GreekChat.com Forums - John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"?

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=94173)

My own opinion is Congress should amend the constitution NOW in order to alleviate the ambiguity. I think it is even in the Democratic Party's interest to fix the issue than leave it up in the air.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionInMI (Post 1610012)

Hi, this is me and this subject has been quite the topic of debate in my family since nittanyalum sent me the link to the thread. My Dad is retired Navy and my brothers are active military, one of my nephews was born on a base in Germany so that brother is particularly interested in this too.

My Dad and I spent a lot of time on the phone and googled as we talked. I do believe this should be a nonissue about McCain's candidacy, but I see where the idea that it might take a Supreme Court decision to put a "final word" on it comes from.

My Dad's opinion is that I was born under the U.S. flag to American parents on an American installation on land leased by the U.S. government and my birth was recorded by the Department of State, so there could be no misinterpretation of my birthright.

But I do see the gray area that has been referenced if someone takes the "strict constructionist" viewpoint. Googling about the leases we hold in Cuba and Okinawa (where we also lived) was really interesting. Castro hasn't cashed our lease payments since 1959 and many Okinawans oppose the continued forced lease of their land to the U.S.

We turned up an article in the Christian Science Monitor from 2002 that put an interesting spin on how the U.S. even defines the land it leases in Cuba. When efforts to extend constitutional rights to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay were raised, the government (some might say conveniently) argued that the base was still Cuban "sovereign territory", not U.S. sovereign territory (so they didn't have to extend U.S. protections to the prisoners). So it feels to me like they blurred the issue even more with those arguments. Here's the article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0320/p03s01-usju.html

So maybe the definition comes down to whether "natural born" depends on someone being born on U.S. "controlled" land or U.S. "sovereign" land? Military bases would absolutely fall under the controlled land definition, thereby extending all military or diplomatic kids born overseas the same "natural" designation.

I told my Dad how upsetting it was to learn that I may not be able to run for President now. He said he'd vote for me anyway. :)

My dad said that, too. :) Yay for levelheaded fathers. All of the stuff I read indicates that if it did come to a Supreme Court decision that McCain would win the case. I don't understand the wiki article that says that children are not subject to US jurisdiction when born overseas. But while they SAY that, it's not functionally true. When a child of military parents are born here in Germany, for example, the parents receive the German birth certificate (a long and short form). You are then required to file paperwork for: a Consular Report of Citizen birth abroad, a social security card, a US passport with a SOFA stamp (which means that you, as a dependent of a military person shall abide by the agreement made by the US and Germany) and must register in DEERS, the system that keeps track of vital stats and eligibility for benefits, namely Tricare coverage. You are subject to all of the rules and laws that govern military posts, which are put in place by the US government.

I also saw how in 2004 a representative from OK had introduced the Natural Born Citizen Act, but it died. I wish they would reintroduce that bill. It would make things so much easier... not only for military or government children born abroad, but also for foreign-born children adopted by US citizens. <Hey, then Maddox and Zihara could be president one day... ;)>

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark (Post 1610039)

So who would have standing to sue?

I'm really not sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scbelle (Post 1610053)

I don't understand the wiki article that says that children are not subject to US jurisdiction when born overseas.

Just to be straight, it was the Department of State that said that.

Quote:

But while they SAY that, it's not functionally true. When a child of military parents are born here in Germany, for example, the parents receive the German birth certificate (a long and short form). You are then required to file paperwork for: a Consular Report of Citizen birth abroad, a social security card, a US passport with a SOFA stamp (which means that you, as a dependent of a military person shall abide by the agreement made by the US and Germany) and must register in DEERS, the system that keeps track of vital stats and eligibility for benefits, namely Tricare coverage. You are subject to all of the rules and laws that govern military posts, which are put in place by the US government.

Ah, that's interesting. Just based on what you've described, and invoking my continuing disclaimer that I may not know what I'm talking about :D, it sounds like what the Department of State describes may be the legal status of things -- that perhaps you're not a citizen by virtue of your birth but by virtue of the filed and approved paperwork.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1610035)

Besides, you're the one who said:
Actually, I would assume if it's not ripe prior to the election, it's not ripe until after the electoral college has voted. Assuming a suit was brought then, wouldn't the appropriate relief under the XX Amendment be that the vice-president elect becomes president? I don't see how the Democratic candidate could benefit from a decision adverse to McCain?

Good point.

I spoke this afternoon with the person I know who is working with one of the candidates.
They indicated that while there maybe some minor noise and perhaps some smoke brought up prior to the general election, nothing major will be said about matter.

Afterwords? No answers, they simply had none.

If McCain does win, just about anyone could start a Federal case I think.

And even if the Congress does get its act together, matter would still end up in the Supreme Court.

And I would agree that VP would just take over position.

All that said, I just received this e-mail from Slate:
today's blogs: The latest chatter in cyberspace.
Panama John

By Michael Weiss
Posted Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008, at 6:16 PM ET
Bloggers assess John McCain's constitutional fitness to be president and whether or not Obama's anti-NAFTA stance is provably bogus.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185471/
In which one bloggers does ask if Huckabee would have a legal standing now. A bit tongue in cheek.
For more bloggers:
Read more about the nonstory:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsea...G=Search+Blogs

Hey jon, I was looking up your profile to get to your earlier posts (to check to see if you'd said you were an attorney... question answered) and I noticed something completely off topic and random but you might not be aware of. Did you know you joined on 6-6-06?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark (Post 1610195)

Hey Jon, I was looking up your profile to get to your earlier posts (to check to see if you'd said you were an attorney... question answered) and I noticed something completely off topic and random but you might not be aware of. Did you know you joined on 6-6-06?

:eek::D
On all accounts.
While I am not an attorney, I have spent time in a Holiday Inn Express.;)
My dad did, however, argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court once.
He was a type A personality as well as a class A litigator.
As well as a card carrying Republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1610058)

I'm really not sure.
Just to be straight, it was the Department of State that said that.

Ah, that's interesting. Just based on what you've described, and invoking my continuing disclaimer that I may not know what I'm talking about :D, it sounds like what the Department of State describes may be the legal status of things -- that perhaps you're not a citizen by virtue of your birth but by virtue of the filed and approved paperwork.

I think they are saying that a child whose parents were not Americans wouldn't automatically become so by being born on base, which is different from saying that a child born to American parents on base wouldn't.

Being born on base alone wouldn't do it. Having parents who were Americans and could prove it, would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1610198)

Being born on base alone wouldn't do it. Having parents who were Americans and could prove it, would.

Possibly, but I'm not sure that's what they're saying.

If anyone's still interested, a bipartisan team of lawyers have come to a conclusion on McCain: Lawyers: McCain Birth Doesn't Disqualify Him

Thanks for the update and the link, nittany. I hope this puts the issue to rest. While I'm not a supporter of McCain, I thought it was ludicrous for anyone to carry on about his qualifications, or lack thereof, as far as being American born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne (Post 1626130)

I agree with your comment up to a point.
IIRC my Con Law correctly, only the SC can in fact make this a binding decision

A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

Well, it seems as if this still has some legs to it:
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

"In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”"
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship
GABRIEL J. CHIN
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona Eller College of Management, School of Public Administration and Policy July 9, 2008

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#PaperDownload

As I posted before, in truth the only way this issue will ever be determined is if the Supreme Court rules on it.

As as the story indicates, that is highly unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856 (Post 1679281)

As I posted before, in truth the only way this issue will ever be determined is if the Supreme Court rules on it.

As as the story indicates, that is highly unlikely.

I'll look through Professor Chin's paper; however, in a battle of scholars, I'm guessing that the Tribe/Olson team probably got it right. Professor Tribe is the pre-eminent Constitutional Law Scholar in the US, and Olson isn't far behind. I can't imagine that their analysis was that faulty on such a crucial issue.

ETA: It looks, at least from the start, that the Professor has looked at the contradictions in case law and statutory law and decided to err on the side against citizenship. He glosses over the citizenship of McCain's parents at the time of his birth, by reference to statutes and decisions referring to citizens with no connection to the US. As his father was serving in the US Navy, I don't see the argument as being especially valid. He's heavily basing his argument on interpretations of Section 1993, without really exploring the parent/child issue as critically as I think he should.

I'll look through it more, but I'm just a law student, so my analysis may be completely wrong. MysticCat or one of the other GC lawyers would have a better handle on it than I would.

Some claim that Obama is not natural born?

I did not see the need to start a whole new thread on the following:
Seems as if some people are now trying to turn this same issue against Obama:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

And people not only believe it by way of blogs and e-mails, they include it in best selling books.

From:
http://www.factcheck.org/ political fact checking organization.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinia2 (Post 1702654)

Factcheck.org states that there is no reason for people to believe the birth certificate is fake, and that they have verified it is real. So I'm not sure why you would say the site is still speculating? In fact they've affirmed the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1702958)

It was not my intention to say that the site (Factcheck) was the source. The source(s) are what are listed in the story itself. As well as the book that came out just last week.