McCain "Natural Born" Question Going Before Judge
As we've previously noted, there are questions surrounding whether or not John McCain – who was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, when it was a U.S. territory – is legally a "natural-born citizen."
If McCain isn't "natural-born" then he can't be president, according to the Constitution.
The definition of "natural-born" has never been fully fleshed out. Now, the Associated Press reports, "a federal judge in California has been asked to determine if the Republican presidential candidate meets the legal test to qualify for the White House."
McCain and attorney Ted Olson believe the presumptive Republican nominee is in the clear.
"I am confident that the United States Supreme Court, should it ever address the issue, would agree" that McCain qualifies as a natural-born citizen, Olson said in a statement.
If McCain isn't "natural-born" then he can't be president, according to the Constitution.
The definition of "natural-born" has never been fully fleshed out. Now, the Associated Press reports, "a federal judge in California has been asked to determine if the Republican presidential candidate meets the legal test to qualify for the White House."
McCain and attorney Ted Olson believe the presumptive Republican nominee is in the clear.
"I am confident that the United States Supreme Court, should it ever address the issue, would agree" that McCain qualifies as a natural-born citizen, Olson said in a statement.
What should be an issue is the Republican Dinner that was held where they mocked there own odious action against the American People!
%u201CThe brown, brown grass of home?%u201D
I don%u2019t think any of this is funny at all Mr. Bush.
And, Four more years of this Mr. McCain?
My first thought was -- laying the groundwork for Arnie to be President?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Complaint_questions_McCain_citizens_03112008.html
Who knows. Since this is a thing mostly going around rightwing websites, I assume the motivation was anger over McCain''s lack of partisan loyalty.
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 include Senator McCain, whose parents were both US citizens and whose father was a US Naval officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John''s birth in 1936. (The hospital flew the US flag)
This is such a non-issue for Senator John McCain -- parent serving at the directive of the US Government, war hero, prisoner of war, distinguished US Senator.
This has not been tested in the courts. However, when Senator Lowell Weicker, born in Paris, decided to do a run at the White House, he was notified that he was eligible.
The libs think this is a non-issue, and are laughing hysterically about it. I''m afraid this conspiracy theory is floated from your neighborhood, the same way Obama''s lack of patriotism or Muslim ties are floated. Now that it''s against one of your own, you can recognize the tactic.
Normally, I''d be outraged that such rediculousness has gotten a mainstream forum, if it weren''t for the fact that for once this doesn''t hurt us. So might as well just sit back and enjoy the inter-party turmoil of the GOP''s disarray.
Got to hand it to them, as the assertions that McCain was a Manchurian candidate and fathered an illigitimate black daughter have shown, at least the smear artists are consistent in their disinformation, even if they have to violate Reagan''s 11th Commandment to pursue their self-interests.
I''m not going to shed any tears over watching the tactics usually reserved for Dems getting used on the GOP''s own. But you should at least know who the perpetrator is. The libs have been laughing at this myth for weeks.
However, our Constitution has become pretty much a barely legal document deserving of absolutely no respect these days; so under those circumstances, why not?
Of this I have no doubt whatsover, regardless of anything the Constitution has to say or how it says it, considering a less conservative court decided a national election in favor of a Republican presidential candidate who lost the popular vote.
I hate to inform you about how wrong you are BUT.. This is a Howard Dean initiated tactic. Again, He clearly discussed this issue months ago. You may not clearly see his fingerprints on it but I assure you they are there. There was actually a news article about it and it was mentioned on the radio a couple of times.
Dumb...
You clearly have naturalized and natural born confused at least where it pertains to the McCain issue. Noone is claiming he is naturalized. Certainly if he were naturalized it would prohibit him from becoming President. He was born to parents serving in the military overseas on a military base. Technically, a military base is US soil. This is just a stupid Demodummy red herring to try and make McCain seem less ''American'' so that they can chip away at his war hero status. It doesn''t even have a slim chance of doing anything but show how stupid Howard Dean(YEEEEHAAAAWWW) really is. Non issue from start to finish.
Why did the state dept historically not put panama within the rulings of being within the title of US?
Did we have the ability in panama to fully exercise sovereignty or were we just in a treaty where we leased the used for development and future use.
If this area was considered US soil, then would not all parties born their be given US citizenship?
If so why did the 1952 act have to be created.
What is the difference and history of using terms like natural born, vs declared a citizen, or citizen at birth. Are there different abilities, rights, etc given by current, or past laws that have to used in mccains case and do to his age that timing of his birth puts him in a different position than other people?
Given his age and the laws he was born into were before the 1952 act. Would the 1952 act be considered unable to grant rights retroactively since this would be a matter of an ex post facto law. What then would this mean to McCain case and any other future statutes with acclaimed retroactivity for citizenship?
Why did the 1940''s act remove citizenship for children born from american military parents and required the 1945 act to correct. This happened after McCains birth. What affect does this interpretation and other fair harbor and equal protections not granted to these party impart to limit mccain?
If McCain was born in 1936 how would the 1934, 1940 1945 discussions effect his citizenship.
I''d love to see the link to Dean''s comments. As for who''s pushing it, do a google blogs search on "McCain Naturalized Citizen" and take a look at who''s posting on this. The liberals sites I read -- the largest ones -- are all laughing at the absurdity. The conservatives are buying into it hook, line and sinker. (A major proponent is Ron Paul).
Atrios, for instance, said something along the lines of, "It never ceases to amaze me what stupidity gets the wingnuts riled up", only not so diplomatic. And that''s pretty much all I''ve read from the left about it.
The Canal Zone was not a U.S. Territory. A natural born citizen is one born on U.S. soil or territory. Children of U.S. military born overseas are naturalized citizens because of their U.S. parents and not natural born citizens. McCain was not born on a military base but that doesn''t even matter because he would still be considered a naturalized citizen. All CZ born children were told they could never become President of the U.S. Why would it be any different for John McCain. Read all the constitution, amendments, laws, statutes, treaties, etc. John McCain is more eligible to become President of Panama. He can be a Senator but not the President.
Sorry.....
This is just an attempt by a few to disenfranchise an entire group of Americans simply because those few don''t like an individual member of that group.
This is just an attempt by a few to deny the right to the highest office to an entire group of Americans simply because those few don''t like an individual member of that group.
This is just an attempt by a few to deny the right to the highest office to an entire group of Americans simply because those few don''t like an individual member of that group.
It is discriminatory.
You have some valid comments. It is interesting to note that the Panamanian Government considers zone births to be dual nationals. I just returned from Panama and the people there are watching the election closely. Many were surprised to learn that McCain was born in the La Zona.
You make some good points. It is interesting to note that the government of Panama considers children born on the military installations to be dual nationals. I just returned from Panama and the people there are watching this election closely. Many were unaware that McCain was born in La Zona Canal.
%u201CThus the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.
%u201CIf the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.%u201D
So, to Chief Justice Fuller, under Wong Kim Ark, children of U.S. citizens born abroad since 1868 %u201CWERE AND ARE ALIENS.%u201D
Sadly, he adds, these foreign-born could only be %u201Cnaturalized in the United States%u201D--and could NOT possibly be %u201Cnaturalized,%u201D if they happen to be somewhere else--with the rather grim caveat that %u201Cno statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect,%u201D including, of course, %u201Call [naturalization] acts from 1790 down.%u201D
Justice Horace Gray in his majority opinion added a more disturbing note, but citing it would exceed the limit.
%u201CThus the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.
%u201CIf the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.%u201D
So, to Chief Justice Fuller, under Wong Kim Ark, children of U.S. citizens born abroad since 1868 %u201CWERE AND ARE ALIENS.%u201D
Sadly, he adds, these foreign-born could only be %u201Cnaturalized in the United States%u201D--and could NOT possibly be %u201Cnaturalized,%u201D if they happen to be somewhere else--with the rather grim caveat that %u201Cno statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect,%u201D including, of course, %u201Call [naturalization] acts from 1790 down.%u201D
Justice Horace Gray in his majority opinion added a more disturbing note, but citing it would exceed the limit.
%u201CThus the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.
%u201CIf the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.%u201D
So, to Chief Justice Fuller, under Wong Kim Ark, children of U.S. citizens born abroad since 1868 %u201CWERE AND ARE ALIENS.%u201D
Sadly, he adds, these foreign-born could only be %u201Cnaturalized in the United States%u201D--and could NOT possibly be %u201Cnaturalized,%u201D if they happen to be somewhere else--with the rather grim caveat that %u201Cno statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect,%u201D including, of course, %u201Call [naturalization] acts from 1790 down.%u201D
Justice Horace Gray in his majority opinion added a more disturbing note, but citing it would exceed the limit.
The Area known as Coco Solo Hospital at the time of McCain''s birth was NOT located within the Canal Zone. It was later added to the Zone by Franklin Roosevelt through EXECUTIVE ORDER 8981 on Dec 17, 1941.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=60931
Senator John McCain was born in Panama not the US Territory of the Panama Canal Zone.
The Immigration Act of 1924 states:
%u201CProvided, That the Secretary of Labor may, under such conditions and restrictions as to support and care as he may deem necessary, permit permanently to remain in the United States, any alien child who, when under sixteen years of age was heretofore temporarily admitted to the United States and who is now within the United States and either of whose parents is a citizen of the United States.%u201D
%u201CSEC 28. As used in this Act- (a) The term "United States," when used in a geographical sense, means the States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Porto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; and the term "continental United States " means the States and the District of Columbia; (b) The term "alien" includes any individual not a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States, but this definition shall not be held to include Indians of the United States not taxed, nor citizens of the islands under the jurisdiction of the United States;%u201D
http://www.historicaldocuments.com/ImmigrationActof1924.htm
The Hospital where John McCain was born was not in the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth therefore he is not a "Native-Born" Citizen of the United States.
Since Senator John McCain was not born "in the United States" he is not a natural born Citizen of the United States and therefore is not eligible to the Office of President.
It''s really quite simple, and only needs further explanation because the general consensus of politicians and the media has been to duck the issue. All evidence supports the conclusion seen in the topic sentence. Sources that support this conclusion include the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, The Naturalization Act of 1790, The Naturalization Act of 1795, and the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty ratified for the construction and operation of the Panama Canal Zone.
John McCain was born on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Panama to U.S. citizen parents. McCain is a United States citizen due to parentage, not naturally by reason of birth on U.S. soil which is a basic constitutional requirement.
McCain cannot hold the office. If he were elected president, legal challenges would be inevitable.
Without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is unlikely the Supreme Court of the United States could rule in McCain''s favor except by legislating from the bench.
The sidestepping of this critical issue in the media, by the politicians, and the political parties is alarming and may lead to a national crisis in the event of a McCain win in the general election.
More detail at http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html
You make some good points. It is interesting to note that the government of Panama considers children born on the military installations to be dual nationals. I just returned from Panama and the people there are watching this election closely. Many were unaware that McCain was born in La Zona Canal.
Ron paul has said many times that we never know what might happen in the future. Me and ron have known this fact about mccwar all along. If you think his friends and family didn know this your a silly nilly.
The republican convention is close my friends. Mccwar can talk all he wants about spending my money. My country men will never let that happen. Constitution of this united states is the Rule of Law in this nation. Even though our declaration of independance, bill of rights, and constitution are not beiong taught in grade school any more. We still remember!
April 15th Freedom march! Show your peace signs+freedom from war, freedom from unaportioned taxes, freedom from the war on drugs, and Freedom from the war on the middle class.
I clean Harley davidsons for a living.
I make under 20,000 a year.
I buy to many books... is that possible.
I hate bigots and racist.
I love the ideas of Thomas jefferson.
Consider The Naturalization Act of 1790. It read, "And 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..." This was a concession. They never were considered to be natural born citizens until this act.
In The Naturalization Act of 1795 that repealed the act of 1790 the language was changed to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." It would seem that this change was by design, recognizing that nature did not make these babies citizens, it was only by law. The law cannot change nature. The term "natural born Citizen" could not apply to these people. It only applies to jus soli (where the place where one is born naturally determines citizenship).
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and 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. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
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 definition of natural born Citizen likely was easily understood at the time. The phrase represents people who are citizens by the very nature of their birth within the country (jus soli). That is a natural born Citizen of the United States.
Others are citizens at birth by descent (jus sanguinis). They are not natural born Citizens of the United States.
Still others are citizens by naturalization. They were citizens of other nations and later became citizens of the United States. Obvious to all, they are not natural born Citizens of the United States.
So, this is likely why the term was defined in 1790 (see below). It was to make right of blood co-equal to right of the soil. But that definition did not fit the true meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen" and was in contradiction with the original intent of the constitution. This likely was contributory to the reason the 1790 act was repealed and replaced with the an act in 1795 that did not try to redefine natural born citizen, but instead simply defined as citizens those who were born of U.S. citizen parents outside the United States.
Then the 1795 act was repealed in 1802 leaving us with the original intent in the constitution as it was in 1789. Further legislation never attempted to redefine natural born Citizen. This is where we are today.
-
by scottwww
March 14, 2008 12:23 PM PDT
- If the Supreme Court made a decision. It would settle the matter for the forseeable future, much as the case of Roe vs. Wade. Once the court makes a decision, it is essentially done. Beyond that, it would probably take an amenement to change it.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 44 CommentsI just want to see it decided one way or the other. I would rather the decision were as I understand it. But I would accept it the other way and probably not revisit the issue.
I don''t want to see a president elect denied the office or for many lawsuits to be filed to remove him from office, especially in a time of war. The only way to stop one of these scenarios is to get it done before November - preferably before the convention in September.
What would happen if McCain were the president elect and the Chief Justice would not swear him in. Would the VP get sworn in? There is no precedent of which I am aware. Would the VP who became president step down to VP again if the case were decided in favor of the president elect? There are many scenarios that I would not want to see in reality.