Is John McCain a Natural-Born Citizen of the U.S.?

snopes.com | July 23, 20008

[FortWorthPatriot]

I didn't post a link to this because I wasn't sure if we could link to snopes.com, but I felt it important enough to post.

It's amazing that no one in the MSM is at all concerned whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen, but we better make damn sure McCain is!

Check out how thorough snopes researches the question. Plus the fact that they claim the status is "undetermined."

This was posted today at snopes.

[xcamel]

Been covered ad-nauseum.

[Perdogg]

[xjcsa]

This is probably the five hundredth thread on FR about this.

[marron]

I propose that we put both candidates to the test. Both should be required to demonstrate that they qualify as a natural-born citizen.

Whats fair for one should be fair for both. Anyone running for the office should be prepared to prove he meets the legal requirements for office.

[xjcsa]

Threads on this topic.

[fireforeffect]

Do a little research. Snopes can be wrong if politics or ideology are involved.

Instapundit or Volokh Conspiracy are good legal web sites.

To be blunt, the horse is dead jim, you can stop beating it.

[dbacks]

You haven’t been paying attention. This has been covered and recovered for months.

[Iron Munro]

Is John McCain a Natural-Born Citizen of the U.S.?

If only it were true that he is not!

Then McCain could be booted from the nomination for a legitimate reason and a viable candidate could be selected at the convention.

See if you can get the necessary proof.
You will be a hero to millions upon millions.

[mgstarr]

Have you considered searching previous threads first?

[cubreporter]

This stuff again???????????? Good Lord...

[mountainlion]

To my way of thinking John McCain is more of citizen than what is his name again Noboma!

[Paleo Conservative]

Whats fair for one should be fair for both. Anyone running for the office should be prepared to prove he meets the legal requirements for office.

That ought to be the law. I was talking to executive director of the Republican Party of Texas last week, and he says that third parties have no standing to challenge the credentials of a candidate to hold the office for which they are running. Candidates are required to sign an affidavit swearing that they meet the qualifications for office, but don't have to provide proof. The only persons with standing to challenge a candidate's qualifications for office are other candidates for the same office, and even then the burden of proof is on the person making the challenge.

[x]

Yes, because the first Congress's first Naturalization Law (1790) says: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

But the strange thing is how many people, myself included, erroneously learned in school that a President had to be born within the borders of the country.

[crazyhorse691]

Never heard of this Juan McCain.

[Doogle]

.."somebody wake me when this story dies"

[Alia]

You are wishful thinking. John McCain is a legitimately born American.

[Radix]

McCain likely has a Birth Certificate issued by the Department of State.

I wish it were that simple to eliminate this guy as a candidate.

[Alia]

My early education was DOD schools. I didn’t learn about the “borders” thing. I learned the writ of the laws in re being born in another country and being born an American citizen. And since most all my classmates were also born in other countries, Americans, all of us, it was important for us to know this.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Read this case, it has to do with whether someone born in this country to resident alien parents is a citizen according to the Fourteenth Amendment, but much would apply to how the courts would define Natural Born. I have written before about how Congress not the courts should decide this issue but the legal reasoning would apply to either forum.

U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

169 U.S. 649

UNITED STATES
v.
WONG KIM ARK.
No. 132.

March 28, 1898
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649