Replies

But both his parents were U.S. citizens, and his father was active duty military personnel (Navy). Under the UCMJ that qualifies McCain as a "natural born citizen".

An officer's tour of duty might require them as well as their spouse to be out of the country when their child is born, so they make that kind of allowance (regardless of the location of the birth).

How about when my wife was pregnant and I was (private lawyer, private practice, representing a military FMS contractor) out of the country negotiating supply contract with ROK Navy? I didn't take her with me but I might have; and the kid might have been born while we were there?

Isn't what you are really saying that it is unfair to deprive the son of a military officer of a Constitutional privilege because his wife accompanied him on an out of Country assignment? The Supreme Court's historical answer to that kind of question is to say, "well if you think that is unfair and it is a problem, you always have the Amendment process to fix it for the next guy".

The UCMJ can fix the problem as far as making the son a citizen. But what it can't do is amend the Constitution to fix the Constitutional issue. Substantively, McCain is stuck. Fair? No. But stuck anyway. Get Congress going on a Constitutional Amendment--you have six months to get 38 states to ratify--piece of cake.

But what it can't do is amend the Constitution to fix the Constitutional issue. Substantively, McCain is stuck. Fair? No. But stuck anyway. Get Congress going on a Constitutional Amendment--you have six months to get 38 states to ratify--piece of cake.

The Constitution uses the term "natural born", but does not define it (although the Fourteenth makes it clear it includes people born here unless their parents were here representing a foreign government). If the framers had meant the term to be restricted to those born on US territory, it would have been simple enough to have included language to that effect.

In 1790, Congress, which at the time included authors of the Constitution, made it clear "natural born" applies to children born to Americans abroad, writing in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens". So, McCain is all set.

Obama, however, is on thinner ice, should it be shown he was born outside the country. The following is found on a State Department site:

Child born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen parent had, prior to the birth of the child, been physically present in the United States for a period of ten years, at least five years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen.
Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother: A child born outside of the United States and out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother is entitled to U.S. citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen mother had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least one year at some time prior to the birth of her child. (NOTE: The U.S. citizen mother must have lived continuously for one year IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS OUTLYING POSSESSIONS. Periods spent overseas with the U.S. government/military or as a government/military dependent, may NOT be computed as physical presence in the U.S.).

So, either Stanley Ann needed to be 19 when she had him, or he needs to be a bastard. We all knew the US government likes to reward illegitimacy, didn't we?

Actually, I've seen enough versions of that law quoted that I'm totally confused about what it really means.

What does seem clear, however, is that Congress gets to define "natural born", except for those included via the Fourteenth Amendment.