John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"?

[skylark]

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?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by skylark

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?

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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 , 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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

[nittanyalum]

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

[Leslie Anne]

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

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.

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

[jon1856]

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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.

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.

[Tinia2]

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/

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Tinia2

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

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.

[Tinia2]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

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.