McCain's constitutional qualifications

Let's see, he was born to U.S. citizen and his father was on U.S. military assignment in Panama when the little tyke was whelped. I'll wager dollars to dogturds that qualifies as "natural born citizen."

There is zero, and I mean ZERO, chance that a reviewing court would find he was disqualified for the Presidency by the circumstances his birth.
And you can take *that* one to the bank.

I guess the "bombshell" anti-McCain story they ran last week went nowhere? Are they going to crank out one of these each week?

Not only to a father in the US Military but on a military reservation. This is a really big issue....NOT! Here we go with the times again. You can tell it is election time at the funny farm called the NYT...

Mark

Overseas military installations
are sovereign United States territory.

My favorite Uncle was an Air Force Sergeant
in Security Forces at Rhein-Main Air Base.

But we have since given that base back to the
ungrateful Germans not that they care that
we did protect them from the Soviets for 45
years.

They don't even try to come up with original BS any more. The same sort of ineligibility story was floated about Barry Goldwater during the 1964 primaries. The supposed problem there was that he was born in Arizona. Of course, Arizona was only a territory then and didn't actually become a state until several years later. To make the echo even more obvious, one of his major opponents in the primaries was the governor of an eastern state and the father of one of McCain's.

My son was born in Canada, but issued an American (and Canadian) birth certificate. On it, it reads "US Citizen Born Abroad." Sounds natural enough to me.

"natural-born citizen" means today, as i'm willing to bet it did in the 1790s, that you're a citizen because of the circumstances you were born under; that your citizenship was automatic at your birth, not dependent on anything you deliberately did later in life.

McCain is a citizen because his parents were. that's sufficient. he wasn't born on U.S. soil, which would have also been sufficient, but certainly isn't necessary.

Well kids McCain WAS born in the US. Far too many folks have forgotten history. At that time the area his family lived in was the US Canal Zone, sovereign US territory seceded to the US by the new country of Panama in the deal to build the canal. Just like other US territories; Guam, Porto Rico, American Samoa, ect. Those born there are US Citizen. In fact USC Title 8, Sec 1403 grants citizenship to a person born in the Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen.

Overseas bases are not sovereign US territory. It actually depends on the Status of Forces Agreement for each particular base. As to McCain, I think the challenege is valid. The bigger question is could a case get thru a federal district court, an appeals court, an en banc rehearing, and a supreme court opinion inside of one year?

This is as much an issue as Evil H's run and the constitution's use of the word "he." If they want to stir up trouble run one on that. Of course, should she get in we could still take it to court. :)

Paratrooperjj - Phil has it right, at that time the canal zone was considered US territory. That is one of the reasons there was such uproar when they were first considering turning it back to Panama.

Two, I am not sure about this but on a cruise the Captain was talking about his last cruise where a woman gave birth. The ship was not US flagged but They raised the Flag and declared it US territory so that the child would be a US Citizen. My understanding is that military hospitals are recognized as US territories for just such circumstances.
Though the legal among us can comment better on this.

This is faminiar as the Florida vote count in 2000 when the Rat party wanted to disqualify the overseas military's ballots citing some minutae about postmarks. The courts correctly threw that out and now they have been shreiking hysterically about the vote being'stolen' ever since. Why anyone takes those silly retard liberals seriously I'll never figure out. . Its McCain's to lose. Who could possibly lose against Mrs. Rotten or Mr. Hussein ???

I recall reading some years back about how pregnant women in Japan, Korea and the Philippines would sneak onto US military bases to give birth in an attempt to make their children US Citizens. IIRC the article's author believed that if the mothers successfully gave birth on the bases citizenship would follow.

It seems obvious to me that in the context of qualification for the Presidency, that citizenship means allegiance. This seems confirmed by the discussion by Jim Lindgren cited in the update. The purpose of the "natural born" clause was to prevent someone with allegiance to a foreign king from becoming Commander in Chief of the US forces.

John McCain was born to US parents in a US controlled zone, his birth was registered in the US and he was raised with sole allegiance to the US Constitution. In addition, as a Commissioned Officer, his father was a direct representative of the President in matters within the jurisdiction of his commission, i.e., a de facto ambassador.

A commissioned officer may bind the United States by word or action and the United States would be held responsible for those agreements of actions unless the actions are disavowed by the President and it is shown that the officer exceeded his delegated authority.

One must also wonder, if John McCain is not a "natural born citizen", then what is his citizenship since my understanding is that he has never been "naturalized" as a US citizen. If he is neither then both is commissions in the US Navy and service in the US Senate were unconstitutional.

Naturalized - To confer the rights and privileges of a native subject or
citizen on; to make as if native; to adopt, as a foreigner
into a nation or state, and place in the condition of a
native subject. [Webster 1913]

The Canal Zone wasn't just U.S. controlled, it was a U.S. possession. We had bought it from Panama, right after we helped Panama become a country by seceding from Colombia. The price for our assistance and the reason we instigated the revolt was the Canal Zone.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, we owned it. It was a US possession bought and paid for. That is why the Carter adminstration receives so much flack for ceding it to Panama, they had no claim on it, not even, the claim of prior ownership.

If we were to return it to a prior owner who had a case to make that we came into it by chicanery, we should have returned it to Colombia.

One hand washes the other when it
comes to Columbia and Panama and
the prerequisite narcotics transhipments
that flow through both countries.

Ever hear of a Colombian-German Dude named
Carlos Lehder and how was just never
heard from again and how a certain guy
named Noriega got 20 years in jail?

Funny how our mysterious criminal
justice system works lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Lehder

Now no one can recall his whereabouts
except the illustrious people of the Witness Protection program.

Remember folks that he did make $2.5 Billion
from cocaine trafficking yet the government
has amnesia as to that fact.

The only circumstances under which the place one is born has any bearing is when the government of that place chooses to accept that it does. Unfortunately (at least in my opinion) our government has decided for the time being that essentially any person, regardless of the citizenship or legal status that person's natural parents, who is born on US territory is entitled to US citizenship. On the other hand, any person whose natural parents are US citizens is automatically entitled to US citizenship regardless of there they might be born. If this weren't the case, consider the following situation: a child is born of an unmarried Mexican mother (residing illegally in the US) by an Argentinian father while flying over France on a Lufthansa plane, piloted by a Turkish gastarbeiter. Regardless of what offers any country might make, I say the child is Mexican or possibly a dual Mexican / Argentinian.

If one goes to our founding, one finds that the founders intended that natural born citizen meant born here, in the United States.

The reason for that was that George Washington had some serious competition for the office of the presidency, his most viable opponent was an American citizen and a patriot who fought in and supported the Revolution. However, he had been born in England.

By installing the "natural born" requirement he was eliminated from eligibility for the presidency.

Politics was dirty then too.

Ken -

It's the clear language of the 14th amendment that makes one born here, of any parentage, a US citizen. Don't blame the politicians for that one (though God knows they deserve plenty of blame), blame Constitution.

This is the non-issue of the year. Duh.

Straightarrow & Ken too I guess--

The 14th amendment was added to the constitution in July 1868. This is well after the events Ken was talking about, the lead-up to the G. Washington election in 1788-1789. The requirement for the President to be a "natural born" citizen for president, (and a naturalized citizen of whatever state you are coming from, for however long the people of that state deem appropriate to be a legislator in the US congress) is fully separate and in the constitutions original articles.

On another note, as Phil said, the canal was a part of the United States just like Puerto Rico or Guam today. I can't believe we are talking about this BS story from one of the most obviously biased news sources you can find.

I wasn't lending credence to either side in this, though I think McCain is qualified by birth to be president, if in no other way, but Hell, none of them are.

Merely supplying a little history. For what it's worth, a proof that the founders intended the 'natural born" requirement to be a geographical requirement is that none of them were born Americans, they were mostly born British subjects and remained so until safely prosecuting the War of Independence. All of the founders born here were born British subjects, some others emigrated from lands other than England.

Ergo, while Washington was qualified and his major likely opponent was not, even though both were born British (by law) only Washington was born in the geographical America.

I just thought some of you would find it interesting, I did.

Lots of little things like that are. Washington was not our first president, didn't know that did you?