Bradley in DC
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 12,279
dept of state: McCain not eligible to be president?
- Thread starter Phantom
- Start date
Yes, but there is also no such thing as 'DERIVATIVE citizenship' that jglapski claims. You have Natural Born Citizenship, Naturalized Citizenship, and US Nationality, and of course being a no one in the eyes of the US government. McCain most definitely is not a naturalized citizen. The argument of whether he is a US national would be an interesting one, if he had not been born to US parents. That makes him a natural born citizen, not a US national.
Congress passed legislation in 1790 stating that children of U.S. citizens born outside the U.S. shall be considered natural born. (George Romney, presidential candidate and father of former candidate Mitt Romney, was born in Mexico to U.S. citizens.) The Supreme Court has not had the opportunity to rule whether that legislation is constitutional. The Court has held that children born in the United States to non-citizens are natural born citizens. No one has seriously considered challenging McCain's eligibility, and I doubt even a legitimate court battle would progress very far.
The Fourteenth Amendment states ... "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The United States includes its territories. (Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona, when it was a territory and not yet a state.) McCain was not naturalized, so he must fit the other definition, "born." Those would be my arguments.
The Fourteenth Amendment states ... "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The United States includes its territories. (Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona, when it was a territory and not yet a state.) McCain was not naturalized, so he must fit the other definition, "born." Those would be my arguments.
Under what constitutional grounds would that be challenged? That the government isn't allowed to define citizenship statutes?
qh4dotcom
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,931
It was not a territory....it was a LEASE.
And in 1999 the US had to move out, like the end of any lease.
From the US State Department site:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
"(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under
which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
The progression is that citizenship is acquired by birth or by naturalization.
If by birth:
Jus soli: natural born citizen
Jus sanguinis: not natural born citizen
And where is your legal findings and rulings defining this concept of derivative citizenship? Hello buddy, the Department of State is neither Congress nor the Supreme Court. All I see is your blatantly stupid and poor reading of something the State Department put out.
Do you just not understand what 'through statute' means? The Constitution doesn't even DEFINE what a natural born citizen is. As for the State Department finding, all it says is that citizenship is infact acquired through birth, it doesn't GIVE ANY MENTION of your nonsense concept of not being a natural born citizen.
Where does it say this? That's your own flawed interpretation. Infact, I couldn't find the term 'natural born citizen' anywhere in your linked State Department file. Thus, is NO ONE a natural born citizen? The term "natural born" is just in opposition to naturalized. There are no further divisions that you claim.
Last edited:
mccain status
The Panama Canal zone was never a territory, and never part of the United States. It was leased from Panama in the way that we lease gitmo from Cuba. We all know the reasons why W and them put the secret prison at gitmo, which is to escape the jurisdiction of our courts.
If McCain were born in the Panama Canal zone, he is not a citizen due to being born on American soil, he is a citizen due to his parent's citizenship.
Barry Goldwater was born in an American territory, and that was a completely different situation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that a court strictly obeying the law may well have to disqualify him.
The Panama Canal zone was never a territory, and never part of the United States. It was leased from Panama in the way that we lease gitmo from Cuba. We all know the reasons why W and them put the secret prison at gitmo, which is to escape the jurisdiction of our courts.
If McCain were born in the Panama Canal zone, he is not a citizen due to being born on American soil, he is a citizen due to his parent's citizenship.
Barry Goldwater was born in an American territory, and that was a completely different situation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that a court strictly obeying the law may well have to disqualify him.
Natural born doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It simply means being born a citizen, as opposed to being naturalized as a citizen. Whether due to being born to illegal aliens on US soil, or being born to US citizens on the moon, in both cases you're a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-NATURAL BORN NON-NATURALIZED CITIZEN AND I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG.
Also, you're wrong about the Panama Canal Zone. It very much so was a territory.
Last edited:
Similar threads
