He, of course being John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. It is generally assumed that the offspring of military serving overseas are "natural-born" by default, but this may not be the case (.pdf from the US State dept).

Here's the most relevant excerpt:

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

...

c. 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.

Bullshit!

My brother and sister were born on U.S. bases in England, and though my brother had a giant British birth certificate, he entered the U.S. Navy as a U.S. citizen.

He was told that at age 21 he could choose British citizenship and if he did not he would still be considered a U.S. citizen.

So McCain is automatically a U.S. citizen.

The question isn't if he is a US citizen. The question is if he is eligible to run for President.

The Constitution restricts the Presidency to only any "natural-born citizen" which means the person is a citizen by birth. There are other ways to get citizenship; perhaps McCain gained citizenship "automatically" when he was brought back to the U.S. while an infant. But according to the definitions set forth by the United States Government itself as quoted above, McCain is not a "natural-born citizen" and therefore may not qualify to be President.

Granted, this issue is not yet fully resolved. So the thread title question remains. Whaddaya think?

If he was born in a Navy hospital in Panama, which I know he was, that property was U.S. property until turned over to Panama. He was born to American parents as well, which means even if he were born in a foreign country, he would automatically be an American.

I'm not going to vote for him, but I do not like such attacks.

I am with Radioblogman, its bullshit. He is a US citizen thus can run for election.

Will not win so it does not matter

It's probably a pretty safe bet that there enough lawyers and brain power in his campaign that if this was really an issue it would have been brought up and resolved long ago.

I say it's a non-issue.

If a long-serving US Senator who sacrificed 5.5 years of his life in a communist prison defending our freedom is not worthy to become president, I say he's too good for those who would besmirch him.

Herb

I think it's an unresolved issue. And it is a precedent-setting issue - we haven't had this kind of conflict before (the first few Presidents were born outside the US but were specifically exempted from the "natural born citizen" requirement. All presidents since then have been born in one of the 50 states.)

This is not an irrelevant issue. If it is determined that McCain is not a 'natural born citizen' and is allowed to be sworn in as President, then we have set a precedent that renders that portion of the Constitution moot. President Ahnold, anyone? Or President Madeline Albright, or President Arianna Huffington? (all foreign born and currently ineligible to run)

Perhaps it is time to retire that language of the Constitution by passing an appropriate amendment. But until then it is important that we adhere to the document.

This is not really about McCain - it is about the Constitution.

Why would anyone construe what Edselehr posted as an "attack?" Jeez, cut him a break, he was just posting a legal possibility which has nothing at all to do with whether McCain is worthy to be president or not. Sheesh!

It is intriguing, but I agree with Skybill, the lawyers will probably find a way around it. Shoot, in 2000 both Bush and Cheney were Texas residents when Cheney was nominated to be VP and lawyers had to scramble to get him back to being a Wyoming resident, as the president and VP must under the constitution be residents of two different states.

Andrew

Interesting Commentary Here

He may not be eligible without some sort of concession. This will be interesting. Personally, I think anyone who is 35 years of age and has at least 35 years of legal US citizenship should be able to run for President.

Maybe Huckabee knew this and that's why he's sticking around.

Thanks for the link, Magic Eye. This is I feel the most relevant passage from it:

"REMEMBER, we're dealing with TWO different issues here. “Automatic Citizenship upon birth” doesn't also automatically qualify one as the “natural born” requirement of the federal constitution."

What strikes me about all this is the ambiguity. There seem to be at least a few different legal decisions currently in play regarding the definition of "natural born citizen". If McCain is elected in November I'm sure someone will take this to court and a final judgement will be rendered, which would be good. I'm pretty sure McCain would not have a fairly won presidency ripped from him over this issue. But, I think it would force us to confront this confusing issue in the Constitution.

In the meantime, it is mostly an archaic and academic exercise in "what if?", but still interesting I think. Personally, I'm leaning toward a resolution similar to Vitalogy's, which would allow any citizen under appropriate circumstances to run for any office.

According to the law, McCain should be recognized as a citizen by both the US and Panama. He was born in a US Navy hospital, which is part of a base, so it's US property, like an embassy and since he was inside the boundaries of Panama, he's a citizen of that country too.


Does that make you feel better Herb? Running around waving your flag doesn't answer the question at hand.

Aok, again here's the question:

"REMEMBER, we're dealing with TWO different issues here. “Automatic Citizenship upon birth” doesn't also automatically qualify one as the “natural born” requirement of the federal constitution.

McCain's US citizenship is not in question here. It is his status as a "natural born citizen" of the United States as per the Constitution. We are dealing with Constitutional interpretation here, not much differently from when we were asked to determine if lying about an affair qualified as a "high crime or misdemeanor". Now, I don't want to rehash that old Clinton debate again...I'm just saying that there are parts of the Constitution that in over 230 years have never been challenged until certain circumstances arise. This seems to be one of the circumstances.

This is clearly not a "hot topic" thread for this group and I don't wish to prolong it. But most of the responders don't seem to be able to differentiate between 1) a discussion of McCain v. the Constitution, and 2) a discussion of citizenship v. natural born citizenship.

Someday a natural-born American may run for president whos parents were both illegal immigrants on US soil when the candidate was born. What arguments might we have then about that person's "natural-born" status?

"Does that make you feel better Herb?"

Unlike so many ham-fisted posters, I never doubted Mr. McCain's eligibility.

In so attacking a hero on such a flimsy pretext, it's clear the left is terrified of Mr. McCain...perhaps more than even Mr. Nader himself.

Spin on leftists. Mr. McCain is an American hero and although Mr. Obama appears to be a decent enough chap, all you've got are a couple of poseurs.

Herb

Herb - and I say this with respect, kindness and concern - you're insane.

Where in this thread has ANYONE attacked McCain, or his patriotism? What are you getting all rankled about?

Will not win so it does not matter.

The MOST intelligent thing that Mc has ever said!

Bush and Cheney were Texas residents......

And we all know Texas is a Wholly owned subsidiary of Mexico..........

I think names and party affiliation should be left
completely off the ballot....

Choose one from ignorant minded descriptions below:

WOMAN

PRO MILITARIST

COLORED GUY

AGED CONSUMER ADVOCATE

RELIGIOUS ZEALOT

Any one born on US soil, is a natural born citizen, the status of their parents is irrelevant.

Is the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 "US soil?" If so, explain.

At the time, it was US territory, but children of American servicemen, are considered natural born citizens , no matter where their born.

Edselehr, most people are not intelligent enough to understand what you're asking. Herb is though, but chooses to change the subject to McCain being attacked. In broad daylight no less! Last time I checked, being a war hero was not a constitutional requirement to be eligible to be president. Being a natural born is. Does McCain meet the standards of the constitution?

Nwokie, read the first post of this thread. You must be one of those people that hold the "popular belief" that the children of servicemen overseas are by default natural born. The U.S. State Department disagrees with you. Are you saying they are wrong?

Vitalogy, I have to admit this is a tough issue to get one's head around. Citizenship seems pretty straightforward - either you have it or you don't. And those who have it seem to fall into two groups, those that get it at birth and those who get it later. But it seems there might be another parsing of citizenship, among those who get it immediately. Some are just citizens, while others are natural born citizens.

I'd like to go back to Aok's comment at 8:16 - he says that McCain should qualify for dual citizenship with the US and Panama. On the surface this sounds reasonable, but it's also adds some confusion. If McCain's status is determined by which "soil" he is on while being born, how can any soil be both US and Panamanian? Where does this concept of dual sovereignty come from? Embassys are clear cut - it is a chunk of land that has sovereignty attached to the mother country, and the host country relinquishes all sovereignty. If you are born at a US Embassy overseas, you are an American only and have no citizenship in the host country.

I don't think military bases work the same way. There is a treaty or agreement that gives the US control and use of the area, but the soil still belongs to the host country. Therefore, a child born on a military base (or in the Panama Canal zone) is not born on US soil. Granted, American parentage may grant immediate U.S. citizenship that would be the practical equivalent of being born on US soil, but it is not the same as being born on US soil.

This is where people get confused and a bit flustered. If he was an American the moment he was born, isn't he a natural born citizen? Well, there are two basic ways to become a citizen, even at birth: being natural born, or being naturalized. Many (not all) interpretations of the language in the Constitution would put McCain as naturalized (by nature of having American parents) and therefore not natural born, and therefore ineligible for the White House.

Wikipedia has a good explanation of all of this. My concern is that if we don't get this question resolved, and just choose to ignore the possible Constitutional conflict because it is 'minor' or 'offensive' or whatever, then we are saying that the language of the Constitution is optional. George Bush has already tried to establish that precedent, and I don't want to continue it.

"Where in this thread has ANYONE attacked McCain, or his patriotism?"

Questioning the eligibility of a heroic veteran and sitting US Senator looks like a desperate attempt to avoid running against him.

Herb

...to you.

I'm questioning the eligibility of someone born outside the country, you bonehead. But you seem to be getting pretty touchy about something that even vaugely feels like an attack on McCain...nervous?

Oh, that's right - you don't carry water for McCain. Sorry - how ham-fisted of me.

(p.s. - If McCain did have to drop out, Huckabee would be the GOP's new main man - your dream candidate!)

It doesn't look good for my guy period!

"If McCain did have to drop out, Huckabee would be the GOP's new main man - your dream candidate!"

That's exactly right. And I will be voting for Mr. Huckabee, provided he's on the ballot, in this year's primary.

That being said, I'm not alone in my discomfort when politics are played whilst an honourable man like John McCain is speculated by some as ineligible to be Commander in Chief.

Still don't agree with me? Then look at it another way: In his current position he's probably got some of the highest security clearances possible. It's comedic to suggest that he shouldn't hold our nation's top office...and that's coming from a Huckabee guy.

STILL don't agree with me? Then ask yourself ONE question and be honest about it. If our nation is attacked AGAIN in another 9/11 type scenario, who would you truly rather have as our President?

Herb

I'm interested in seeing this resolved as well. For all the talk about following what the Constitution says, working through this is the right thing to do.

I can think of only one reason why Natural Born was differentiated from just being a citizen, and that's to make sure the United States of America is run by Americans and not anybody else.

If we allow any citizen to run for the highest office, there exists the possibility of a coup, organized by outside forces. Not to say it can't happen with the natural born requirement, but that does raise the barrier considerably.

That natural born person would see the nation differently perhaps, than somebody not natural born, despite both being citizens. At the very least, the idea of the leader being an outsider would not be on the table.

Look at that guy running Homeland Security! He's got dual citizenship, Isreal and American. That does not sit well with me, given most citizens of other nations must renounce their old citizenship if they want to be Americans. (Why not those people of Isreal, and who is that guy really loyal to?)

My point being, these kinds of questions, surrounding a President are pretty ugly, and may have a lot to do with the word Natrual being in there.

This may well also have something to do with the Founders aversion to nobility as well. Under our law, there is no entitlement granted by bloodline. Maybe this had to do with making sure that was understood perfectly?

IMHO, it's not something to be dismissed, and I'm not holding that opinion because of McCain. I think he's a loser, so on that basis, let him run.

I actually formed that opinion when there was some talk of the Governator potentially running for President.

Should that all be interpreted not in favor of McCain, then it's most likely the Huckster, or Romney --he's only suspended. Maybe the GOP could adopt Nader? (probably not)

@Herb: Whoever will do the opposite of what Bush has done.

I would much rather have Obama, Clinton, Edwards, before I had anybody the GOP has posted up.

I wouldn't EVER vote for Hillary. NEVER! She is just like DUHbya and Co. Just the same tired story!

"Maybe the GOP could adopt Nader?"

That would be fine with me. I'd go with either Nader-Huckabee or Huckabee-Nader.

Herb

We know.

Q: "If our nation is attacked AGAIN in another 9/11 type scenario, who would you truly rather have as our President?"

A: Obama. He'll have an extraordinary support team and brain power behind and/or next to him.

On the basis of if our country is attacked again I go with McCain.

For everything else I go with Obama.

Just do not trust Democrats with the military.

Dont trust Republicans with economy.

I just don't get that.

Used to think the same way, but the handling of the military during these last two terms, by the GOP, has just been horrible!

I'd go with either Nader-Huckabee or Huckabee-Nader.

And America would be the laughing stock of the planet. A Bible thumper with the button....
NO Fin way!

I agree with you Mc on the military thing but there is SOOOOO much more than killing innocent Iraqi women and children.
You have to look at the all around HEALTH of America and the Bush administration hasn't. I really don't think that it's worth it to flex your muscles 24/7 365 and ignore what is going on IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
And who's to say that Obama won't get someone that will CONTINUE to run the military the right way? NOBODY KNOWS!!!!