The law had been changed by the time McCain was born.
That said, the 1790 law does give insight into what the authors of the Constitution meant by "natural born citizen". However, IIRC, that law only provided for the case of the father being a US citizen, as was common in the laws of other countries at the time (1790). So that law, if it applied, which it can't directly because Congress cannot define the meaning of terms in the Constitution, else they could change the meaning of "keep and bear" to mean strictly in a state militia context by a simple law, which would override the meaning understood at the time. Just as the later immigration laws could change the definition of "natural born citizen" from that understood by the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution. Under the law in effect at the time, if BHO was born overseas of a legally unwed mother, who had not lived in the US for 5 years after her 14th (or 16th I can't remember which was in effect in '61) then he would not be a "natural born" citizen, even though he could have been sponsored for citizenship by citizen ship by his mother, a US citizen, or could have been fraudulently registered as having been born in the US. We don't know enough yet to know which it is.
What I'd like is for both Obama and McCain to be declared ineligible, and then we'd get a really weird "do over" of a really weird primary election season. But I don't expect to get that.
Me too.
But I don't expect to get that.
Me neither.
“It makes not a lick of difference. McCain is a natural born citizen no matter where he was born, via 1790 law.”
“The law had been changed by the time McCain was born.
That said, the 1790 law does give insight into what the authors of the Constitution meant by “natural born citizen”. However, IIRC, that law only provided for the case of the father being a US citizen, as was common in the laws of other countries at the time (1790)”
OK. My point being that throughout US history, you could be a natural born US citizen if your father was a US citizen and had sufficient history of US residence. John McCain fit
the bill.
As for argument that Congress can’t ‘define the meaning of terms’, I’m sorry but you are playing a bit too much of armchair lawyer here and a law prof would correct you vigorously. This “So that law, if it applied, which it can’t directly because Congress cannot define the meaning of terms in the Constitution” is almost certainly incorrect, as Congress legislates many matters and terms in the Constitution and it is well-permitted. Meaning of ‘interstate commerce’, and “patents” and “letters of marque” and “elections” and the power to declare war, etc. The issue is when Congress goes outside the plain intent (”Which part ‘shall make NO law’ do they not understand?”) that SCOTUS gets involved.
I find the claim of failed residency test on the part of Barack’s mother to be a ‘fail’ too. An interpretation of a findlaw statement (not the law itself) is being used. But Raycpa stated the law itself and there are multiple provisions at issue, any one of them which gives you ability to be natural born citizen. One of them has a 5 year test with 3 years after 14 years of age. Barack passes.
“What I’d like is for both Obama and McCain to be declared ineligible, and then we’d get a really weird “do over” of a really weird primary election season. But I don’t expect to get that. “
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
There is 100% certainty that both Obama and McCain are eligible to be President. SOL on that score.