mark Sanford.
3. Win
4. File lawsuit resulting in judgment that he is not eligible to serve (nothing in Art II says you can't elect an ineligible president, he just can't serve). When McCain can't take the Oath, I believe Art XX Sec. 3 could be read to provide that Sanford becomes president.
5. Profit!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I love it! <n/t>
by matpruitt
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Hmmm Anyone Reading?
by MrMosis
Ben is effectively saying it is a non-issue, but one that will be brought up by the opposition should McCain get the nomination and could therefore be worthy of consideration now. Yet I notice many comments re-re-re-repeating that it is a non-issue. Perplexing.
-------------------------------------------------------
"I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
I think some folks
by Ben Domenech
Are, sadly, just reading the first paragraph. But thanks, that's exactly what I was saying.
This won't be raised by Obama, but I wouldn't put it past the Clintons to start a whisper campaign.
Same way I read it
by ekevlar11
And I think Ben is right.
Could this be an issue? Yes. I would not put it past the Dem machine to raise this issue (really non-issue) as a campaign whisper. Not that it would ever go to courts. All that would have to be said in an email, or comments to the press..."DID YOU KNOW THAT MCCAIN WASN'T EVEN BORN IN THE U.S.?, DID YOU KNOW THAT MCCAIN MAY NOT EVEN BE AN AMERICAN?, ETC., ETC., ETC."
Would this have an impact? Possibly. But I think that it would easily be seen through by the public and immediately dissed. It would likely have a negative effect on the Dem campaign and would likely be brought up multiple times later on as a great positive counter-attack by a McCain campaign. "See how sleazy that campaign is..."
This would be a McCain win to raise the issue.
Erik
If I Qualify so does Mac
by Alyosha
Way back when I was in my first semester at law school I asked my constitutional law prof if I qualified as a natural born citizen (my father is a German national and my mother is an American; I was born on German soil and neither parent was military; but my mother had me certified by the US Consulate as a "US Citizen Born Abroad"). My prof after a day or two cited the 1790 definition (which shocked me, because not a lot of law profs are inclined to take anything from 1790 as gospel), but she also made an interesting point: if I had never been "naturalized" and was a citizen, then I must be a natural born citizen.
Regardless of the legal status of the canal zone or exceptions for military families, if I qualify then McCain must.
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
Exactly the case
by Ben Domenech
Same for him. But note that your prof had to dig up the 1790 stuff to support it. Hence, the need for some education.
re: If I Qualify so does Mac
by Consul At Arms
@Alyosha,
Your constitutional law professor missed out on the concept of "collective naturalization," although I sympathize with his viewpoint.
It's an interesting question as to whether the 1790 law still applies in light of the fact that U.S. nationality law is now solely within the purview of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C) Act of June 27, 1952, As Amended.
Remember that the 14th Amendment wasn't passed until after the U.S. Civil War.
Just curious: at which U.S. consulate. I've got about four sets of "birth papers" myself, three U.S. and one German.
Where have I seen this before?
by Leverkuhn
Reading between the lines:
Hey, I'm not saying it's a legitimate issue, and I'm not saying we should all take this argument seriously, but we all need to take seriously the possibility that that the other side will take it seriously. Not that I want to raise the issue myself, I'm just saying it could be raised, and therefore I'm raising the possibility that it may be raised at some point in the future, and therefore we need to raise it among ourselves ahead of time.
Why does this remind me ever so much of when Hillary & Co raised the issue of Barack Obama's drug use in anticipation of the event that Republicans would raise it? In the primaries, no attack is too dirty as long as you can make a plausible argument that it's going to happen anyway.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
I'm making dirty attacks?
by Ben Domenech
I specifically say it's been raised before - by the WaPo, not by an anti-McCain outfit. I specifically explain why it shouldn't be an issue, and we should make sure we know the law to refute it if the other side raises it. How is this a dirty attack?
Well, putting our cards on the table ...
by Leverkuhn
... I tend to think that raising an issue that, so far, no candidate on either the Republican or Democratic side has raised, and which you agree holds no legal merit, indicates an unstated motive. I could be wrong. Maybe you raised this issue solely out of the goodness of your heart, just to help McCain & Co put their "legal ducks in a row." After all, I've been wrong before. But my naturally cynical nature inclines me toward other interpretations.
Let me ask you this, do you support John McCain for president of the United States, in preference to all the other GOP candidates? If you do, then I guess I'm wrong. If you don't, then is it so surprising when some people think that you might be trying to scare republican voters away from McCain so that another candidate might win?
BTW, I've checked your recent blogs and I can't find a reference to a particular favorite candidate. So my question isn't rhetorical; I honestly want to know the answer.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
I can't believe this is even here!
by Thunder
Hello, if your parents are citizens when you are born, so are you. End of story. There are plenty of reasons to go after McCain, but this is just silly.
re: I can't believe this is even here!
by Consul At Arms
@Thunder,
That's a simple enough statement, and it's true as far as U.S. citizenship goes.
The question remains whether that meets the Constitutional requirement of Art. II, Sec. 1:
"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 the President;"
If the 1790 law is still operative, then Sen. McCain is unquestionably qualified.
Oh. Come. On! <n/t>
by matpruitt
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Could you provide citations
by Steven Willis
Ben,
I believe your concerns are well-taken. Many people seriously questioned Romney's qualification to run decades ago.
I find the case you cite irrelevant. The statute, however, is quite helpful; but, do you have a citation for it? Is it part of the United States Code? Is it still law? Maybe I'm just not looking for it in the correct place.
Thanks for any more legal analysis you can provide.
Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law
I am not a lawyer
by Ben Domenech
Though I know many - far too many, some would say. :)
I find it here:
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&re...
And thanks very much for raising this point, I'll add that link to the story.
Thanks
by Steven Willis
Unfortunately, my initial impression is that the 1790 "law" is not law today. As a reply below states, 8 USC 1401 defines a "citizen . . . at birth." As far as I can tell, the old 1790 statute is just that, an old statute, no longer law.
The current statute does not define "natural born citizen." As Texan below argues, Congress may not have the power to define that term. I need to think about that some more.
The Blackstone argument of Texan is quite helpful and probably convincing; however it relies on contemporaneous commentary rather than actual law or judicial opinion. The 1790 statute also shows contemporary opinion of Congress, which is helpful. On the other hand, the existence of a statutory definition sometimes is viewed as evidence of inherent ambiguity, which gets us back to Congress' power, its current definition, and the lack of a judicial definition (at least not one I know of). I also like the argument of the once first year law student (below); however, it is just that, an argument.
I really doubt McCain would be found to be other than "natural born," if he is elected. However, who decides and how quickly it can be decided concern me. I do not see how it can be decided before he is elected by the Electoral College or House.
All the comments that this is not an issue strike me as silly: they appear to be made by non-lawyers who have an unrealistic view of legal realities. In my experience, a large portion of legal issues rest on jurisdiction or venue or choice or law or service of process or some other "technical" issue. Non-lawyers tend to view such things as unimportant or even unfair. Perhaps they are; however, such technicalities decide a great many cases, like it or not. We ignore them at our peril.
Ben, you are quite right to raise this issue. I have no doubt McCain has lawyers who have researched it. I am certain Clinton does as well. I am seriously considering voting for McCain in the Florida primary and I would like to know more about this before then. (Please do not ask me why I might support McCain . . . leave that for another thread).
Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law
Thanks for all of that
by Ben Domenech
Very interesting, and certainly very helpful commentary on this for us non-lawyers.
Were I in Florida, I would be interested in finding out about this same issue. Please feel free to post a diary about this if you find out more in the future, as I want to make sure I understand current law on the issue.
Title 8 section 1401of the
by cseeger
Title 8 section 1401of the US code states: anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the US, as long as one parent has lived in the US, is defined as a "citizen by birth."
but is this instant naturalization?
by jescando
The problem is that constitutionally i do not think natural born citizen status can be granted to the citizen.
So unless a constitutional ammendment is made the office of the president wont allow mccain to run.
Look Sean and Rush....more mud to throw...
by Samsara
McCain was born on August 29, 1936 in Panama at the Coco Solo Air Base in the then American-controlled Panama Canal Zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
Several main candidates have sought the office who were born outside the United States (e.g., George Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, and John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
If McCain cant become president, then all the children on service men and women are excluded from being President.
Interesting nonsense. :)
re: Look Sean and Rush....more mud to throw..
by Consul At Arms
@Samsara,
Note that none of the presidential candidates you cite have ever been elected to the presidency; apparently their candidacies weren't challenged on Art. II, Sec. 1 grounds.
Anyone know what the Federal Elections Commission says about this? After all, they're the ones with whom presidential candidates have to file.
Cool New Anti-McCain Video
by reaganredux
Sums him up perfectly. One angry liberal.
a bit?
by absentee
Total threadjack to a poorly produced hit piece.
absentee
| | |
Thanks Ben
by Darin H
I didn't know that there might even be any controversy with McCain's citizenship. Nd I agree with you that I don't think there is, but facing the Clinton machine, we just don't know what they are going to try and throw at him. Better to get this right out there into the open, discuss it and put it to bed.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I agree with the concern
by kowalski
I think McCain's lawyers can handle it.
If any of the Clintonistas have a question about it, I can refer them to this video:
5! n/t
by Darin H
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Personally I don't care.
by kowalski
I don't think most other people in the country will either. As a point of interesting legalese this will undoubtedly wind up as a million-word discussion on DailyKOS, though. Good. Let them waste their time.
Be assured that if McCain wins the GOP nomination, the next day you will see hundreds, if not thousands of stories in the MSM about skin cancer and its dangers.
I believe that he has had several cancerous skin patches removed, but it's a very scary and dicey type of cancer, and they will do everything possible to use it to scare the electorate into thinking that if elected he's likely to die in office..
Eh.
by Dan McLaughlin
I know Kerry and Dole lost, but cancer wasn't a big issue with them, nor would it be for McCain, Rudy or Fred.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Foolish Way to Hit McCain
by reaganredux
Attacking McCain for his citizenship is wrong on every count. He is the son of a war hero and is a war hero himself. Hitting him on some sort of legal loophole would not only be counterproductive, but play right into McCain's hands. If I were him, I would welcome any attack on his citizenship.
It's very petty and would backfire immediately. There are plenty of reasons to like or not like McCain. No Democrat with half a brain would every hit him on this issue.
I agree but...
by Samsara
McCain's foes have to find something that will stick. The latest poles show that having Limbaugh and Hannity repeat the word "Amnesty" for three hours a day isn't working.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
So I expect that they will keep floating things out on the blogs until they find something more effective.
More politics as usual.
Our Constitution requires that the President be a natural-born citizen--OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Consitution--so for anyone interested in the rule of law, the satisfaction of this requirement in the highest law of the land is important.
McCain may be, as he says "old as dirt," but I think there is good reason to believe that he was not a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
So he must be a "natural born" citizen of the United States.
I initially tho
Both the excerpts from the law and case law that you have given say that McCain is a citizen. In the first case, it explicitly states he is to be considered a natural born citizen. The 2nd case doesn't really touch on the issue of "natural born", and is referring to McCain's children if McCain never returned to the USA which he did. I really think this is a non-issue.