“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.
You can keep reciting this stuff but believe it or not, I am not an armchair lawyer, I am really admitted--in two states. And although I am not a litigator by profession, I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States; and have argued probably ten or twelve appellate cases including two that were affirmed without an opinion by the Supreme Court.
I would love to have this for a client that could afford to pay to get to the courts although the time to do that is slipping away rapidly.
But you, probably deliberately, misunderstand the point. Congress can apply its understanding of the Constitution, and make laws on that basis. But they cannot say that "natural born" means anyone naturalized in the first five years of life, or something like that. They can make the law, but it won't be Constitutional, and the courts will or should strike it down. They cannot change the definition from that understood when the Constitution, or an amendment to it, was passed. Sometimes determining just what was understood can be difficult, and in this case, as with many terms in the main body of the Constitution, requires recourse to English Common law.
Congress can't redefine "letter of Marque" or the meaning of of their powers. The reason should be obvious, it would render the written Constitution as meaningless, which of course is the point of the "living document" folks, who aren't happy with the limits placed on government in that Old Rag written by dead white men.
You aren't one of those are you?