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

[kpete]

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

By CARL HULSE
Published: February 28, 2008

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? 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.”

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[joeybee12]

1. I first read "birth canal" and wondered how on earth anyone could come

out a different way?? :shrug:

[bmbmd]

7. Know ye not

that McDuff from his mother's womb was untimely ripped?

[joeybee12]

9. True, very true...

McDuff...McCain...McBain...now it all fits.

[stellanoir]

2. wows I had no clue about his birth place

". . . but there is certainly no precedent,”

How ominously intriguing.

[baldguy]

3. They didn't care that both Bush & Cheney were residents of TX

Why should they care if McCain was born outside the US?

[stellanoir]

6. Cheney slyly switched his primary residence to his resort home in Wyoming

just prior to selecting himself to be VP.

Residencies can change but birth places certainly cannot.

[griffi94]

4. this has losing proposition written all over it

his father was an officer in the navy. both of his parents were american citizens. if the media and the democrats try to drive this issue home it will further rally the repuds and the rw to mccain. just like the nyt lobbyist story last week did. i also wonder what the reaction of military families will be.

[leftynyc]

12. I agree

He has 4 generations (maybe more) that have fought for this country. This issue is a non-starter and could be very damaging to anyone pushing it.

[Hangingon]

19. I have two grand children born in US Army hospitals in Germany

If you argue they are not full citizens, you have lost the voters in my family now and forever. How many other military families will feel the same? Quite a few I expect.

[BOSSHOG]

5. I would expect a member of the party of responsibility and integrity

to insist on the letter of the law, no wacky liberal interpretation and legislating from the bench and quit the race. Its the right thing to do, and we all know republicans live and breathe doing the right thing 24/7.

[postulater]

8. I'm sure the SCOTUS will do the Right thing.

[foxer]

35. Rush and Cunningham will take care of it

[fasttense]

10. One of my brothers and one of my sisters were born outside the US

to my parents who were US citizens. We always told them they could never be President. If only we had known the republicans would pretend to not know the Constitution and ignore it. Both of my siblings would have made great Presidents.

I think the Republicans should do the right thing and take McCain's name off the ballot. He is NOT Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President.

The republicans are so use to violating the Constitution that they don't even notice it anymore.

[LiberalFighter]

11. What does Senator Byrd have to say about this?

Here is the key part of the article.

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed.

Is a U.S. military installation (base) considered U.S. soil? They consider a U.S. embassy to be a American soil so why shouldn't a U.S. base or a U.S. military ship, etc? I would though restrict this use to those that are already American citizens. If somehow a local citizen in that part of the world gave birth to a child then they should not automatically become a U.S. citizen.

Does Panama consider anyone born on a U.S. military base within their borders to be a Panamanian?

When one is born on a U.S. military base where are the birth records filed? With that country or in the U.S.?

[dkf]

13. Being born on U.S. embassy soil won't give natural born status

to any baby. Just think how flooded our embassys would be! We'd have pregnant mom's running on to our properties all the time.

And yes, Panama considers anyone born in Panama to be a Panamanian citizen.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Did you read this part that I posted?

If somehow a local citizen in that part of the world gave birth to a child then they should not automatically become a U.S. citizen.

[dkf]

16. Not only should they not, they aren't.

And being on a military base doesn't work either. Only US soil. Otherwise citizenship is gained courtesy of bloodline, not location of birth.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. here is your answer... this will go nowhere...

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

sP

[dkf]

17. These definitions are not contained within the constitution itself

and historical precedent has not been set by the courts. If we amended the constitution and added those provisions then it would be rock solid. Until then, it is not set in stone.

Sure we can ignore this based on it being a losing political battle, but it doesn't mean that if McCain wins, that it won't be challenged in court.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. it is established law...

and as the Constitution does not define 'natural born' it is up to the law to define it...and this does. Challenge one might...lose they will.

sP

[dkf]

21. But that is the point, it could be defined by the constitution.

and it isn't.

People born outside of the US to American Parents are citizens by law, not by birth.

In the past, there were laws saying that children of US citizen mothers and non-citizen fathers weren't citizens of the United States.

Here is some history...

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".

1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.

"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

This wasn't fixed until 1934:

1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

http://www.aca.ch/hisuscit.htm

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. i understand what you are saying

but not being defined by the constitution means it IS defined by law. Those bits you mention are the exact reasons that the laws were written to define the topic at hand.

This is a no-win. If his presidency (and THAT in itself is a HUGE assumption) is challenged on this point, it will lose...AND it will piss of HUGE numbers of military and state department type staff that have their children born overseas...

HUGE no-win situation!

sP

[dkf]

24. From what I have been reading, a number of military types

already understand this "natural born" dilemma. I remember reading once that some guy in the military sent his wife home to the US to give birth solely for the purpose of making sure his child would be able to run for President. And it wasn't some top General, just a guy who had dreams for his kids.

I think the key is that in certain countries children born there receive citizenship at birth, and that gives them dual citizenship at least for that time, which I think our founders thought could cause a conflict in loyalty.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. the soldier that sent his wife home simply didn't know the law

and that is all that is...

Look, I can see your argument. I believe it has already been settled. The law does a pretty good job of defining terms in this discussion and it has done so based on some of the information you gave a couple of posts upthread.

This is a loser...and a painful one if someone tries to chase it down and it is not IMMEDIATELY decried by Dem leadership.

sP

[dkf]

26. I understand you are tamping it down because it is a political loser.

And I don't think it would be a winning argument either.

But I do know that constitutional scholars are debating this question to this day and will do so anytime someone not born on US soil runs for President.

I also think it is academic, because he won't win.

But, I find this history and the rationale behind it simply fascinating and this debate is much more high minded than the hideousness our primary has turned into.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. i couldn't agree more

there are all sorts of interesting arguments that come out of the vagaries of the Constitution. It would be interesting to see this hashed out in a non-election year...

sP

[dkf]

29. The thing is it will never be resolved until someone

not born on American soil is elected President and it is challenged in the courts.

Kind of a Catch-22 there.

Or if its enough of a no-brainer, we could amend the constitution.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

30. the problem is when you lose the argument

that you look petty. i am not saying that is how it should be...but that is how the american people will see it. "Look, huney, themthere people cain't stand that the loosed the 'lection...so now they is tryin' to toss out the Prezdent on some lousy rules from days long past." (Please understand that I know many people would not think this...but many would.)

Amending the Constitution would probably only be done to allow non-natural-born-citizens to hold the office...I can't imagine they would make it MORE restrictive.

Thanks for the fun conversation this morning...better by far than some of the others i have gotten into here... :-)

sP

[dkf]

32. Yeah, I think its cool to think about what our founding fathers did for us.

:-)

Fun stuff.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

33. i need to go take a couple of classes in Constitutional Law

to enable me to be able to discuss better the topics like this one...i am certainly a junkie on this stuff...thanks for feeding my habit :-)

sP

[dkf]

34. Maybe we can learn a few things from Professor Obama!

Damn, to think we could possibly have a President that understands our constitution that well!

Kinda gives me shivers to think about it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. This might be the code, but has it been ruled as Constitutional? nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. has to be challenged...

as dkf and i have been discussing...and that would be a mess i imagine...more for the backlash than the argument.

sP

[Dulcinea]

36. Wasn't the Panama Canal Zone considered a U.S. territory in 1936?

If so, McCain is certainly eligible to run for president.

And, why wasn't this an issue in 2000 when he first ran? You'd think it would've been settled then. :shrug:

[foxer]

38. 2000 was pre 911

[Dulcinea]

37. oops, double post

[Hugabear]

20. The Constitution doesn't mean anything to the rethugs

And you already know which way the rethug-packed Supreme Court will rule.

[Vogon_Glory]

23. Useless For Bashing McCain, BUT

I agree with many posters that bashing John McCain for being born in the Panama Canal Zone would be useless and counter-productive for Democrats as far as the November presidential campaign is concerned, but it might be great fun to use McCain's place of birth as a means for bashing the right-wing xenophobes and people like Michelle Malkin who seek to repeal the 14th Amendment.