McCain not eligible for President?

Oct 30, 2006
1,466
2
McCain was not born in any of the 50 U.S. states. Rather, he was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. Thus, a question arises as to whether he is a "natural-born citizen." If he is not a "natural-born citizen", the Constitutuion may prevent him from obtaining the highest spot in the executive branch.

I believe that McCain's status will be protected as a "natural-born citizen," but I also believe that this may become a hotly contested issue in the very-near future. A little Goldwater-esque don't you think?

NY Times
 
I thought military bases were like embassies? They are US soil are they not? Guess not since were are having this conversation. Still, seems like a non-issue to me.
 
I thought military bases were like embassies? They are US soil are they not? Guess not since were are having this conversation. Still, seems like a non-issue to me.


Yeah, I think ultimately, McCain will be found to be a "natural born citizen." I also see it as a smear campaign, but I don't necessarily see it as a non-issue.

The State Deptartment policy on this specifically states: “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.â€￾

Children born to military personnel overseas are registered through the State Department because they must register for statutory citizenship. That brings into question whether such a person is a "natural born citizen."

Although slightly off issue, another question to ask is this: If military bases automatically qualified as US soil for purposes of "natural born citizen," then by definition, there is nothing in the law to stop an Iraqi terrorist from sneaking on a small base in Iraq and plopping out a kid as a US citizen (and then be eligible for Commander in Chief). (Tounge in cheek). That simply isn't the case. Birth in United States embassies, consulates, or United States military facilities, does not automatically result in United States citizenship in the absence of another basis for citizenship (such as two american birth parents).

***Of course, all this is subject to what the term actually means.
 
I thought military bases were like embassies? They are US soil are they not? Guess not since were are having this conversation. Still, seems like a non-issue to me.

I'm not sure if a US military base has the same status as a US embassy. Be that as it may I'm guessing that since both his parents were US citizens and he was born on a US military base this is a non-issue. Also even if you don't agree with his politics you have to admit he's paid his dues.
 
I'm not sure if a US military base has the same status as a US embassy. Be that as it may I'm guessing that since both his parents were US citizens and he was born on a US military base this is a non-issue. Also even if you don't agree with his politics you have to admit he's paid his dues.

Thats the loophole if you will!
 
Specific law passed in 1953...

In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship. Title 8, Section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. This differs from the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment which grants citizenship to all born in the United States, regardless of parental nationality.

Question is, though, is the law retroactive? McCain was born several hundred years prior to 1953. :lol:
 
Specific law passed in 1953...

In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship. Title 8, Section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. This differs from the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment which grants citizenship to all born in the United States, regardless of parental nationality.

Question is, though, is the law retroactive? McCain was born several hundred years prior to 1953. :lol:


Two things:

While that may be instructive, it is by no means authoratative. Statutes are subject to the Constitution, not the other way around.

Second, this only deals with "Citizenship," not "nautral born citizenship." This simply says those kids are citizens AT birth... not a citizen BY birth. I bet they still got an "American Citizen Born abroad" card. This may end up being the standard, but there is nothing clear on the answer yet. If "natural born citizenship" was created just through 1 american parent alone, then all those kids in Afghanistan who are born to an American parent would qualify as a natural born citizen (think Adam Pearlman).

If you draw the line that far over, then we might as well just say everyone born to american parents are natural born citizens. Then, we could allow Mike and Samantha, who have been "vacationing" in North Korea for 20 years, to have a child who is a natural born american citizen.

This was already dealt with in 2000 in his first run.

It was questioned, but never answered, as McCain did not get the nod.

Nonetheless, who wants to be the person who calls a "war hero" a non-natural born citizen. Perhaps Huckleberry is staying in the race for a reason!?!?
 
Two things:

While that may be instructive, it is by no means authoratative. Statutes are subject to the Constitution, not the other way around.

Second, this only deals with "Citizenship," not "nautral born citizenship." This simply says those kids are citizens AT birth... not a citizen BY birth. I bet they still got an "American Citizen Born abroad" card. This may end up being the standard, but there is nothing clear on the answer yet. If "natural born citizenship" was created just through 1 american parent alone, then all those kids in Afghanistan who are born to an American parent would qualify as a natural born citizen (think Adam Pearlman).
If you draw the line that far over, then we might as well just say everyone born to american parents are natural born citizens. Then, we could allow Mike and Samantha, who have been "vacationing" in North Korea for 20 years, to have a child who is a natural born american citizen.
Why don't you go back and re-read what I posted. The 1953 law--which we can assume is constitutional as it has not been challenged in the last 55 years--specifically grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. I don't think we need worry about births in Afghanistan or North Korea coming under the act.
 
Why don't you go back and re-read what I posted. The 1953 law--which we can assume is constitutional as it has not been challenged in the last 55 years--specifically grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. I don't think we need worry about births in Afghanistan or North Korea coming under the act.

First, Jim, thank you for the discussion.

Why don't you go back and re-read what I posted! The President is only eligible if he is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Not simply a citizen. Just because a statute grants someone citizenship DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

You would have a point if the statute specifically granted natural born citizenship to those born in the canal zone with an american parent... but it does not! If that was the standard for natural born citizenship, then all those granted citizenship at birth (rather than by birth) may likely be included, because there are many, many other statutes that grant citizenship at birth (like those statutes that give citizenship to a boy born to two american parents that have been "vacationing" in N. Korea for 20 years).

There is a reason why eligibility requirements for a senate position are different than the eligiblity requirements for the president's position. One requires simple citizenship (among other requirements) and the other requires natural born citizenship (among other requirements).

I think McCain would be found (if it ever got to that point) to be a "natural born citizen," but not solely for the reason you suggest. I don't think McCain has even relied heavily upon what you posted... rather he relies heavily on some stuff from the late 1700's/early 1800's. Not cut and dry like you make it.

Lastly, it is ludicrous to suggest that because something hasn't been challanged for 55 years that it should be assumed constitutional. Ever heard of anti-miscegenation statutes? It took nearly 200 years of being "on the books" until it was determing to be unconstitutional. Assumptions are often the beginnings of huge mistakes.
 
Being the Constitutional Law expert you appear to be, why are you wasting your time on an Internet bulletin board? :lol: Yo are right about the difference in the title 8 and the Constitutional wording. I'm sure Bubya will find a way to declare McCain exempt from Constitutional requirements. That shouldn't be a stretch for Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. :shock: