Front page of DRUDGE REPORT: McCain's elligibility comes into question...

[torchbearer]

It has nothing to do with WHERE he was born. He is a natural born citizen because his parents were when he was born.

Oh, it had to do with the phrase " In the United States"
as in... are you considered born in the U.S. which I thought was require to become a natural born citizen, i guess the constitution doesn't say you have to be born in the U.S.

 

[torchbearer]

Actually, all of that is interesting but not relevant to the question of his eligibility. The Constitution, clearly states that one must be a "natural born Citizen" in order to be President or Vice-President.

The 14th amendment, and any laws passed subsequent to the Constitution, CANNOT define the term "natural born Citizen."

The Supreme Court's rule of Constitutional interpretation, which it has consistently held since 1789, is that the terms of the document can ONLY mean what the people who wrote and ratified the document THOUGHT they meant at the time, and that ONLY an amendment can change the meaning of terms to apply to different situations. (this blows the hole in the "living document" theory - it isn't one)

To understand what is meant by "natural born Citizen" we have to look to what the framers thought it meant.

To them, it meant someone born in one of the States. Period. You couldn't be a Citizen any other way, except naturalized, and the term "natural born" would preclude that. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was no such thing as someone who was a citizen of the nation, not due to their citizenship of a state. You weren't a citizen of the U.S., but a Citizen of one of the several States.

Since the Panama Canal zone, was not, and is not a State of the Union, then McCain is not a natural born Citizen. If he even is a citizen at all, it is by virtue of Congress' power of naturalization under Article I, section 8.

For more on this visit: www.originalintent.org/education/ and read the articles on the left in order, specifically the one on the Constitution, the 14th amendment, and Citizenship.

It wouldn't hurt to read Dred Scott vs. Sanford, as well as the Slaughter House cases, as well.


This won't be an issue unless someone challenges his ballot access qualifying on those grounds.

This means a very expensive lawsuit.

Know anyone up for the challenge?

 

[Banana]

I had dismissed it as bunk but wasn't sure when someone pointed to me that it wasn't his citizenship that was being disputed, but rather that eligibility for POTUS is more specific, requiring someone to be born within the borders.

So, it wasn't really about citizenship but more of whether POTUS should be someone who grew up in US for his life.

I didn't really research this further. Maybe someone will figure this out. Hopefully.


Only thing I know for sure is that we should keep concentrating on getting delegates for Ron Paul. That's the only thing that matters. With 1191+ delegates whom are Ron Paul supporters, Ron Paul wins, even without the nomination.

 

[ricket]

If I recall correctly...

There is a difference between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen".

You can be/can become a citizen of the United States without being a "natural born citizen". Note that the law only talked about citizens.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a US citizen. However, he *CANNOT* become the President because he is not "natural born". It is quite plausible that the law only made someone a US citizen, but does not define him as "natural born".

If he is a US citizen, but not a "natural born" citizen, then he is not eligible to be President. I did not see anything in that law that declared him a "natural born" citizen if he was born in Panama. Only just a "citizen".

 

[nbhadja]

As much as I'd like to see McCain out of the picture, this wouldn't be right. He was born outside the country because his father was serving overseas in the military. If that makes him not a "natural-born" citizen, it is a disgrace.

It wasn't right for him to vote for the death of 4000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If he dropped dead of a heart attack it would be very right.

 

[hyoomen]

For more on this visit: www.originalintent.org/education/ and read the articles on the left in order, specifically the one on the Constitution, the 14th amendment, and Citizenship.

BTW, seems to now be http://www.originalintent.org/edu/ instead. Stupid non self-referring URL changes.

 

[gerryb]

This means a very expensive lawsuit.

Know anyone up for the challenge?

Who would be footing the bill on McCain's side?

Would it be his Presidential campaign? The GOP? Or someone else?


I think if an organization was created to pursue this and solicited funds, it would have all the capital it would need. The Dems would jump all over that, even if all it did was hamstring his campaign financing.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Oh, it had to do with the phrase " In the United States"
as in... are you considered born in the U.S. which I thought was require to become a natural born citizen, i guess the constitution doesn't say you have to be born in the U.S.

McCain is a natural born citizen. Period
Because McCain's parents were citizens when he was born, McCain IS a natural born citizen (no matter where he was born). This is the law: 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .'' [Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661 -666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672 -675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).]

McCain is either a "natural born citizen" [hint: he is] or a "naturalized" citizen [hint: he's not]--or do you contest his citizenship entirely?

Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that "at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government."
It is the consensus of scholars that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. And that would mean that McCain would certainly qualify.

 

[CurtisLow]

I think McCain should forget it or get the law changed.

No we don't need the law changed because we don't want this guy running for president.

 

[affa]

No we don't need the law changed because we don't want this guy running for president.

it's amazing how consistently blatant arnold is, and even more so that most people still don't see it.

 

[WilliamC]

From the US State Department website at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf


7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

But both of his parents were also citizens. I think the above only applies to children of foreign nationals born in such places.

 

[Phantom]

Why John McCain is INELIGIBLE to be President of the United

McCAIN'S CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY FOR PRESIDENT IN QUESTION?

 

[constituent]

I'll take a spot of cinnamon and honey on mine. This sounds like the NYT continuing their attack -- I'm starting to think they actually WANT to reunify the Republicans with all of this chicanery.

ding ding ding.

 

[leonster]

McCain is a natural born citizen. Period
Because McCain's parents were citizens when he was born, McCain IS a natural born citizen (no matter where he was born). This is the law: 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .'' [Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661 -666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672 -675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).]

McCain is either a "natural born citizen" [hint: he is] or a "naturalized" citizen [hint: he's not]--or do you contest his citizenship entirely?

Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that "at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government."
It is the consensus of scholars that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. And that would mean that McCain would certainly qualify.

But the laws passed after the Constitution can't change the meaning of the Constitution, without an amendment.

Let's take the second amendment, for example. If Congress were to make a law saying that the "Arms" referred to in the 2nd Amdt. refer only to BB guns... would anyone seriously think that is a valid law?

Now, Congress CAN write laws about who can become a "naturalized" citizen, b/c that is NOT defined in the Constitution (am I right?). So, for example, they can say you can become a citizen through visas and residency, or through automatic naturalization by being born to American parents overseas... but they CAN'T change the meaning of natural-born in the Constitution.

I'm still undecided on this, b/c personally I don't know what the founders meant when they wrote "natural born"... but in any case, as Constitutionalists we should all agree that the meaning of the US Constitution doesn't change just b/c Congress later passes a law... right?

 

[Mental Dribble]

I don't think he was natural-born. I think he was born of a jackal.

That got me to laugh out loud, Thank you.

 

[CAKochenash]

But the laws passed after the Constitution can't change the meaning of the Constitution, without an amendment.

Let's take the second amendment, for example. If Congress were to make a law saying that the "Arms" referred to in the 2nd Amdt. refer only to BB guns... would anyone seriously think that is a valid law?

Now, Congress CAN write laws about who can become a "naturalized" citizen... for example, through visas and residency, or through automatic naturalization by being born to American parents overseas... but they CAN'T change the meaning of natural-born in the Constitution.

I'm still undecided on this, b/c personally I don't know what the founders meant when they wrote "natural born"... but in any case, as Constitutionalists we should all agree that the meaning of the US Constitution doesn't change just b/c Congress later passes a law... right?

I always thought any "law" that contradicts the Constitution, was, by default, null and void. Remember they had to amend it to prohibit alcohol...

 

[Phantom]

Historically, the term “natural born” was put in Article II at the request of John Jay (who later helped write the Federalist Papers, became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and pointed out in 1796 that jury nullification is a right and duty of the people) to George Washington in a letter from 25 July 1787.

McCain has claimed that the Naturalization Act of 1790 (26 March 1790) covers his status as a natural born citizen. That is not true. A close look at the Act indicates that it only covers “admission as a citizen” (meaning naturalization), and that Act was repealed in part 29 January 1795 and again in total 14 April 1802. So that argument does not work because it was repealed and because it creates naturalization instead of natural born citizenship.

That leads us all back to the Constitution. The citizenship definitions of both Article II and Amendment 14 apply in terms of McCain running for President.

But there’s more. If you look at the 14th Amendment, the term “in the United States” is there. What does that mean, specifically?

“In the United States” is generally thought to mean the States, territories, protectorates, and embassies. But the wording is never clear in the law on what exactly the jurisdiction of the United States explicitly is.

But if you look again at 8 USC 1401(c) and 1403(a), you see a big difference. 8 USC 1401(c) address births outside the U.S., meaning clearly that the “born in the United States” clause of the 14th Amendment cannot apply to this form of citizenship.

Therefore a person that falls under 8 USC 1401(c) has to be a naturalized citizen. 8 USC 1403(a) already “declares” citizenship and implies naturalization. The only logical conclusion is that the Canal Zone was considered to be outside the United States, else these sections (8 USC 1401(c) and 8 USC 1403(a)) never needed to be codified into law in the first place, and 8 USC 1401(a) would apply instead (see above).

So, tying it all together:

1. The Canal Zone was not part of the United States.

2. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.

3. Therefore John McCain was not born in the United States.

4. 8 USC 1403(a) declares citizenship on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.

5. Therefore 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain.

6. Therefore John McCain is a citizen.

7. Therefore John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.

8. Therefore John McCain is not a natural born citizen.

9. Therefore John McCain must be a naturalized citizen.

10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.

11. THEREFORE John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.

Link

 

[leonster]

I always thought any "law" that contradicts the Constitution, was, by default, null and void. Remember they had to amend it to prohibit alcohol...

Well, I think the naturalization laws wouldn't contradict the Constitution, b/c the Constitution doesn't say anything one way or the other about it.

But it does mention "natural born" in the specific context we're worried about here... so if a law later comes along giving citizenship to people if their parents are American but they're born overseas? Then I think we need to clearly find out what "Natural born" means in the Constitution.

If the founders meant "born on US soil" then McCain should be out on Constitutional grounds. If the founders meant it more vaguely, or meant to let Congress define it, then McCain is ok on this issue.

 

[JordanQ72]

But the laws passed after the Constitution can't change the meaning of the Constitution, without an amendment.

And they're not doing that, unless you actually found a definition of natural born which none of us has ever seen in there. You're confusing the concept of natural born with native born. McCain is natural born, as opposed to naturalized, though he most definitely is not native born, though that legal concept doesn't exist in the US.

Anyway, NYT? Oh boy...

Can't wait for them to print some more articles about some old nonexistent affairs. At least this nonsense ends when Clinton drops out after next Tuesday.

 

[homah]

It wasn't right for him to vote for the death of 4000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If he dropped dead of a heart attack it would be very right.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.