Can McCain even be President?

[angelatc]

Naturalized citizens are much different from citizens or natural born citizens. Those are three different classes of citizens with different legal rights.

You don't need American parents to become a naturalized American. Arnold Schwartzenegger is a perfect example of a naturalized American. And he's not becoming President any time soon.

Why do you think there are 3 classes of citizens, when there are only 2? There are natural-born, and naturalized.

 

[Bradley in DC]

This isn't grasping at straws. Being a U.S. citizen isn't enough. McCain is a U.S. citizen and so is Ahnold, but neither is eligible for the presidency.

McCain is a "natural born citizen" (because his parents were citizens) while Arnold is a "naturalized citizen" which explains the difference in their eligibility.

 

[scandinaviany3]

The phrase natural born citizen was interpreted by the First Congress, which indeed consisted of several of the framers, to mean inclusive of citizens born outside of the country to citizen parents.

Statue is not modifying the COnstitution, iit is clarifying it in this instance.

In this case you would unfortunately be redefining the understanding of natural born.

Obviously this has to go the supreme court and soon...lots has to be talked about..

 

[jglapski]

We can debate statue, or we can debate intent. Intent was established in 1790, in the First Congress. That was the topic on the board when it was cited.

Now lets move to statute.

There is a clear succession of laws that lead up to the current statues, which I also cited earlier in the thread.

Go find the laws that replaced the laws that were repealed, and follow the trail. I'll meet you at the aforementioned 1401 (c), which says that citizens who give birth abroad give birth to citizens.

Which means, as we keep saying over and over again, that even if McCain was born on Mars, he would be considered a natural born citizen because his parents were citizens.

1790 hardly provides intent if it was repealed in part in 1795 and in total by 1802.

1401 (c) doesn't define a NATURAL BORN citizen, merely a citizen.

How the hell can 1401 (c) define McCain's status at birth, particularly since it was passed when he was 16? The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

Moreover, since you prefer statutes to the Constitution, what is to prevent this legislation to be revised to define citizens at birth to include those peoples who were born in US occupied areas from 1945-1950. Great, now Arnold Schwarzenegger could be consider a natural born citizen, since Austria in Schwarzenegger's birth year was occupied by US forces. Who needs to change the Constitution when you can change mere statutes?

 

[Bradley in DC]

1790 hardly provides intent if it was repealed in part in 1795 and in total by 1802.

1401 (c) doesn't define a NATURAL BORN citizen, merely a citizen.

How the hell can 1401 (c) define McCain's status at birth, particularly since it was passed when he was 16? The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

Moreover, since you prefer statutes to the Constitution, what is to prevent this legislation to be revised to define citizens at birth to include those peoples who were born in US occupied areas from 1945-1950. Great, now Arnold Schwarzenegger could be consider a natural born citizen, since Austria in Schwarzenegger's birth year was occupied by US forces. Who needs to change the Constitution when you can change mere statutes?

The common law definition used by the Constitution as explained by the Supreme Court makes clear, as I've posted with citations numerous times: people here arguing this are only embarrassing the good doctor.

 

[scandinaviany3]

that is not correct at all

McCain is a "natural born citizen" (because his parents were citizens) while Arnold is a "naturalized citizen" which explains the difference in their eligibility.

Bradley the 1934 act, the only one that could be referenced in effect prior to his birth, used the term declared, not citizen at birth if this is what you mean. This clearly can be used as a term of naturalization, ie not natural born citizen.

Was his place of birth in the US?

Answer-NO; It was by treaty leased to use and all powers as if it were sovereign. US sovereignty was never given from Panama to the US. If so we could have sold the land to the highest bidder. We never had Sovereignty over this land. And anyone born in this area would have been given automatic citizenship. This also did not happen and in fact thus the act of 1952. In fact military families children after the 1940's act had to apply for naturalization from the canal. The canal fell outside of the ruling.

Not fighting this shows we are not constitutionalists as we should be doing tooth and nail.

If anything we should be setting up a fund and a challenge immediately in the supreme court based on disenfranchisement of the voters by a candidate who does not meet the constitutional requirement of natural born citizen.

 

[jglapski]

Why do you think there are 3 classes of citizens, when there are only 2? There are natural-born, and naturalized.

There are. Citizenship is acquired at birth and via naturalization. Citizenship at birth is either by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Jus soli is recognized in the Constitution via the 14th Amendment. Jus sanguinis, by statute.

 

[scandinaviany3]

in all do respect..that is below the belt

The common law definition used by the Constitution as explained by the Supreme Court makes clear, as I've posted with citations numerous times: people here arguing this are only embarrassing the good doctor.

Bradley in all do respect..."people here arguing this are only embarrassing the good doctor"

that is simple not true.

If you have links on citations i would like to read them.

So far the arguement to me sounds like a very valid supreme court case that could go any which way based on the rule of law and nothing else.

Obviously politics will be involved since the justices are human. But it doesnt mean we dont try.

 

[jglapski]

The common law definition used by the Constitution as explained by the Supreme Court makes clear, as I've posted with citations numerous times: people here arguing this are only embarrassing the good doctor.

This is the first time I've heard it on here. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is the only way someone should be arguing it in favor of McCain. There is a host of resources allowing us to investigate what "militia" and "regulate" as well as plenty of Founders' opinions on the 2nd Amendment to figure out what that means. If you have information on the common law usage of "natural born" including parents who were citizens of the country, cite it. I've only seen one reference saying that Jay used this, which is hardly conclusive.

The ones embarrassing Paul are the ones:
1. Who cannot tell the difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship.
2. Who laughably compare natural born citizenship and naturalized citizenship.
3. Who cite statute law which indicates they are subordinating the Constitution to statute.

Also where are the explanations by the SCOTUS? It was cited in the Dred Scott decision, but in the dissent. And in the dissent, natural born citizenship is not acquired by jus sanguinis. But in the dissent, it has no applicability. Otherwise, natural born has never been addressed by the SCOTUS. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

 

[angelatc]

McCain falls under 8 USC 1401(c), which was not only retroactive but repealed the existing law.

 

[angelatc]

There are. Citizenship is acquired at birth and via naturalization. Citizenship at birth is either by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Jus soli is recognized in the Constitution via the 14th Amendment. Jus sanguinis, by statute.

I don't see any Latin in the text of the 14th amendment. And anyway, all you're saying is that natural born can be by soil or by blood. McCain is by blood. But he is still natural born.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Arek]

Well as long John McCain was born to American citizens he is in effect an American citizen by birth. I feel that ought to make him a natural citizen. Then again I believe this was debated in 2000.

 

[scandinaviany3]

retroactive...you mean ex post facto...

McCain falls under 8 USC 1401(c), which was not only retroactive but repealed the existing law.

retroactive you mean ex post facto...doesnt happen that way.

The only way those acts std is if you go forward in time from their presidential signature and or if they are not repealing parts of previous acts.

They cant go retroactive.

That would be unconstitutional.

That is why there were so many problems in the 1800's since citizenship was always being messed up and time periods were created that laps happened.

 

[scandinaviany3]

are you reading the same laws that say declared?

<bangs head> It was repealed because they REPLACED iT WITH ANOTHER LAW THAT SAID THE SAME THING BUT ADDED MORE SPECIFICS.

THEN THAT LAW WAS CHANGED.

THEN THAT LAW WAS CHANGED.

ETC ETC.

lol..i read statute after statute from 1790 forward they didnt say the same things...in fact they are such a mess there are numerous books out on the subject just. The problem with statutes for citizenship is that you can loose or gain citizenship as supreme court justices have noted in the 1800's because of statute changes for people during certain windows. There was no retroactive actions. Just forward acting ones that made messes all in those times and up to the 1950's. Obviously if a constitional attachment to status can be argued the statute is valid to put down these terms as they are a citizen during these periods of time, are declared, are citizens at birth. But given they are different terms this all has to be analyzed very carefully.

But for the times of John's birth these laws dont apply. i saw no verbage of citizen at birth for instance, but always declared a citizen which is the very crux of the arguement.

Anyway i understand the desire to make things simple, but this is anything but simple given the archaic nature of the natural born citizen term. As well as the rigidness of the constitution over all other laws. This has to go before the supreme court.

McCain's citizenship status is defined by the constitution 1st, 2nd by statutes in place prior to his birth, then supreme court rulings of the interpretation thereafter.

The statutes after his birth can say whatever they want but wont apply to him.

The ones in affect before his birth clearly and repeatedly talk about declared citizenship, not citizen at birth. Fair Harbor issues were in play in the 1940's for people who had to seek naturalization who were in the military. Panama was labeled a unique situation not in the US for legal terms. This caused the acts of 1945 and 1952.

But again there are gaping holes and periods for citizens born there.

Things by statute cant impart privileges for some and not to others who had this natural born citizenship or citizenship at birth abridged.

 

[scandinaviany3]

the 14th ammendment deal with citizen not natural born citizen

I don't see any Latin in the text of the 14th amendment. And anyway, all you're saying is that natural born can be by soil or by blood. McCain is by blood. But he is still natural born.

i dont see anywhere in the 14th ammendment that deals with natural born citizen only citizen.

Running for office of the president did give an express reason to write this and the intent different than citizenship in the 14th ammendment.

Again this whole thing has to go and be fully vetted before the supreme court.

Surely this will bring to light issues that maybe important for illegal immigrants as well

 

[scandinaviany3]

not born in the US or a state????

I don't see any Latin in the text of the 14th amendment. And anyway, all you're saying is that natural born can be by soil or by blood. McCain is by blood. But he is still natural born.

Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Just the simple point that even john was not born in the US or a state.

Looking back to that time the panama canal was not considered part of the US.

This is another challenge in court that many people have brought up even without looking into the 14th ammendments wording of citizen vs natural born citizen verbage or origins.

 

[scandinaviany3]

heard the same thing from john himself.

Well as long John McCain was born to American citizens he is in effect an American citizen by birth. I feel that ought to make him a natural citizen. Then again I believe this was debated in 2000.

i heard the same thing like you.

But the problem is the outcome still comes from john.


just like stating the issue on goldwater got to the supreme court...

or the surge is working( i mean the pay off of the sunni's to not fight us)

or so many other johnisms

Its time to actually have laws, follow laws and change laws, including the constitution instead of continually distorting them so much that they are like the flavor of the day.

So far if john says it i havent seen it to be true....

 

[scandinaviany3]

what would be interesting

what would be interesting is to get a freedom of information act of the archives for John McCains original birth certificate.

OFten times on the certificate are the verbage of that era that he falls within.

Such as citizen at birth or declare a citizen, etc.

That might be helpful.

If someone knows how to go about this let us know

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley the 1934 act, the only one that could be referenced in effect prior to his birth, used the term declared, not citizen at birth if this is what you mean. This clearly can be used as a term of naturalization, ie not natural born citizen.

Was his place of birth in the US?

Answer-NO; It was by treaty leased to use and all powers as if it were sovereign. US sovereignty was never given from Panama to the US. If so we could have sold the land to the highest bidder. We never had Sovereignty over this land. And anyone born in this area would have been given automatic citizenship. This also did not happen and in fact thus the act of 1952. In fact military families children after the 1940's act had to apply for naturalization from the canal. The canal fell outside of the ruling.

Not fighting this shows we are not constitutionalists as we should be doing tooth and nail.

If anything we should be setting up a fund and a challenge immediately in the supreme court based on disenfranchisement of the voters by a candidate who does not meet the constitutional requirement of natural born citizen.

No matter how many times you post this, the fact remains the Constitution, views of the Founding Fathers, common law, US Statute and the US Supreme Court all agree.:

JOHN McCAIN IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE HIS PARENTS WERE CITIZENS WHEN HE WAS BORN

In his case, it has nothing to do with geography. There is no dispute here.

 

[nate895]

No matter how many times you post this, the fact remains the Constitution, views of the Founding Fathers, common law, US Statute and the US Supreme Court all agree.:

JOHN McCAIN IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE HIS PARENTS WERE CITIZENS WHEN HE WAS BORN

In his case, it has nothing to do with geography. There is no dispute here.

But what kind of citizen, if the Congress enacted a statute giving him his citizenship through parentage, it is naturalization, since Congress cannot make a law to define a Constitutional term.