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

[leonster]

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.

But "arms" are never defined in the Constitution either. Does that make Congress free to define them as BB guns... or arms of the human variety, like arms and legs?

 

[Cinderella]

damn weve been talking about this for months and theyre just bringing it up....its bullshhhhhhhhhit!!

 

[wgadget]

Look at the bright side...Maybe they'll bring up what an AWESOME PRESIDENT Ron Paul would make soon! After all, we've been talking about it for months.

 

[ronpaul.republican]

It's about change.

Regime change. O'bama style.

 

[wgadget]

I think Ron Paul's style of government would embody the kind of CHANGE that would be GOOD for America.

 

[torchbearer]

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.

 

[Rhys]

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.

i'll take it. it's a disgrace what happens to ron paul. McCain is a war lord. If someone told Hitler he was ineligible, it would have saved a lot of trouble.

 

[CGMike]

Nevermind. I spoke too soon.

8 U.S.C. § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

I think that sums it up

 

[torchbearer]

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.

+1 because we strive to be constitutionlist.

 

[pmbug]

If the Democrats take up this issue and press it, it might be an impetus for Romney to reactivate his campaign.

 

[angelatc]

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.

What reference do you have for what the framers were thinking? I hate McCain, but because he was born to two citizens, I would consider him a natural born citizen. He never held another citizenship.

 

[JordanQ72]

But "arms" are never defined in the Constitution either.

And boy do I wish it was.

Does that make Congress free to define them as BB guns... or arms of the human variety, like arms and legs?

Yes it does, or at least the Supreme Court. I would probably be able to own F22s if the founding fathers had clearly spelled out what constitutes arms. But they didn't, so I'm left to being limited to fucking hunting rifles and crap handguns, and not allowed to even buy 'scary looking' rifles.

 

[Ex Post Facto]

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

This breakdown is very compelling. I'm trying to come up with a counter to this and am having a difficult time.

 

[JordanQ72]

This breakdown is very compelling. I'm trying to come up with a counter to this and am having a difficult time.

8 is wrong. There is no way to be a citizen at birth and not be a natural born citizen. There's no such thing as a naturalized at birth citizen. I dare you to show me anything to the contrary.

 

[acptulsa]

8 is wrong. There is no way to be a citizen at birth and not be a natural born citizen. There's no such thing as a naturalized at birth citizen. I dare you to show me anything to the contrary.

It could certainly be argued that #4 defines how it is possible to be born something other than a natural born citizen. Furthermore, it appears that McCain was born in a hospital outside the Canal Zone, so he wasn't even born on U.S. territory. Thus, whether a citizen born in Puerto Rico is natural born or not ceases to be in play...

He may be getting away with illegally being on the ballot in several states, but this little issue has broken through the MSM blackout in a big way.

 

[Ex Post Facto]

8 is wrong. There is no way to be a citizen at birth and not be a natural born citizen. There's no such thing as a naturalized at birth citizen. I dare you to show me anything to the contrary.

Dare is a big word. #4 does show a compelling arguement that it took an act of legislation to grant an individual citizenship even between two USA citizens when born outside the USA. So the question seems to be what is the term "natural born" refer to? Does it mean you were born naturally into citizenship? Or does it mean You were born naturally within the borders of a nation? In the case of immigrants coming across the border and having baby's (one of ron Paul's issues, ending birth-right citizenship), is that the same thing? Certainly, someone can't sneak into Panama Canal zone have a baby and claim it to be a USA citizen.

The main point that seems to hinge on McCains eligiblity to become president is defining what "natural born citizen" refers to? As to your comment, "There is no such thing as a naturalized at birth citizen." I seem to agree. I can also purport that Natural Born Citizen isn't properly defined, which is the crux of holding presidency per the constitution. I dare you to show me anything to the contray.

 

[hotbrownsauce]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/u...gin&adxnnlx=1204168002-jTwJSQFJ79lTSNW5ZPAR7A

Very nice read for two reasons.
1.) We are talking about this in my Political Science Class
2.) Some believe Arnold - the terminator Will run for president. Pushing for a law to change 'natural born'

I'm going to go share this on other forums, thanks!

 

[Ex Post Facto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Digging deeper, I think McCain's natural born citizen status is definitly a relevant topic. I also am deeply sympathetic to military families who have a baby outside of USA territories or for that matter, any citizen that travels abroad and has their baby outside of USA territories. On the other hand, I believe that there is a very real concern that the framers thought people holding naturalized citizenships could go back to another country, have a baby and raise that baby against USA values. Then that baby could grow up and lead a country which s/he hasn't been a part of. Enemies foreign and domestic, infiltration of the highest office would definitly be a concern the framers had in mind when excluding anything but natural born citizens to the highest office.

With that said, it's a tough issue that definitly should be clarified. I think the rule of law should take front seat on this issue, and not a sympathetic approach.

 

[torchbearer]

What reference do you have for what the framers were thinking? I hate McCain, but because he was born to two citizens, I would consider him a natural born citizen. He never held another citizenship.

You will have to read their writings of course... and i don't have the page numbers and collections together for an official debate.
but if you start here: http://www.originalintent.org/education/
It will point you in the right direction.

 

[Jodi's mom]

This bit of "news" was nothing more than a distraction to keep Ron Paul supporters preoccupied. We've got better things to do....like keep doing all we can do to make sure McCain doesn't win in Texas and to make sure that Ron Paul keeps his congressional seat.

Don't take the bait for changing the law or amending the Constitution unless you want to see Arnold be your next president. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it now stands. Not now or ever. So let's not worry about this now. This was discussed in the 2000 election and it got nowhere. McCain is in the run today, isn't he?
_____________