So reading this doesnt change your mind...
No, you're wrong. Children born to US citizens are natural born citizens no matter where they're born.
Where he was born has nothing to do with it. Get it? Because his parents were citizens (who met the residency requirement in effect at the time) he could have been born on the moon and he would be a natural born citizen.
I swear, this topic that won't die is the best argument against public schools that I've seen in a loooooong time.
You can become a citizen in several ways.
#1 on the list is being born the child of citizens.
#2 is being born in the US unless you're the child of a foreign diplomat.
#3 is becoming naturalized.
People born on ships at sea, and on bases aren't considered automatic citizens. If a Japanese woman gives birth on a US AIr Base, her baby isn't American unless her husband is American.
Why is this so freaking hard for people to understand?
So what about:
1) no ex post facto laws--big problem for all retroactive actions that were done to give even naturalized citizenship. This would mean the last act before his birth would define his only chance to be a natural born citizen without a constitution ammendment.
2) laws in place used terms declared--used always for naturalization not citizen at birth
3) The canal zone has numerous times in history been called not a possession of the US and ruled this way in the courts. This possession term, ability to buy or sell this property, was not by treaty given the US.
4) Cant find any case against goldwater, rather there has been cases dealing with citizenship. Typically mccain mixing lie he does to confuse people and get them off his tale
5) Military children born after the naturalization act of 1940 and until the act of 1952 had citizenship expressly challenged in panama and require them to be naturalized..thus the act exists in 1952. Remember mccain is born in 1936 before the 1940 act. He must base his citizenship on the laws present prior to his birth, which would make him naturalized by the act of 1934. Thus unable to run for president.
Again we must go over only:
1) the constitution
2) the framers intent
3) the statutes in force before he was born
4) other groups rights of similar issue that were or were not given this priviledge. He can not have a special priviledge denied of others.
5) no ex post facto laws. previously only during the windows of statute ruling was even citizenship defined or repealed by terms. 1790 act on shows this to be the case. Many times people fell between the cracks and would have to be naturalized. Quite a mess to have ones citizenship be defined by statute and not the US constitution. So on the same leaning then one can tie natural born citizenship. Any challenge to the constitution term meaning
1) born in the US...ie the states or possessions(owned property) where allegiance is given...holds no water to a natural born citizenship being given to mccain.
2) statute definitions of natural born could be created, but only under a constitutional ammendment given past case law these statutes would be by precidence ruled unconstitutional.
3) the spirit of the law referencing john jay feared people born in a different country where they have some allegence of tie to that would put the interests of that group or country ahead of the US. McCains tie to immigration from mexico and latin america seriously call the purpose of this challenge to the forefront and can not be ignored.
Notes to review:
interesting read here on the courts already ruling...
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/lawrence_friedman/2008/02/natural_born_confusion.html
a few years after mccain was born about the 1940 act of naturalization:
interesting read on arguements about military was talked about as an issue for naturalization being necessary.
http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00107800591.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZD.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=Od...ig=6IoFnYiY6woQATPEPVboQm40Uag&hl=en#PPA27,M1
page 27 of the outlying possessions clearly states that panama canal zone was not considered such a possession. This would nullify natural born citizenship opportunity.
1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.
"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."
