John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"?

[jon1856]

To be very up front, this is a rather old topic in many ways.
It goes back to the very start of our country, goes back to several other candidates, and it has been on the Internet for awhile now.

Now it seems to have gone main stream: Is John McCain constitutionally permitted to be President of the US?

This idea could be nothing, as some have pointed out, or it could be something that has to be looked at and reviewed.

And as we have seen in the past two elections, matters have ended up in the Supreme Court.
McCain's birthplace in Panama Canal Zone raises eligibility questions

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/us/oklahoma-PLGEO100103900000000.topic)? In the case of Sen. John McCain (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/elections/us-elections/john-mccain-PEPLT004278.topic) of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-mccain-birthplacefeb28,0,6597433.story

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

And from Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=3752
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-MtHZImuQvg&feature=related

[Kevin]

If a child born to an illegal alien is "natural born," surely a child born on a U.S. military installation is natural born.

Hillary would litigate this if she had a chance to though.

She'd lose, then claim the election was stolen.

[jon1856]

If a child born to an illegal alien is "natural born," surely a child born on a U.S. military installation is natural born.

Hillary would litigate this if she had a chance to though.

She'd lose, then claim the election was stolen.
Your first case is only true is the child is born in the US.
And as the story IIRC stated, John's kids would not have been
"natural born" if born in The Zone.

And as some have pointed out, this matter may have to be looked at by one of the two branch's of government sooner than later.

[MysticCat]

If a child born to an illegal alien is "natural born," surely a child born on a U.S. military installation is natural born.I don't know that's necessarily the case. (It should be, but whether it would be, I don't know.) It seems that the question might turn on whether the child in born on land under US sovereignty. At least according to the Wiki article cited (usual disclaimers, I know), "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."

The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

[33girl]

Your first case is only true is the child is born in the US.

That's what he meant - obviously if said alien isn't IN the US, he isn't illegal.

This is ridiculous and Ron Paul just makes himself look like an idiot bringing it up.

[jon1856]

That's what he meant - obviously if said alien isn't IN the US, he isn't illegal.

This is ridiculous and Ron Paul just makes himself look like an idiot bringing it up.
Check around, it is NOT just Ron Paul bringing it up.
And this has been around, in one form or another since at least Chester A. Arthur.

And it is the Republicans (Bush) who claim to be "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Constitution.
Just found this Souther POV:
http://southernledger.com/blogs/rogerhedgecock/perspective/?p=48

[33girl]

This was checked out the first time he ran.

I don't see why it's an issue now.

[Kevin]

I don't know that's necessarily the case. (It should be, but whether it would be, I don't know.) It seems that the question might turn on whether the child in born on land under US sovereignty. At least according to the Wiki article cited (usual disclaimers, I know), "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."

The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

If you want to get into a founders' intent argument, I would say that the founders' intent in placing this provision in the Constitution was to keep individuals with potential loyalties to foreign powers (namely, England) from being able to run for President.

If it comes down to a Supreme Court decision, I don't see a decision coming down against McCain.

Dems will love this because it will allow them to whine about how the Republicans "stole" the election yet again.

[jon1856]

This was checked out the first time he ran.

I don't see why it's an issue now.
Just because it was "checked-out" does not make it have any legal status.

[RU OX Alum]

If you want to get into a founders' intent argument, I would say that the founders' intent in placing this provision in the Constitution was to keep individuals with potential loyalties to foreign powers (namely, England) from being able to run for President.



i thought it was because Madison didn't trust Hamilton

[jon1856]

i thought it was because Madison didn't trust Hamilton
From the quoted/linked story:
"The phrase "natural born" was included in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to "declare expressly" that only a natural-born citizen could be president."

I know a person working on one of the campaigns. Next time I see them, I will ask about this matter.

[PeppyGPhiB]

The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

A child born to two American parents outside of the U.S. is still an American citizen...actually, I think as long as one of the parents is American, the child is an American citizen, born in the U.S. or not. We know he/she is not a "natural born" citizen, but is that considered naturalized? That doesn't seem right, either.

The issue is not whether John McCain is an American, but whether he is technically "natural born" and whether he fits the intended criteria to be President. It sounds like technically he might not be "natural born" if indeed the Canal Zone is not considered U.S. soil. But, I think we all know what the intent was of our Founding Fathers, who were scared of and pissed off at the English and wanted to make sure they never had control of our country :p It is a judge's/court's place to interpret law, so I say let the Supreme Court interpret this one and be done with it.

[jon1856]

A child born to two American parents outside of the U.S. is still an American citizen...actually, I think as long as one of the parents is American, the child is an American citizen, born in the U.S. or not. We know he/she is not a "natural born" citizen, but is that considered naturalized? That doesn't seem right, either.

The issue is not whether John McCain is an American, but whether he is technically "natural born" and whether he fits the intended criteria to be President. It sounds like technically he might not be "natural born" if indeed the Canal Zone is not considered U.S. soil. But, I think we all know what the intent was of our Founding Fathers, who were scared of and pissed off at the English and wanted to make sure they never had control of our country :p It is a judge's/court's place to interpret law, so I say let the Supreme Court interpret this one and be done with it.
Agree-but will it ever get that far?
And if so, the who,what, when, where, how and why will all be rather interesting.
And all are filled with major consequences.

[MysticCat]

A child born to two American parents outside of the U.S. is still an American citizenThat's what I always thought, but that's not what the State Department seems to be saying (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf).

The issue is not whether John McCain is an American, but whether he is technically "natural born" and whether he fits the intended criteria to be President.I agree. But it does pose an interesting question for strict constructionists.

[Tom Earp]

I don't know that's necessarily the case. (It should be, but whether it would be, I don't know.) It seems that the question might turn on whether the child in born on land under US sovereignty. At least according to the Wiki article cited (usual disclaimers, I know), "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."

The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that Military Instalations, Consular, and Embassies are not considered part of the United States? I do beleive they are considered American soil therefore Americans.

In other words, anyone born outside of the Continental or States such as Alaska and Hawaii would be in doubt even though they are born of US citizens are in doubt?


What a smack in the face for a man who while serving his country became a prisoner of war in Nam.:o

[nittanyalum]

I'll be sure to alert my friend who was born to two American parents while her father was stationed in GTMO on the U.S. Naval Air Base. Are you saying she wouldn't be considered a native-born US citizen?

[33girl]

You know what this means.

SHILOH JOLIE-PITT IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND CAN NEVER BE OUR PRESIDENT.

[Kevin]

I agree. But it does pose an interesting question for strict constructionists.

Does it? Is there any precedent on this? I think even strict constructionists are going to have to practice a little Constitutional Divinity in order to sort this one out.

In the end, I can't see five justices saluting the idea that a person is not "natural born" for the purposes of this Article if they are born on a military installation located on foreign soil.

[Kevin]

You know what this means.

SHILOH JOLIE-PITT IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND CAN NEVER BE OUR PRESIDENT.

Tears will be wept.

[AGDee]

Dems will love this because it will allow them to whine about how the Republicans "stole" the election yet again.

Please don't make ridiculous assumptions like this. Most Dems would NOT love this because they want elections to be about real issues, not crap like this.

[Kevin]

Please don't make ridiculous assumptions like this. Most Dems would NOT love this because they want elections to be about real issues, not crap like this.

Why is it ridiculous? Do you, as a Democrat think it was ridiculous that Gore took a vote counting case to the Supreme Court? Most Democrats seemed rather supportive of him at the time.

How is this really so different?

[AGDee]

Yes, I do think it was ridiculous that it went to the Supreme Court. I also think it was ridiculous that voters were disenfranchised, that the whole thing became such a huge circus. I think there should have been a fair, valid recount and I still think we need to re-visit the whole electoral college thing and consider that the popular vote winner should just be the winner (and I expressed similar beliefs to that idea in one of the primary threads too... one primary day, everybody votes, most votes wins, period).

I think most Americans were embarassed by the whole Election 2000 thing. It made a mockery of our whole system with the dimpled chads and pregnant chads and hanging chads, dominating the news night after night.

This citizenship thing should be verified and decided upon long before you get to election day. It should be done the minute that they announce they are running. Who is responsible for checking that people meet the criteria? Is that actually spelled out anywhere?

[Kevin]

There were several "fair, valid recount[s]." According to any reasonable standard, George Bush still won. No one was disenfranchised. Gore did try to disenfranchise the majority of Floridians who voted for Bush, but as you well know, he was ultimately unsuccessful.

I'm not sure what the problem is with the electoral college. It seems to work out pretty well in my estimation. The electoral college is just about the only way for small states like mine to be relevant. Otherwise, you'd see presidential campaigns almost exclusively fought in the top 10 cities rather than in each of the 50 states.

As far as deciding something before election day, the Supreme Court is not in the business of issuing advisory opinions. You have to have an Article III Case or Controversy. The issue is not yet ripe for decision. Only if McCain wins the general election does this ever become an issue.

If it becomes an issue, I stand by my proposition that there's no way in heck you'll get 5 of the current justices to give the passage such a construction that it'd do away with the McCain presidency.

[MysticCat]

Let me get this straight, you are saying that Military Instalations, Consular, and Embassies are not considered part of the United States? I do beleive they are considered American soil therefore Americans.I'm not saying anything specifically, just passing along what the State Department seems to be saying.

But the State Department does seem to be saying that births on military installations are not considered to be "on US soil." Embassies, it seems, they consider differently, because of international law regarding the status of embassies and those connected with them.

I'll be sure to alert my friend who was born to two American parents while her father was stationed in GTMO on the U.S. Naval Air Base. Are you saying she wouldn't be considered a native-born US citizen?I have no idea. I'm just looking at what that State Department policy seems to be seeing, but I certainly won't claim to understand it completely. Ultimately, I think it would be a question for a court, not the State Department anyway.

[scbelle]

Based on the Form FS-240, or known as the "Consular Report of Birth Abroad",a child is a citizen of the United States of America at birth because both of his parents are citizens, even though he was born in Germany. Military installations are indeed considered "American soil." So while McCain wasn't born within the 48 states (at the time), he was on government property (if born in a military hospital). But citizenship was conferred upon him at birth, regardless of whether he was born in a military hospital or not. Here in Germany, there are only a couple of military hospitals outfitted for labor and delivery, so many children are born in German hospitals. These children also receive automatic citizenship to the United States based on the citizenship of his parents. They are not required to register the birth with any state, county or municipality within the United States because the State Department has already registered the birth. I just don't see how it's not a slam-dunk. It's not like military brats are Arnold Schwarzeneger... they aren't naturalized citizens, or for that matter, "nationals" or "aliens".

[MysticCat]

In the end, I can't see five justices saluting the idea that a person is not "natural born" for the purposes of this Article if they are born on a military installation located on foreign soil.I agree. But since the idea of an American military establishment on foreign soil would have been completely foreign (pun intended) to the framers, and since the intent of that provision seems to have been to ensure that only persons born in the United States could be president, I do think it presents an interesting question for a strict constructionist. Interesting, not insurmountable or hypocracy-inducing, just interesting.

[AGDee]

It's futile to go over election 2000 again because it's history.

I will become even more discontent with the DNC if they bring this up as a point of contention than I am now. While I'm liberal in most of my beliefs, I'm furious that I didn't get a say in the primary (being from Michigan and all) and I'm sick of mudslinging as a campaign strategy. It's not easy being a Democrat these days, especially in Michigan and Florida.

[UGAalum94]

That's what he meant - obviously if said alien isn't IN the US, he isn't illegal.

This is ridiculous and Ron Paul just makes himself look like an idiot bringing it up.

I don't know if he brought it up, but I think a little less of him knowing he's hosting that crap on his site.

I think there's a really important distinction about the material in the wiki article about whether, say the child of a German mother in the 1970s who gave birth in a military hospital is considered natural born and acquires citizenship by being born on base, which he or she clearly doesn't and the idea that the child of an American mother and father living on the Army base, who is born on base, is somehow not being born an American. The American's living on the base are certainly under the rule of US law.

In my mind, for American members of the military, a US base is just a little bit of the US installed temporarily someplace else.

[UGAalum94]

That's what I always thought, but that's not what the State Department seems to be saying (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf).



I think the document does say that such a child is a citizen, but that the citizenship route was established by practices and laws other than those actually listed in the Constitution.

ETA: There's no question about citizenship, just a question about "natural-born," in McCain's case, right? It's because we not only have to worry about whether he's a citizen, but whether he's a "natural-born" citizen in the Constitutional sense. It could affect Nittyalum's friend too, but only if she runs for President, right?

[AGDee]

Everytime I read "natural-born" I think to myself.. What if your mom had a c-section??? LOL, sorry...

[UGAalum94]

Everytime I read "natural-born" I think to myself.. What if your mom had a c-section??? LOL, sorry...

LOL, I was so going to post about that with a Shakespeare's MacBeth joke.

I can only imagine the citizenship issue that could result from hiring a non-citizen to be your surrogate with such terminology.

[GeekyPenguin]

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

Immigration law is a nightmare! I'm in our immigration clinic right now and we have a flowchart that's about 4 ft tall in tiny font that we use to determine citizenship - it's so insane.

[MysticCat]

There's no question about citizenship, just a question about "natural-born," in McCain's case, right? It's because we not only have to worry about whether he's a citizen, but whether he's a "natural-born" citizen in the Constitutional sense.Right. At least, that's how I understand it.

And I'm looking at this language in 7 FAM 1116.1-4c (in the State Department document to which I linked earlier): 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. (Emphasis mine.)

GeekyPenguin??

[Kevin]

Right. At least, that's how I understand it.

And I'm looking at this language in 7 FAM 1116.1-4c (in the State Department document to which I linked earlier): 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. (Emphasis mine.)

GeekyPenguin??

You're asking the wrong question. We're talking about the definition of a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II.

That's not necessarily the same thing.

[MysticCat]

You're asking the wrong question. We're talking about the definition of a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II.

That's not necessarily the same thing.I'm aware of that, at least as far as the McCain question goes, although others in this thread have raised more general question about the citizenship of military kids born overseas. So in reality, we're talking about more than the definition of a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II.

As I said, I stay as far away from immigration law as I can. I'll admit haven't done much searching, but I'm not aware of much that talks about what "natural born citizen" means in the Article II context. It seems to me, however, that the State Dept's interpretation of what this portion of the XIV Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." might be relevant to any discussion on the meaning of "natural born citizen" in Article II, section 5.

[Tom Earp]

Claire McCaskil of Mo. Senator has proposed an ealy amended part of what is under discussion on this thread and can just be done on a big cheif tablet and brought up to recify the wording.

But, if a child is born of natual American parents, they are consider Americans.

I hope the legal writen word would be more easier to read and decipher.

[Kevin]

I'm aware of that, at least as far as the McCain question goes, although others in this thread have raised more general question about the citizenship of military kids born overseas. So in reality, we're talking about more than the definition of a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II.

As I said, I stay as far away from immigration law as I can. I'll admit haven't done much searching, but I'm not aware of much that talks about what "natural born citizen" means in the Article II context. It seems to me, however, that the State Dept's interpretation of what this portion of the XIV Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." might be relevant to any discussion on the meaning of "natural born citizen" in Article II, section 5.

It might not be. Remember that the Vth amendment's and the XIVth amendment's due process clauses have been given different interpretations although they say essentially the same thing.

I'm pretty sure the issue would be one of first impression for which the Court would have little guidance. Too bad we have to wait until McCain is elected and the Democratic party sues to find out.

[MysticCat]

It might not be.Which is pretty much the same thing as me saying it might be. I didn't say that without question it is relevant, just that it might be.

Too bad we have to wait until McCain is elected and the Democratic party sues to find out.:rolleyes: Give it a rest, Kevin. Implicit hypocracy is not becoming, and you know that Republicans would sue just as quickly as Democrats if the shoe were on the other foot. Besides, how would "the Democratic Party" have standing? (You at least get a gold star, though, for not saying "the Democrat party.")

Besides, you're the one who said:
As far as deciding something before election day, the Supreme Court is not in the business of issuing advisory opinions. You have to have an Article III Case or Controversy. The issue is not yet ripe for decision. Only if McCain wins the general election does this ever become an issue.Actually, I would assume if it's not ripe prior to the election, it's not ripe until after the electoral college has voted. Assuming a suit was brought then, wouldn't the appropriate relief under the XX Amendment be that the vice-president elect becomes president? I don't see how the Democratic candidate could benefit from a decision adverse to McCain?

[MysticCat]

Claire McCaskil of Mo. Senator has proposed an ealy amended part of what is under discussion on this thread and can just be done on a big cheif tablet and brought up to recify the wording.

. . . .

I hope the legal writen word would be more easier to read and decipher.Any further comment by me would be superfluous.

[skylark]

Actually, I would assume if it's not ripe prior to the election, it's not ripe until after the electoral college has voted. Assuming a suit was brought then, wouldn't the appropriate relief under the XX Amendment be that the vice-president elect becomes president? I don't see how the Democratic candidate could benefit from a decision adverse to McCain?

I hadn't thought about it, but now that I have I think you're right on this. So who would have standing to sue? Mike "Presumable VP" Huckabee? Because I doubt that he would mess up his party that way.

[skylark]

My own opinion is Congress should amend the constitution NOW in order to alleviate the ambiguity. I think it is even in the Democratic Party's interest to fix the issue than leave it up in the air.

[scbelle]

Hi, this is me and this subject has been quite the topic of debate in my family since nittanyalum sent me the link to the thread. My Dad is retired Navy and my brothers are active military, one of my nephews was born on a base in Germany so that brother is particularly interested in this too.

My Dad and I spent a lot of time on the phone and googled as we talked. I do believe this should be a nonissue about McCain's candidacy, but I see where the idea that it might take a Supreme Court decision to put a "final word" on it comes from.

My Dad's opinion is that I was born under the U.S. flag to American parents on an American installation on land leased by the U.S. government and my birth was recorded by the Department of State, so there could be no misinterpretation of my birthright.

But I do see the gray area that has been referenced if someone takes the "strict constructionist" viewpoint. Googling about the leases we hold in Cuba and Okinawa (where we also lived) was really interesting. Castro hasn't cashed our lease payments since 1959 and many Okinawans oppose the continued forced lease of their land to the U.S.

We turned up an article in the Christian Science Monitor from 2002 that put an interesting spin on how the U.S. even defines the land it leases in Cuba. When efforts to extend constitutional rights to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay were raised, the government (some might say conveniently) argued that the base was still Cuban "sovereign territory", not U.S. sovereign territory (so they didn't have to extend U.S. protections to the prisoners). So it feels to me like they blurred the issue even more with those arguments. Here's the article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0320/p03s01-usju.html

So maybe the definition comes down to whether "natural born" depends on someone being born on U.S. "controlled" land or U.S. "sovereign" land? Military bases would absolutely fall under the controlled land definition, thereby extending all military or diplomatic kids born overseas the same "natural" designation.

I told my Dad how upsetting it was to learn that I may not be able to run for President now. He said he'd vote for me anyway. :)

My dad said that, too. :) Yay for levelheaded fathers. All of the stuff I read indicates that if it did come to a Supreme Court decision that McCain would win the case. I don't understand the wiki article that says that children are not subject to US jurisdiction when born overseas. But while they SAY that, it's not functionally true. When a child of military parents are born here in Germany, for example, the parents receive the German birth certificate (a long and short form). You are then required to file paperwork for: a Consular Report of Citizen birth abroad, a social security card, a US passport with a SOFA stamp (which means that you, as a dependent of a military person shall abide by the agreement made by the US and Germany) and must register in DEERS, the system that keeps track of vital stats and eligibility for benefits, namely Tricare coverage. You are subject to all of the rules and laws that govern military posts, which are put in place by the US government.

I also saw how in 2004 a representative from OK had introduced the Natural Born Citizen Act, but it died. I wish they would reintroduce that bill. It would make things so much easier... not only for military or government children born abroad, but also for foreign-born children adopted by US citizens. <Hey, then Maddox and Zihara could be president one day... ;)>

[MysticCat]

So who would have standing to sue?I'm really not sure.
I don't understand the wiki article that says that children are not subject to US jurisdiction when born overseas.Just to be straight, it was the Department of State that said that.

But while they SAY that, it's not functionally true. When a child of military parents are born here in Germany, for example, the parents receive the German birth certificate (a long and short form). You are then required to file paperwork for: a Consular Report of Citizen birth abroad, a social security card, a US passport with a SOFA stamp (which means that you, as a dependent of a military person shall abide by the agreement made by the US and Germany) and must register in DEERS, the system that keeps track of vital stats and eligibility for benefits, namely Tricare coverage. You are subject to all of the rules and laws that govern military posts, which are put in place by the US government. Ah, that's interesting. Just based on what you've described, and invoking my continuing disclaimer that I may not know what I'm talking about :D, it sounds like what the Department of State describes may be the legal status of things -- that perhaps you're not a citizen by virtue of your birth but by virtue of the filed and approved paperwork.

[Kevin]

Besides, you're the one who said:
Actually, I would assume if it's not ripe prior to the election, it's not ripe until after the electoral college has voted. Assuming a suit was brought then, wouldn't the appropriate relief under the XX Amendment be that the vice-president elect becomes president? I don't see how the Democratic candidate could benefit from a decision adverse to McCain?


Good point.

[jon1856]

I spoke this afternoon with the person I know who is working with one of the candidates.
They indicated that while there maybe some minor noise and perhaps some smoke brought up prior to the general election, nothing major will be said about matter.

Afterwords? No answers, they simply had none.

If McCain does win, just about anyone could start a Federal case I think.

And even if the Congress does get its act together, matter would still end up in the Supreme Court.

And I would agree that VP would just take over position.

All that said, I just received this e-mail from Slate:
today's blogs: The latest chatter in cyberspace.
Panama John

By Michael Weiss
Posted Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008, at 6:16 PM ET
Bloggers assess John McCain's constitutional fitness to be president and whether or not Obama's anti-NAFTA stance is provably bogus.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185471/
In which one bloggers does ask if Huckabee would have a legal standing now. A bit tongue in cheek.
For more bloggers:
Read (http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=mccain+citizen&btnG=Search+Blogs) more about the nonstory:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=mccain+citizen&btnG=Search+Blogs

[skylark]

Hey jon, I was looking up your profile to get to your earlier posts (to check to see if you'd said you were an attorney... question answered) and I noticed something completely off topic and random but you might not be aware of. Did you know you joined on 6-6-06?

[jon1856]

Hey Jon, I was looking up your profile to get to your earlier posts (to check to see if you'd said you were an attorney... question answered) and I noticed something completely off topic and random but you might not be aware of. Did you know you joined on 6-6-06?
:eek::D
On all accounts.
While I am not an attorney, I have spent time in a Holiday Inn Express.;)
My dad did, however, argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court once.
He was a type A personality as well as a class A litigator.
As well as a card carrying Republican.

[UGAalum94]

I'm really not sure.
Just to be straight, it was the Department of State that said that.

Ah, that's interesting. Just based on what you've described, and invoking my continuing disclaimer that I may not know what I'm talking about :D, it sounds like what the Department of State describes may be the legal status of things -- that perhaps you're not a citizen by virtue of your birth but by virtue of the filed and approved paperwork.

I think they are saying that a child whose parents were not Americans wouldn't automatically become so by being born on base, which is different from saying that a child born to American parents on base wouldn't.

Being born on base alone wouldn't do it. Having parents who were Americans and could prove it, would.

[MysticCat]

Being born on base alone wouldn't do it. Having parents who were Americans and could prove it, would.Possibly, but I'm not sure that's what they're saying.

[nittanyalum]

If anyone's still interested, a bipartisan team of lawyers have come to a conclusion on McCain: Lawyers: McCain Birth Doesn't Disqualify Him (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23841816/from/ET/)

[Leslie Anne]

Thanks for the update and the link, nittany. I hope this puts the issue to rest. While I'm not a supporter of McCain, I thought it was ludicrous for anyone to carry on about his qualifications, or lack thereof, as far as being American born.

[jon1856]

Thanks for the update and the link, nittany. I hope this puts the issue to rest. While I'm not a supporter of McCain, I thought it was ludicrous for anyone to carry on about his qualifications, or lack thereof, as far as being American born.
I agree with your comment up to a point.
IIRC my Con Law correctly, only the SC can in fact make this a binding decision

[jon1856]

Well, it seems as if this still has some legs to it:
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

"In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_arizona/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”"
The analysis (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621), by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship
GABRIEL J. CHIN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=201529)
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona Eller College of Management, School of Public Administration and Policy July 9, 2008


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#PaperDownload (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#PaperDownload)
As I posted before, in truth the only way this issue will ever be determined is if the Supreme Court rules on it.
As as the story indicates, that is highly unlikely.

[KSigkid]

Well, it seems as if this still has some legs to it:
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

"In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_arizona/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”"
The analysis (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621), by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship
GABRIEL J. CHIN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=201529)
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona Eller College of Management, School of Public Administration and Policy July 9, 2008


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#PaperDownload (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#PaperDownload)
As I posted before, in truth the only way this issue will ever be determined is if the Supreme Court rules on it.
As as the story indicates, that is highly unlikely.

I'll look through Professor Chin's paper; however, in a battle of scholars, I'm guessing that the Tribe/Olson team probably got it right. Professor Tribe is the pre-eminent Constitutional Law Scholar in the US, and Olson isn't far behind. I can't imagine that their analysis was that faulty on such a crucial issue.

ETA: It looks, at least from the start, that the Professor has looked at the contradictions in case law and statutory law and decided to err on the side against citizenship. He glosses over the citizenship of McCain's parents at the time of his birth, by reference to statutes and decisions referring to citizens with no connection to the US. As his father was serving in the US Navy, I don't see the argument as being especially valid. He's heavily basing his argument on interpretations of Section 1993, without really exploring the parent/child issue as critically as I think he should.

I'll look through it more, but I'm just a law student, so my analysis may be completely wrong. MysticCat or one of the other GC lawyers would have a better handle on it than I would.

[Tinia2]

I did not see the need to start a whole new thread on the following:
Seems as if some people are now trying to turn this same issue against Obama:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

And people not only believe it by way of blogs and e-mails, they include it in best selling books.

From:
http://www.factcheck.org/ (http://www.factcheck.org/) political fact checking organization.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/)

[PeppyGPhiB]

I did not see the need to start a whole new thread on the following:
Seems as if some people are now trying to turn this same issue against Obama:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html


Factcheck.org states that there is no reason for people to believe the birth certificate is fake, and that they have verified it is real. So I'm not sure why you would say the site is still speculating? In fact they've affirmed the opposite.

[Tinia2]

Factcheck.org states that there is no reason for people to believe the birth certificate is fake, and that they have verified it is real. So I'm not sure why you would say the site is still speculating? In fact they've affirmed the opposite.
It was not my intention to say that the site (Factcheck) was the source. The source(s) are what are listed in the story itself. As well as the book that came out just last week.