McCain Born in Panama

[Chana]

The Constitution clearly states only those born in the United States may be President

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Robert Werden
(Libertarian)
This is not open to interpretation or overturned by the 14th Amendment as it is very clear in the Constitution that the founders were being very specific on who could be the President.
The 14th Amendment was not written to change the rules of who could be the President, it was to determine citizenship. Citizenship does not allow just anyone to be the President. Only those born in the United States have that privilege.
Although John McCain was born in Panama many would argue that he was born in a US territory and is considered a US citizen. Being a citizen is not the litmus test the founders directed when they wrote the requirements to become the President.
A territory is not the United States. The United States is one of the 50 states. If Panama was a state things would be different. However Panama is a sovereign Country.
If this were the case, then we would have to allow all children born on US territories to be naturalized citizens. For example, if an Iraqi woman has an American service mans baby in a hospital in Iraq that happens to be a US Military base, then the baby would be born in US territory. This is not what the founders would have contemplated as a US naturalized citizen.
While this is probably an issue the courts would most likely rule that McCain is fully eligible to be the President, I my self would not vote for a person who is questionably walking a fine line on the founding fathers rule of Presidential eligibility.

So the question is...Is McCain constitutionally eligible to be President?

[d4vendel]

From other discussion on this topic on the web...


In a word, yes - he is eligible.

First, McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, that former ten-mile wide TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES that used to surround the Canal, which we used to own.

Second, McCain's parents were both American citizens, so even if he had been born in the Soviet Union, Mainland China or Timbuktu, he'd still be a natural born citizen.

[Chana]

So how do you interpret the following?

Although John McCain was born in Panama many would argue that he was born in a US territory and is considered a US citizen. Being a citizen is not the litmus test the founders directed when they wrote the requirements to become the President.
A territory is not the United States. The United States is one of the 50 states. If Panama was a state things would be different. However Panama is a sovereign Country.
If this were the case, then we would have to allow all children born on US territories to be naturalized citizens. For example, if an Iraqi woman has an American service mans baby in a hospital in Iraq that happens to be a US Military base, then the baby would be born in US territory. This is not what the founders would have contemplated as a US naturalized citizen.

[Dharma]

If this were the case, then we would have to allow all children born on US territories to be naturalized citizens.

WOW. This opens the door for a lot of Central Americans to claim citizenship - and the office of the president - if they choose to run. Pepe Lopez could be the president de los Estados Unitos very soon. If Hillary lets all the illegals become citizens, this could happen. (Daryl is pooping his pants as he reads this!). :wink:

[d4vendel]

Let me repeat the salient point from this discussion..


Second, McCain's parents were both American citizens, so even if he had been born in the Soviet Union, Mainland China or Timbuktu, he'd still be a natural born citizen.

McCain is a natural born citizen. Period.

The State Department web site referenced below spells it all our for you.

It get cloudy for children born out of wedlock to a US Citizen outside the the US, all of which you can read about at the State Department's web site and all of which has nothing to do with the birth of John McCain.

State Department (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86758.pdf)

Just being born in a US territory to (a) non-citizen parent(s) gets you nothing.

[Chana]

The US Constitution says "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I merely posed the question for discussion. I didn't write the article. The author questioned his eligibility.

[d4vendel]

And the author is coming out of left field and I answered your question - correct?

[DarylB]

From one who was living overseas (Germany), and in the military (USAF) when his last child was born, I can safely report that 1) you don't get a "birth certificate", you get an FS-240, and 2) the individual is a US citizen, with no differnce in status from any other citizen, birth certificate or not, born overseas or not, or in the middle of the interstate for that matter:


Replacement Birth Certificates for US Citizens Born Overseas
"Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America", Form FS-240, is a record of birth of a U.S. citizen abroad maintained by the U.S. State Department. It is not a birth certificate, such as issued by a government-authorized bureau or office of vital statistics, as a consular commission does not empower consular officers to assume a foreign local or state vital statistics function. A similar document entitled "Certification of Report of Birth abroad", Form DS-1350, is also issued by the State Department.

While these two forms are not traditional birth certificates, they serve many of the same functions. For example, they can be used as proof of U.S. citizenship, in applying for a passport, a replacement social security card, in registering children for school, obtaining employment, and for similar purposes.

The "Certification of Report of Birth" can be obtained by submitting a written request to the Department of State. This document will only be provided to the individual (child) named in the document, the individual's parents, the individual's legal guardian, or a person who submits written authorization from the individual of the certification of birth. The fee is $30.00 for the first copy, $20.00 for additional copies requested at the same time. The fee is payable in U.S. funds by check or bank draft drawn on a U.S. bank, money order or U.S. currency.

Duplicate copies of "Consular Report of Birth" are not issued, however, when a "Consular Report of Birth" is lost, stolen, mutilated, or accidentally destroyed, a person may obtain a replacement by submitting a written request to the Department of State. The fee is $30.00, payable in U.S. funds by check or bank draft drawn on a U.S. bank, money order or U.S. currency.

The written request for a "Certification of Report of Birth" or a "Consular Report of Birth" must be notarized and must include a copy of valid photo identification of the requestor. The written request must also include the following information:

Date of the request
Purpose of the request
Current mailing address and daytime telephone number
Which document you are requesting, "Certification of Report of Birth" or "Consular Report of Birth"
Number of copies (if requesting "Certification of Report of Birth")
Full name of child at birth (plus any adoptive names)
Date and place of birth
Names of parents with place and date of birth
Serial number, if known, of the FS-240 (on those issued after November 1, 1990)
Any available passport information of the child and parents
Copy of original document to aid in search, if available
Original FS-240 (in the case of mutilation) or notarized affidavit for a replacement FS-240 setting forth the circumstances surrounding the loss, theft, or mutilation of the previous document
Notarized signature of requester


http://www.oki.med.navy.mil/birthcertificates.htm
Approved by the Executive Officer, USNH Okinawa

Anyone wishing to argue this topic further, here's the number to the folks you need to speak with (and good luck)!!!!
Need to talk to us? See Contact Us above
or call our 24 hour Information Desk at
DSN 315-643-7555
Commercial 01181-611-743-7555

[chaboard]

McCain is a natural born citizen. Period.


That's an awful lot of certainty for something that seems to be quite arguable and that has never actually been decided.

[

The State Department web site referenced below spells it all our for you.


I appreciate the reference...but I'm quite certain the State Department is not the controlling authority on defining terms
used in the Constitution. And it's my understanding from some quick web surfing that
a) there is no case law from SCotUS directly deciding whether the term "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution includes those born outside of the United States
and
b) scholars seem to be at odds over what they *would* (or should) rule if they were to do so.

Some interesting stuff here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen) on the topic of "natural born citizen".

Of course, for all PRACTICAL purposes it's moot since he's a Republican. Just like that pesky Constitutional requirement that
two Texans could not run on the same ticket was ignored in 2000. If he were a Democrat, of course, he would be ruled ineligible after
winning the election. By a vote of 5-4, I imagine.

[DarylB]

McCain is a natural born citizen. Period.


That's an awful lot of certainty for something that seems to be quite arguable ......

Which only serves to prove that there are a very few people who will forever just be weird and wanna get their fur all ruffled, egging for a fight, no matter what......

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/182/1011/1024/Weird%20Cat.jpg

[d4vendel]

McCain is a natural born citizen. Period.


That's an awful lot of certainty for something that seems to be quite arguable and that has never actually been decided.

[

The State Department web site referenced below spells it all our for you.


I appreciate the reference...but I'm quite certain the State Department is not the controlling authority on defining terms
used in the Constitution. And it's my understanding from some quick web surfing that
a) there is no case law from SCotUS directly deciding whether the term "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution includes those born outside of the United States
and
b) scholars seem to be at odds over what they *would* (or should) rule if they were to do so.

Some interesting stuff here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen) on the topic of "natural born citizen".

Of course, for all PRACTICAL purposes it's moot since he's a Republican. Just like that pesky Constitutional requirement that
two Texans could not run on the same ticket was ignored in 2000. If he were a Democrat, of course, he would be ruled ineligible after
winning the election. By a vote of 5-4, I imagine.

The Republicans. Of course. It is all their fault. I'm so surprised to hear you say this. :roll:

[chaboard]

On second thought, I think this:



But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."


makes it quite clear that McCain does NOT meet the constitutional standard of a "natural born citizen".

Why? Because:

a) Clearly the fact that Congress specifically redefined the term in 1790 to include situations like McCain's implies that it DID NOT mean that when the Constitution was written and adopted

and

b) Changing the meaning as a "constitutional" matter would require an amendment - it can't be done just by Congress passing a law with a new definition. The 1790 law can
redefine the term "natural born citizen" for every other use under the sun... but it can't substantively change the meaning of a clause in the constitution.

Which of those two claims would you contest and why, Dave?

[chaboard]

The Republicans. Of course. It is all their fault. I'm so surprised to hear you say this. :roll:


Well he is THEIR nominee (assuming he wins). Who else's fault could it possibly be? :roll:

[d4vendel]

On second thought, I think this:



But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."


makes it quite clear that McCain does NOT meet the constitutional standard of a "natural born citizen".

Why? Because:

a) Clearly the fact that Congress specifically redefined the term in 1790 to include situations like McCain's implies that it DID NOT mean that when the Constitution was written and adopted

and

b) Changing the meaning as a "constitutional" matter would require an amendment - it can't be done just by Congress passing a law with a new definition. The 1790 law can
redefine the term "natural born citizen" for every other use under the sun... but it can't substantively change the meaning of a clause in the constitution.

Which of those two claims would you contest and why, Dave?

I think your entire argument is without merit. To accept your line of reasoning, every law ever passed that clarifies or addresses anything in the Constitution has to be thrown out on face values. I full accept that our founders had meaningful discussions about what "natural born" should mean - as clearly evidenced by their taking up the matter in 1790.

Let's stick with clichés. Do you agree that it should be illegal to yell, "Fire" in a crowed theater when there is no fire? Show me in the Constitution where, in the first amendment, it says anything about free speech except for theaters.

[d4vendel]

The Republicans. Of course. It is all their fault. I'm so surprised to hear you say this. :roll:


Well he is THEIR nominee (assuming he wins). Who else's fault could it possibly be? :roll:

Nobody's fault because he is a natural born citizen of the United States!

[DarylB]

On second thought, I think this:



But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."


makes it quite clear that McCain does NOT meet the constitutional standard of a "natural born citizen".

Why? Because:

a) Clearly the fact that Congress specifically redefined the term in 1790 to include situations like McCain's implies that it DID NOT mean that when the Constitution was written and adopted

and

b) Changing the meaning as a "constitutional" matter would require an amendment - it can't be done just by Congress passing a law with a new definition. The 1790 law can
redefine the term "natural born citizen" for every other use under the sun... but it can't substantively change the meaning of a clause in the constitution.

Which of those two claims would you contest and why, Dave?

Maybe you'd like to explain the situation concerning Barry Goldwater...... Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona in 1909 and Arizona was added in 1912 as a state. Both his parents were US citizens. So how does that theory of yours go about "natural born citizens" having to be born in the US again? Then when you get done with that little exercise, we're on to Alexander Hamilton.... and we're off to Georgia, and Alabama, and Texas, and Connecticutt, and North Dakota ..... and wherever else Howard Dean's mouth takes him!

[chaboard]

I think your entire argument is without merit. To accept your line of reasoning, every law ever passed that clarifies or addresses anything in the Constitution has to be thrown out on face values.


But we're not talking about a "clarification"...we're talking about a complete redefinition. If Congress were to pass a law tomorrow stating that henceforth all ages in the United States are to be measured in dog years then you seem to be claiming that that "clarification" would be sufficient to allow a 5 year old to serve as President because they would be 35 in the new dog year measure
and thus meet the constitutional standard.



Let's stick with clichés. Do you agree that it should be illegal to yell, "Fire" in a crowed theater when there is no fire? Show me in the Constitution where, in the first amendment, it says anything about free speech except for theaters.


You seem to be missing the rather crucial difference that the "Fire" exception was carved out by the Supreme Court ruling on the text....NOT by legislative fiat. The Supreme Court gets to say what the words in the Constitution actually mean and when they apply.....Congress doesn't. For example, many times Congress has declared that certain forms of campaign fundraising did NOT qualify as "speech" under the constitution and has thus regulated them. The Supreme Court has subsequently upheld some of these "clarifications" but has thrown out others. The power of "clarification" idoes not belong to Congress but to the Court. And the Court hasn't said squat about this one.

I'm simply taking the position that Congressional redefinition that substantively changes the meaning and effect of a clause by default ain't valid until the Court says it is.

[chaboard]

Maybe you'd like to explain the situation concerning Barry Goldwater...... Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona in 1909 and Arizona was added in 1912 as a state. Both his parents were US citizens.

What's to explain? When was Goldwater's eligibility contested in the courts and when did SCotUS rule that Goldwater was constitutionally eligible to be President? If neither happened there is, of course,
nothing to explain - it's just the McCain situation with a different name.

[DarylB]

What's to explain?

You should have stopped right there, it's the last intelligent remark you've made in this entire thread.....

[Caryatid]

This is a ridiculous argument. The American application of jus sanguinis has always provided that the child of two US citizens (at least one of whom has lived in the US) is automatically a citizen. Unless one of McCain's parents is a foreign national or neither of them ever lived in the US, this argument has zero merit.

[DarylB]

This is a ridiculous argument. The American application of jus sanguinis has always provided that the child of two US citizens (at least one of whom has lived in the US) is automatically a citizen. Unless one of McCain's parents is a foreign national or neither of them ever lived in the US, this argument has zero merit. :notworthy: :hello1:

But it does bring up the question of Barack Obama's citizenship, since his father was Kenyan at the time of his birth. hmmmmm....

[Icorpse]

As usual both the right and left are acting like jerks on this thread. Is it because McCain can actually win this election? Same for Obama?

They are both US citizens. I believe the same naturalization rules apply to senators and supreme court justices. Someone would have looked into this stuff a while back ya know.

Stop acting like children and grow up!

[Dharma]

As usual both the right and left are acting like jerks on this thread. Is it because McCain can actually win this election? Same for Obama?

They are both US citizens. I believe the same naturalization rules apply to senators and supreme court justices. Someone would have looked into this stuff a while back ya know.

Stop acting like children and grow up!

Awe, come on, Icorpse! Sometimes it's just fun to grab some popcorn and be entertained! :-D :happy1:

[jackr]

The US Constitution says "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

It is clear that the constitution places a restriction on which people may be elected president, beyond the requirement of citizenship. The age restriction is unambiguous. The requirement of being a "natural born Citizen" is a bit murky.

I think Goldwater got by because the place his birth became a part of the United States before he ran for president-although there is that part about "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

I think the purpose of that requirement was that, at the time of the adoption, many in the US still believed in rule by royalty, and there was the fear that a European prince (perhaps the younger brother of a crown prince) could come to the US and run for president.

I don't think that is a concern now. (Think Prince Charles's younger son could come here and run?)

As for McCain, he ran for the nomination against Bush, who certainly had the legal firepower and was willing to use it. He wasn't challanged then. Certainly his opponents now would be raising the issue if they thought that they had a chance.

[DarylB]

So nobody took the initiative to check out the information I posted earlier, along with the Barry Goldwater piece?
Here's an excerpt from a scholarly work on the subject....


Natural-born, Native-born, and Naturalization

The term "natural born" citizen has a long history in British common law.(38) In fact, a law passed in 1677 law says that "natural born" citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who had children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat.(39) It also appears to have been employed by the members of the first Congress, who included many of the people who had participated in the Constitutional Convention. To be specific, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by this Congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."(40)

This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term "natural born" as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.(41)

A particularly compelling version of this interpretation, with language that applies, inadvertently, no doubt, to foreign-born adoptees, can be found in an article written almost 100 years ago by Alexander Porter Morse.(42) He writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing "the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance."(43) In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children "whose fathers were natural-born subjects," regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, "the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth."(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country." (46)


This is a VERY long document, but here's the link.
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

Bottom line, it supports the concept that those born overseas are "natural-born citizens", eligible for the Presidency.

And just for grins, I again ask, does Barack Obama meet the definition, considering he was born to a man of Kenyan citizenry at the time of his birth? (note that highlighted "a natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country" section in the excerpt above, and the additional provision, "that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States".

[Caryatid]

Yes, he is. Later rulings confirmed jus sanguinis on the part of the mother as well (as long as she had lived in the US prior at some point prior to Barack's birth. Which she had.)

[Chana]

Daryl wrote: ...
considering he was born to a man

Well, that would be a first!!! 8O

Of course, having given birth twice, I'm all for it!

[chaboard]

Daryl wrote: ...
considering he was born to a man

Well, that would be a first!!! 8O

Of course, having given birth twice, I'm all for it!

But once it becomes widely known that he was born to a man won't that kill his chances of getting evangelical votes? :-D

[Caryatid]

Daryl wrote: ...
considering he was born to a man

Well, that would be a first!!! 8O

Of course, having given birth twice, I'm all for it!

But once it becomes widely known that he was born to a man won't that kill his chances of getting evangelical votes? :-D

Are you kidding? Spin it as "virgin birth" and bill himself as the next Messiah. :wink:

[Chana]

I love you guys!

[chaboard]

I love you guys!


Well I ain't having your baby no matter how much you love me!

;)