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