John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"?
 

To be very up front, this is a rather old topic in many ways.
It goes back to the very start of our country, goes back to several other candidates, and it has been on the Internet for awhile now.

Now it seems to have gone main stream: Is John McCain constitutionally permitted to be President of the US?

This idea could be nothing, as some have pointed out, or it could be something that has to be looked at and reviewed.

And as we have seen in the past two elections, matters have ended up in the Supreme Court.
McCain's birthplace in Panama Canal Zone raises eligibility questions

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,6597433.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

And from Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=3752
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-MtHZImuQvg&feature=related

If a child born to an illegal alien is "natural born," surely a child born on a U.S. military installation is natural born.

Hillary would litigate this if she had a chance to though.

She'd lose, then claim the election was stolen.

Your first case is only true is the child is born in the US.
And as the story IIRC stated, John's kids would not have been
"natural born" if born in The Zone.

And as some have pointed out, this matter may have to be looked at by one of the two branch's of government sooner than later.

I don't know that's necessarily the case. (It should be, but whether it would be, I don't know.) It seems that the question might turn on whether the child in born on land under US sovereignty. At least according to the Wiki article cited (usual disclaimers, I know), "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 by reason of birth."

The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

That's what he meant - obviously if said alien isn't IN the US, he isn't illegal.

This is ridiculous and Ron Paul just makes himself look like an idiot bringing it up.

Check around, it is NOT just Ron Paul bringing it up.
And this has been around, in one form or another since at least Chester A. Arthur.

And it is the Republicans (Bush) who claim to be "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Constitution.
Just found this Souther POV:
http://southernledger.com/blogs/roge...spective/?p=48

This was checked out the first time he ran.

I don't see why it's an issue now.

If you want to get into a founders' intent argument, I would say that the founders' intent in placing this provision in the Constitution was to keep individuals with potential loyalties to foreign powers (namely, England) from being able to run for President.

If it comes down to a Supreme Court decision, I don't see a decision coming down against McCain.

Dems will love this because it will allow them to whine about how the Republicans "stole" the election yet again.

Just because it was "checked-out" does not make it have any legal status.

i thought it was because Madison didn't trust Hamilton

From the quoted/linked story:
"The phrase "natural born" was included in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to "declare expressly" that only a natural-born citizen could be president."

I know a person working on one of the campaigns. Next time I see them, I will ask about this matter.

A child born to two American parents outside of the U.S. is still an American citizen...actually, I think as long as one of the parents is American, the child is an American citizen, born in the U.S. or not. We know he/she is not a "natural born" citizen, but is that considered naturalized? That doesn't seem right, either.

The issue is not whether John McCain is an American, but whether he is technically "natural born" and whether he fits the intended criteria to be President. It sounds like technically he might not be "natural born" if indeed the Canal Zone is not considered U.S. soil. But, I think we all know what the intent was of our Founding Fathers, who were scared of and pissed off at the English and wanted to make sure they never had control of our country :p It is a judge's/court's place to interpret law, so I say let the Supreme Court interpret this one and be done with it.

Agree-but will it ever get that far?
And if so, the who,what, when, where, how and why will all be rather interesting.
And all are filled with major consequences.

That's what I always thought, but that's not what the State Department seems to be saying.

I agree. But it does pose an interesting question for strict constructionists.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that Military Instalations, Consular, and Embassies are not considered part of the United States? I do beleive they are considered American soil therefore Americans.

In other words, anyone born outside of the Continental or States such as Alaska and Hawaii would be in doubt even though they are born of US citizens are in doubt?


What a smack in the face for a man who while serving his country became a prisoner of war in Nam.:o

I'll be sure to alert my friend who was born to two American parents while her father was stationed in GTMO on the U.S. Naval Air Base. Are you saying she wouldn't be considered a native-born US citizen?

You know what this means.

SHILOH JOLIE-PITT IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND CAN NEVER BE OUR PRESIDENT.

Does it? Is there any precedent on this? I think even strict constructionists are going to have to practice a little Constitutional Divinity in order to sort this one out.

In the end, I can't see five justices saluting the idea that a person is not "natural born" for the purposes of this Article if they are born on a military installation located on foreign soil.

Tears will be wept.

Please don't make ridiculous assumptions like this. Most Dems would NOT love this because they want elections to be about real issues, not crap like this.

Why is it ridiculous? Do you, as a Democrat think it was ridiculous that Gore took a vote counting case to the Supreme Court? Most Democrats seemed rather supportive of him at the time.

How is this really so different?

Yes, I do think it was ridiculous that it went to the Supreme Court. I also think it was ridiculous that voters were disenfranchised, that the whole thing became such a huge circus. I think there should have been a fair, valid recount and I still think we need to re-visit the whole electoral college thing and consider that the popular vote winner should just be the winner (and I expressed similar beliefs to that idea in one of the primary threads too... one primary day, everybody votes, most votes wins, period).

I think most Americans were embarassed by the whole Election 2000 thing. It made a mockery of our whole system with the dimpled chads and pregnant chads and hanging chads, dominating the news night after night.

This citizenship thing should be verified and decided upon long before you get to election day. It should be done the minute that they announce they are running. Who is responsible for checking that people meet the criteria? Is that actually spelled out anywhere?

There were several "fair, valid recount[s]." According to any reasonable standard, George Bush still won. No one was disenfranchised. Gore did try to disenfranchise the majority of Floridians who voted for Bush, but as you well know, he was ultimately unsuccessful.

I'm not sure what the problem is with the electoral college. It seems to work out pretty well in my estimation. The electoral college is just about the only way for small states like mine to be relevant. Otherwise, you'd see presidential campaigns almost exclusively fought in the top 10 cities rather than in each of the 50 states.

As far as deciding something before election day, the Supreme Court is not in the business of issuing advisory opinions. You have to have an Article III Case or Controversy. The issue is not yet ripe for decision. Only if McCain wins the general election does this ever become an issue.

If it becomes an issue, I stand by my proposition that there's no way in heck you'll get 5 of the current justices to give the passage such a construction that it'd do away with the McCain presidency.

I'm not saying anything specifically, just passing along what the State Department seems to be saying.

But the State Department does seem to be saying that births on military installations are not considered to be "on US soil." Embassies, it seems, they consider differently, because of international law regarding the status of embassies and those connected with them.

I have no idea. I'm just looking at what that State Department policy seems to be seeing, but I certainly won't claim to understand it completely. Ultimately, I think it would be a question for a court, not the State Department anyway.

Based on the Form FS-240, or known as the "Consular Report of Birth Abroad",a child is a citizen of the United States of America at birth because both of his parents are citizens, even though he was born in Germany. Military installations are indeed considered "American soil." So while McCain wasn't born within the 48 states (at the time), he was on government property (if born in a military hospital). But citizenship was conferred upon him at birth, regardless of whether he was born in a military hospital or not. Here in Germany, there are only a couple of military hospitals outfitted for labor and delivery, so many children are born in German hospitals. These children also receive automatic citizenship to the United States based on the citizenship of his parents. They are not required to register the birth with any state, county or municipality within the United States because the State Department has already registered the birth. I just don't see how it's not a slam-dunk. It's not like military brats are Arnold Schwarzeneger... they aren't naturalized citizens, or for that matter, "nationals" or "aliens".

I agree. But since the idea of an American military establishment on foreign soil would have been completely foreign (pun intended) to the framers, and since the intent of that provision seems to have been to ensure that only persons born in the United States could be president, I do think it presents an interesting question for a strict constructionist. Interesting, not insurmountable or hypocracy-inducing, just interesting.

It's futile to go over election 2000 again because it's history.

I will become even more discontent with the DNC if they bring this up as a point of contention than I am now. While I'm liberal in most of my beliefs, I'm furious that I didn't get a say in the primary (being from Michigan and all) and I'm sick of mudslinging as a campaign strategy. It's not easy being a Democrat these days, especially in Michigan and Florida.

I don't know if he brought it up, but I think a little less of him knowing he's hosting that crap on his site.

I think there's a really important distinction about the material in the wiki article about whether, say the child of a German mother in the 1970s who gave birth in a military hospital is considered natural born and acquires citizenship by being born on base, which he or she clearly doesn't and the idea that the child of an American mother and father living on the Army base, who is born on base, is somehow not being born an American. The American's living on the base are certainly under the rule of US law.

In my mind, for American members of the military, a US base is just a little bit of the US installed temporarily someplace else.

I think the document does say that such a child is a citizen, but that the citizenship route was established by practices and laws other than those actually listed in the Constitution.

ETA: There's no question about citizenship, just a question about "natural-born," in McCain's case, right? It's because we not only have to worry about whether he's a citizen, but whether he's a "natural-born" citizen in the Constitutional sense. It could affect Nittyalum's friend too, but only if she runs for President, right?

Everytime I read "natural-born" I think to myself.. What if your mom had a c-section??? LOL, sorry...

LOL, I was so going to post about that with a Shakespeare's MacBeth joke.

I can only imagine the citizenship issue that could result from hiring a non-citizen to be your surrogate with such terminology.

Immigration law is a nightmare! I'm in our immigration clinic right now and we have a flowchart that's about 4 ft tall in tiny font that we use to determine citizenship - it's so insane.

Right. At least, that's how I understand it.

And I'm looking at this language in 7 FAM 1116.1-4c (in the State Department document to which I linked earlier): 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 by reason of birth. (Emphasis mine.)

GeekyPenguin??

You're asking the wrong question. We're talking about the definition of a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II.

That's not necessarily the same thing.

I'm aware of that, at least as far as the McCain question goes, although others in this thread have raised more general question about the citizenship of military kids born overseas. So in reality, we're talking about more than the definition of a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II.

As I said, I stay as far away from immigration law as I can. I'll admit haven't done much searching, but I'm not aware of much that talks about what "natural born citizen" means in the Article II context. It seems to me, however, that the State Dept's interpretation of what this portion of the XIV Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." might be relevant to any discussion on the meaning of "natural born citizen" in Article II, section 5.

Claire McCaskil of Mo. Senator has proposed an ealy amended part of what is under discussion on this thread and can just be done on a big cheif tablet and brought up to recify the wording.

But, if a child is born of natual American parents, they are consider Americans.

I hope the legal writen word would be more easier to read and decipher.

It might not be. Remember that the Vth amendment's and the XIVth amendment's due process clauses have been given different interpretations although they say essentially the same thing.

I'm pretty sure the issue would be one of first impression for which the Court would have little guidance. Too bad we have to wait until McCain is elected and the Democratic party sues to find out.

Which is pretty much the same thing as me saying it might be. I didn't say that without question it is relevant, just that it might be.

:rolleyes: Give it a rest, Kevin. Implicit hypocracy is not becoming, and you know that Republicans would sue just as quickly as Democrats if the shoe were on the other foot. Besides, how would "the Democratic Party" have standing? (You at least get a gold star, though, for not saying "the Democrat party.")

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?

Any further comment by me would be superfluous.

I hadn't thought about it, but now that I have I think you're right on this. So who would have standing to sue? Mike "Presumable VP" Huckabee? Because I doubt that he would mess up his party that way.