McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

[Yellowdogtexan]

I have been wondering when this issue was going to be raised. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?ref=politicsThe 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? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was 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.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.

Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Mr. Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”If McCain wins, there will be litigation on this issue. I personally think that he should win but that does not mean that the case will not be brought.

Luckily, McCain can avoid a court fight here simply by losing.

[Matt]

I like the second scenario that you present best, YDT. :wink
The question of Obama's birthplace was brought up early in the race but, of course, he was born after Hawaii became a state.

When it comes to natural born, I have wondered about this.
Since we have this silly thing that anyone born here is a citizen, would a child of an illegal immigrant born here fit into the natural born status?

[Deadshot]

This is just another reason why we need a McCain/Obama race. Since each have this in their past it will stop the GOP attack dogs from bringing it up!:godzilla

[Yellowdogtexan]

Since we have this silly thing that anyone born here is a citizen, would a child of an illegal immigrant born here fit into the natural born status?I do not consider the 14th Amendment to be silly but the answer to your question is yes, a child of illegal immigrants born in the US is eligible to be president.

This is an interesting academic question that is really complex. I was born on a military base while my parents were stationed abroad. I looked into this legal question and decided that while it is a close call, I would qualify to be president. However it is sufficiently close call that I would expect litigation if McCain won. I am looking forward to seeing Teddy Olson's brief on this issue.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The question of Obama's birthplace was brought up early in the race but, of course, he was born after Hawaii became a state.To me there is no issue here. Senator Obama is in better position than Williard Mitt's pappa who was born in a US terrority that later became a state. Hawaii was already a state when Senator Obama was born and so there is no issue.

[Ringo]

I like the second scenario that you present best, YDT. :wink
The question of Obama's birthplace was brought up early in the race but, of course, he was born after Hawaii became a state.

When it comes to natural born, I have wondered about this.
Since we have this silly thing that anyone born here is a citizen, would a child of an illegal immigrant born here fit into the natural born status?

I still question ANYONE who takes the name of a Muslim!!
I do believe that a Military Installation is property of the Govt, and should merely be just an extension of their Legal residence!!

No actually Matt that being born here to Illegals and becoming Naturalized is a lousy law too! Go any where else in the World and see if this applies to you??

[AYFR]

He is a natural born citizen as any other person born to active duty military personnel on a base

It is old news. There is no way he would be certified by the FEC as one of the major party candidates if his eligibility was in question.

Through birth abroad to two United States citizens
See also: jus sanguinis
In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:

Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth
At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth.
A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized.


[edit] Through birth abroad to one United States citizen
In most cases, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

One of his or her parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person in question's birth;
The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth; and
At least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday (see note below).
A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized.

Note: If born before November 14, 1986, a person is a citizen if his or her U.S. citizen parent lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years and 5 of those years in the U.S. were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. The newer law does not apply retroactively.

Different rules apply for those born before December 24, 1952.

[edit] Presidential Candidates born outside of the United States
Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain.

Barry Goldwater, who ran in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. [9]

George Romney, who ran in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan. William Loeb, the late publisher of the Manchester Union Leader dismissed him as "Chihuahua George." [9]

John McCain, who ran in 2000 and is running in 2008, was born at the US military base Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979 but was unincorporated.[10]

This was attempted against Goldwater and McCain in 2000, it failed. The Naturalization Act of 1790 seems to cover it:

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigrati...LS.LIBR:981715

[Capitalist]

I have been wondering when this issue was going to be raised. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?ref=politicsIf McCain wins, there will be litigation on this issue. I personally think that he should win but that does not mean that the case will not be brought.

Luckily, McCain can avoid a court fight here simply by losing.

More bullshit mudd slung by democrats getting desperate.

Should win, it will never get serious consideration and you know it.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Should win, it will never get serious consideration and you know it.You are a silly layperson and do not understand the litigation process. Depending on where the case if filed, Mccain could have some problems. That is why he has hired Ted Olson to write a brief on this issue so that they would be ready for the lawsuit when it comes.

I doubt that we will see a lawsuit here because Mccain and the GOP are going to have a difficult time this year. The economy is in the dumps, the war in Iraq is a quagmire, mccain is too old to remember whether he met a hate radio person and mccain's temper is going to kill him in real debates. That is assuming that mccain can solve his FEC issue and keep from being indicted before the election

[Capitalist]

I still question ANYONE who takes the name of a Muslim!!


There are hundreds of ligit issues to slam Obama on. When he was named he was days old, he did not take the name it was gioven to him.

His name does not matter, his skin color does not matter.

His leftist and socialist stand on the issues is all we need to hit him with.

All this Hussien and talking about him being a Muslim is just bullshit, we don't even need it to beat him.

[Capitalist]

You are a silly layperson and do not understand the litigation process. Depending on where the case if filed, Mccain could have some problems. That is why he has hired Ted Olson to write a brief on this issue so that they would be ready for the lawsuit when it comes.

I doubt that we will see a lawsuit here because Mccain and the GOP are going to have a difficult time this year. The economy is in the dumps, the war in Iraq is a quagmire, mccain is too old to remember whether he met a hate radio person and mccain's temper is going to kill him in real debates. That is assuming that mccain can solve his FEC issue and keep from being indicted before the election

Fuck off asswipe, I understand plenty, anyone with the cost of a court filing fee can file a suit.

[Saguaro]

I still question ANYONE who takes the name of a Muslim!!
I do believe that a Military Installation is property of the Govt, and should merely be just an extension of their Legal residence!!

No actually Matt that being born here to Illegals and becoming Naturalized is a lousy law too! Go any where else in the World and see if this applies to you??


You lucky guy, you got to choose the name your parents gave you ! How did you do it ?

[Yellowdogtexan]

Fuck off asswipe, I understand plenty, anyone with the cost of a court filing fee can file a suit.Yes but the Democrats have doing well in election cases lately. We took Tom Delay's seat by winning a lawsuit and keeping the GOP from having a candidate on the ballot in 2006. It was a beautiful day when a republican appointed federal judge told the GOP that they were breaking the law and in effect gave the seat to the Democrats.

[Capitalist]

Yes but the Democrats have doing well in election cases lately. We took Tom Delay's seat by winning a lawsuit and keeping the GOP from having a candidate on the ballot in 2006. It was a beautiful day when a republican appointed federal judge told the GOP that they were breaking the law and in effect gave the seat to the Democrats.

I usually don't point out gramatical flaws but since you do it I thought it would be nice to point out the Mr. fucking know it all, is not all that.

As I said the democrats would rather win on a technicality than on the merits of their candidates. That seat will go back to republican hands this year.

So will Foleys old seat in Fl.

[AYFR]

Democrats must be really scared of McCain to try and find a way to get it where he can't even run.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Democrats must be really scared of McCain to try and find a way to get it where he can't even run.Not really. The NYT article is pure speculation by a bunch of constitutional law experts on this issue. I remember that we discussed this issue in my constitutional law class back in law school. Back then the professor thought that it was an open issue but he leaned towards the concept of a person in McCain's position being qualified. I remember researching the issue because I thought that this question would be on the final.

This is a close constitutional issue and so the Democratic party may or may not decide to litigate but such a lawsuit would probably not be filed until and or unless McCain won the election because otherwise the matter would not be ripe. This issue has never been litigated because a person in McCain's position has never won (courts can not normally issue adviosry opinions as to hypothecal questions). Again the issue would not be ripe and the courts would not have jurisdiction unless and until McCain won and someone may want to settle this constiutional issue. Heck as noted in the article, the Republican legislator tried to get a leglislative fix passed but was unsuccessful. Lawyers like to have issues settled and there is no precident here.

I look forward to seeing Teddy Olson's brief or opinion on this issue. If he does a good enough job, he may discourage the DNC from bringing such a case if mccain is the winner. We will see. While I am inclined to agree with Olson here, he needs to do a decent job if he wants to head off a lawsuit on this issue and I want to look at his opinion with this in mind.

Again this is a close issue and I personally believe that McCain is eligible to be president. However, it is always nice to get a court ruling on the issue to settle the matter and that ruling can only come after a McCain victory in the General Election.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is an article/piece that expands on Ted Olson's conclusion and has a response from the law professor who wrote an article 20 years ago on this issue. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/28/713388.aspxTed Olson, the former Solicitor General under Bush who is advising McCain's camp on whether the Arizona senator being born in the Panama Canal Zone qualifies him to be president, emails NBC News: "Although I am continuing to research the matter, there is little doubt in my mind that Senator McCain fully meets the Constitution's qualifications to be President of the United States. In my view, the plain meaning of 'natural born citizen' includes persons who become citizens of this nation 'naturally,' that is by virtue of their birth to parents who are citizens, particularly when the birth takes place on territory occupied and controlled by the United States, in Senator McCain's case, a U. S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. Indeed, the very First Congress, containing many Members who were the actual Framers of the Constitution, explicitly declared that children of United States citizens, born outside the limits of the United States, were 'natural born' citizens. I am confident that the United States Supreme Court, should it ever address the issue, would agree."

*** UPDATE *** I sent Jill Pryor, an Atlanta attorney, who 20 years ago wrote in the Yale Law Journal about the "Natural Born Enigma" an e-mail about Olson's remarks, and she said, in part, "Eligibility for ... children born on American military bases ... is also uncertain."

Here's what she wrote in full: "While I agree with Mr. Olson's conclusion, what I said in my article 20 years ago remains true today: 'Whether a person born abroad of American parents ... qualifies as natural born has never been resolved,' and that 'Eligibility for ... children born on American military bases ... is also uncertain.' Some have taken the view that 'natural born' means native born, that is, born in the United States, and there is no authority expressly to the contrary. The 'natural born' language in the naturalization statute passed by the first Congress, to which Mr. Olson refers, was deleted from a later version of the statute for unknown reasons. The early common law did not always provide that the children of citizens born abroad were citizens themselves, see for example dicta in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 663 (1927), and the automatic citizenship of persons born in United States territories or on military bases is of much more recent origin." I am now feeling old in that this article was evidently published after I took Con law. BTW, I hope that doc/bartonx likes the reference to dicta. His graspe of simple legal concepts was amusing.

Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing Olson's opinion. If Mccain wins, there may be a lawsuit on this issue and there will certainly be some more law review articles on the issue.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Democrats must be really scared of McCain to try and find a way to get it where he can't even run.This is amusing. A Democratic senator (a strong supporter of Senator Obama) is proposing a legislative fix to try ot make clear that Mccain is eligible to be president. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/28994.html Sen. Claire McCaskill might be pitching for Team Obama in the presidential campaign, but she went to bat Thursday for its potential rival.

The Missouri Democrat went to the Senate floor to try to remove any cloud of constitutional doubt that Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican nominee, is eligible to serve as the president of United States.

Some kind of strange stunt to boost Sen. Barack Obama?

McCaskill is, after all, one of his strongest and most ubiquitous backers. You can't turn on a cable political show and not find her. And if the Illinois Democrat wins his party's nomination, he'd probably face McCain in the fall campaign.

But McCaskill's motives were pure.

She was responding to a New York Times story Thursday that raised questions about whether McCain was a "natural-born citizen" and eligible for the presidency.

"Every once in a while, you open the morning paper and go, 'Huh?' " McCaskill told her colleagues, "and I had one of those moments this morning."

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was in the Navy, and that's where his parents were stationed at the time. The question, which never has been truly tested, was whether the circumstances of his birth met the constitutional bar.

McCaskill said Congress could remove any doubt by quickly passing a measure that she'd penned in longhand on a legal pad after huddling with her staff.

It would put the Senate on record as saying that "natural-born citizen" would include anyone born to a citizen while that citizen was serving in the military.

"We should quickly and without fanfare fix this ambiguity," McCaskill said.

Several presidential candidates have faced the same issue over the years but none ever won, so the question has remained unsettled.

The Times reported that McCain aides had researched the issue before he ran in 2000 and again this time and remain satisfied that he's on solid ground. Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson was preparing a legal analysis for McCain's campaign.

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said McCaskill's bill was a "welcome gesture."

Susan Low Bloch, who teaches constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center, said she wasn't sure that McCain even had a problem.

But if he did, "then I don't think you can just fix the problem by anything short of amending the Constitution," she said.I actually like this concept and hope that it passes. I am pleased to see that a Democrat came up with the idea on her own. It may not solve the issue completely but it would make any lawsuit much more difficult.

[Matt]

I still question ANYONE who takes the name of a Muslim!!
I do believe that a Military Installation is property of the Govt, and should merely be just an extension of their Legal residence!!

No actually Matt that being born here to Illegals and becoming Naturalized is a lousy law too! Go any where else in the World and see if this applies to you??

I know. That's why I called it silly.
Many in Brownsville, TX have a problem with this aspect of the 14th Amendment.
A lot of crossing is just to have their baby here.
I don't see this as a plus for the U.S.
I agree with your stance on military installations also.

But then there is the problem of Obama's middle name.
Since this is your smart day (:wink) I am sure you know that we do not choose our name or our parents.
I would dump part of my name if I could.
I could have had it changed like some that I know here but I reckon just the marriage thing was enuff aliases to hide behind.
Those who choose to make a big deal out of Obama's middle name are just showing that they don't have any real information to deal with.

Now about McCain, I hope there isn't still enuff prejudice left in the U.S. to get him elected ~ because that is the only way this problem of his birthplace will ever be an issue.

[Ringo]

I know. That's why I called it silly.
Many in Brownsville, TX have a problem with this aspect of the 14th Amendment.
A lot of crossing is just to have their baby here.
I don't see this as a plus for the U.S.
I agree with your stance on military installations also.

But then there is the problem of Obama's middle name.
Since this is your smart day (:wink) I am sure you know that we do not choose our name or our parents.
I would dump part of my name if I could.
I could have had it changed like some that I know here but I reckon just the marriage thing was enuff aliases to hide behind.
Those who choose to make a big deal out of Obama's middle name are just showing that they don't have any real information to deal with.

Now about McCain, I hope there isn't still enuff prejudice left in the U.S. to get him elected ~ because that is the only way this problem of his birthplace will ever be an issue.

I thought I heard he had it changed, so I must be wrong, but the bottom line is he thinks like a Liberal, acts like a Liberal, so that in itself should get him beat!!

DON'T be 100% sure its going to be McCain, he might get hosed at the Convention and IF Rottemcrotch carries Ohio & TX, you guys are back to Worse vs Nothing!!!:sheep:devil

[Yellowdogtexan]

Democrats must be really scared of McCain to try and find a way to get it where he can't even run.This may put the final nail in this talking point. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/29/obama_backs_law_to_ensure_mcca.htmlSen. Barack Obama's campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation introduced yesterday by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to ensure that John McCain can become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

The issue of McCain's eligibility was raised in a New York Times article noting the constitutional requirement that a U.S. president be a "natural-born citizen" had never been fully defined.

The McCaskill bill, submitted immediately after she scrawled it onto a notepad on the Senate floor in response to the Times story, would establish the eligibility of anyone born to a U.S. citizen who is serving overseas as an active or reserve member of the U.S. armed forces. The Arizona senator's father was a Navy officer serving in the Canal Zone when McCain was born there in 1936.

"Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party's nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign," Obama said.The likely Democratic nominee is willing to sponsor a bill to make sure that Mccain is eligible to run for president. Those Democrats have a funny way of showing their fear of mccain

[Yellowdogtexan]

A republican lawyer has filed suit to test whether McCain can serve as president. http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Complaint_questions_McCain_citizens_03112008.htmlA two-page complaint filed March 6 in U.S. District Court in Riverside, Calif., argues that a judge should step in because the constitutional language is not precise, opening questions about the Arizona senator's standing.

The complaint was filed by Andrew Aames, 52, a Riverside lawyer who has dabbled in local politics, including volunteering for a Democratic congressional campaign. He said he is a registered Republican but previously was a Democrat.

He said he had no political stake in the outcome. A court ruling would clear up any confusion for voters, he added, and McCain has a "very, very good" chance of prevailing.

The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born on Aug. 29, 1936. His father was stationed there by the Navy.

McCain said last month the issue was put to rest 44 years ago when Republican Barry Goldwater sought the presidency. Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory.

The meaning of "natural born citizen" has long been debated. The phrase "natural born" was in early drafts of the Constitution. It could be linked to concerns that a foreigner might become president, an issue that would have resonated in the new nation. This issue is going to be litigated. I am glad that Senator Obama is supporting the Senate resolution that may help settle this issue for McCain

[Matt]

It is good to get it clarified.
Not to stop McCain from running but to clear up the issue once and for all.
The next person with a similar background could be a Democrat and we know how the Pubs are trying to stack the courts in their favor.
Besides, a c-section baby might be challenged by one of them one day. :lol

[BartonX]

It is good to get it clarified.
Not to stop McCain from running but to clear up the issue once and for all.
The next person with a similar background could be a Democrat and we know how the Pubs are trying to stack the courts in their favor.
Besides, a c-section baby might be challenged by one of them one day. :lol

Personally, I hope they rule against McCain, that beady eyed bastard! He just looks like a laboratory rat to me.I also have my doubts as to whether the Muslim, is really a citizen even though they claim he was born in Hawaii. If his father was in the navy is was under Admiral Salidin. :)

[AYFR]

Personally, I hope they rule against McCain, that beady eyed bastard! He just looks like a laboratory rat to me.I also have my doubts as to whether the Muslim, is really a citizen even though they claim he was born in Hawaii. If his father was in the navy is was under Admiral Salidin. :)

Just as I suspected a Hillary supporter.

[Trueblue]

Just as I suspected a Hillary supporter.

:snicker

[Yellowdogtexan]

Another lawsuit has been filed challenging Mccain's ability to serve as president. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/lawsuits-question-mccains-eligibility-to-be-president/If elected, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would be the first president born outside the 50 states, a fact that is “reviving a musty debate” regarding the founders’ wishes that a “natural-born citizen” hold the nation’s highest office. The AP reports that lawsuits have now been filed in California and New Hampshire questioning his eligibility to be president: [A] Nashua man has asked the federal court to rule that Sen. John McCain can’t be president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. […]

A lawyer in Riverside, Calif., filed a similar suit on March 6. That case asks only for a “declaratory judgment” on whether McCain would be eligible to serve as president if elected.

[Capitalist]

This may put the final nail in this talking point. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/29/obama_backs_law_to_ensure_mcca.htmlThe likely Democratic nominee is willing to sponsor a bill to make sure that Mccain is eligible to run for president. Those Democrats have a funny way of showing their fear of mccain

Of course they are going to publically say something that is not even needed. They want to appear not to fear. hey I rhymed, does that mean I can be an Obama speech writer?

[Capitalist]

It is good to get it clarified.
Not to stop McCain from running but to clear up the issue once and for all.
The next person with a similar background could be a Democrat and we know how the Pubs are trying to stack the courts in their favor.
Besides, a c-section baby might be challenged by one of them one day. :lol

There is no need, I like McCain was born over seas (Bermuda in my case) because my father was inthe Sirforce under orders from the US military to be there. My mother lived there as well. I was born un US soil in an Airforce base Hospital.

There is no doubt that I am eligible to run for president.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This opinion should help but is not binding on the courts hearing the cases challenging Mccain's right to serve as president. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/politics/main3977521.shtmlA pair of lawyers - one Republican, one Democrat - have concluded that John McCain's 1936 birth outside the continental United States does not disqualify him to be president.

The likely Republican nominee was born on a U.S. naval base in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone.

A federal judge in California has been asked to determine whether McCain meets the legal test to hold the nation's highest office. Although McCain has called questions about his eligibility nonsense, his campaign, as it did in his first White House run in 2000, sought a review from legal experts to put the issue to rest.

"Based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution," the review found.

The issue was examined by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican backing McCain, and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, a Democrat backing Barack Obama.

The Constitution requires that only "natural born" citizens hold the presidency. But the Founding Fathers did not elaborate on the term, and the meaning of the phrase has long been debated.

A two-page complaint filed March 6 in U.S. District Court in Riverside, Calif., argued that a judge should step in because the constitutional language was not precise, opening questions about McCain's standing. It was filed by Riverside lawyer Andrew Aames, who says he's a registered Republican but previously was a Democrat.

The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born on Aug. 29, 1936. His father was stationed there in the Navy, and his mother was an American citizen.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a prominent Obama backer, has introduced legislation that would define a "natural born citizen" as anyone born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces. Obama is a co-sponsor of the bill.I think that McCaskill's bill will actually be of more help than this opinion. The courts are not bound by the opinion of Tribe and Olson but a resolution from the Senate would carry some real weight

[Trueblue]

Canal zone birth-there's only one other kind, isn't there?

[Yellowdogtexan]

Canal zone birth-there's only one other kind, isn't there?C-Section?

[Trueblue]

C-Section?

:yep

[Yellowdogtexan]

Again the Democrats are doing the right thing here. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/senate-deals-with-mccains-citizenship/The Senate is expected to this week weigh in that Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, is in fact a natural-born American citizen, thus eligible to be president under the Constitution.

A nonbinding resolution trying to clarify the status of Mr. McCain is headed for the floor after the Judiciary Committee approved it last week.

Democratic leaders were mulling whether to simply rush the resolution through as part of a package of bills without opposition or allow senators to express their views over the intersection of the Constitution’s vague natural-born requirement and Mr. McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone while his father, a naval officer, was stationed there.

After suggestions earlier this year that the issue of the presidential eligibility of Americans born abroad had never been settled, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, introduced legislation that would have declared the offspring of military personnel stationed overseas are qualified to be president. (Mr. McCain and several legal scholars say they believe the matter has already been settled.)

But the legislative route seemed to open the door to other citizenship complications, so the Senate has decided on a resolution. The resolution would not be decisive in a court challenge – at least two suits are pending on Mr. McCain’s eligibility – but it would put the Senate on record.

The citizenship matter is one of the sidelights this week as Congress heads into the second half of its run to the Memorial Day break.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The Senate passed a resolution on this issue but this issue will not go away until there is a definitive court ruling. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/07/05/0705naturalborn.htmlJonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said the question of McCain's eligibility is a serious one.

"It is not clear whether a Panamanian-born citizen is a natural born citizen," Turley said. "The meaning of the term 'natural born' is unresolved."

One of the issues in question is whether the Panama Canal Zone was part of the United States at the time of McCain's birth.

Turley said that military installations, such as the one in Panama, were sitting on leased land and were never part of U.S. soil.

However, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who examined the issue for the McCain campaign, said there is "substantial legal support" — including a 1986 Supreme Court opinion — that the United States "exercised sovereignty" over the Panama Canal Zone.

They also concluded that McCain was a natural born citizen because his parents were American citizens and that the framers never intended to exclude children of military officers serving outside of the continental United States from the presidency.

Federal law defines a natural born citizen in various ways, including one that clearly includes children of military officers overseas.

The issue has come up several times. Charles Curtis, who served as Herbert Hoover's vice president, was born in Kansas in 1860, a year before Kansas became a state.

Some voters said Chester Arthur might be ineligible for president because it was rumored he was born in Canada, but he became the nation's 21st commander in chief anyway, listing his birthplace as Vermont.
There are at least two law suits out there on this issue and until there is a ruling from an appellant court, this issue will not go away

[AYFR]

It is a petty attempt to to get the Dems to win.
American bases have always been considered American Soil, just as Embassy's are.

[Yellowdogtexan]

It is a petty attempt to to get the Dems to win.
American bases have always been considered American Soil, just as Embassy's are.The Democrats in the Senate has passed the strongest resolution in their power to pass. The courts will have the final say here. My fear is that a ruling will come down in time for the GOP to replace mc :cane and that the Democrats may have to face a candidate who does not take weekends off and who can use a teleprompter.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is a well done legal analysis on this issue that may be bad news for mc :cane http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1&oref=sloginIn the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona 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, 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.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.....

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.
Since mc :cane was not covered by the relevant act at the time of his birth, the analysis appears to be legally correct.

There are two lawsuits pending on this issue. It will be interesting to see if the courts address this analysis