John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"?

[nittanyalum]

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?

[33girl]

You know what this means.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

You know what this means.

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

Tears will be wept.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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?

[AGDee]

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?

[Kevin]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

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.

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.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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?

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.

[scbelle]

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".

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[AGDee]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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?

[AGDee]

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