Meet McCain 'birthers': ABC, CBS, NBC, FactCheck, N.Y. Times, more

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 08, 2010 | Jerome R. Corsi

[Man50D]

Many of the same news organizations and research groups today dismissing concerns about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility were far more eager to cover the issue when Republican presidential candidate John McCain was the subject.

An archive search shows the question of McCain's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president was actively pursued by Democratic Party activists and the mainstream media in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, despite the ridicule now heaped upon those questioning Obama's qualifications under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In an article published Feb. 28, 2008, months before McCain was nominated for president by the Republican Party, FactCheck.org, at the very center of Obama's defense against eligibility questions, was itself raising them about McCain.

[El Gato]

McCain loses because he was born subject to the sovereignty of another state.

Actually if he was, as no seems the case, born in the Canal Zone, he was. Plus his parents were there as in the service of the United States, similar to the children of ambassadors or other diplomatic personnel, in which case it might not matter at all exactly where he was born.

Even Blackstone documents that such persons were natural born subjects, provided the parents, were subjects, and under later (British) law only the father, need have been a British subject. "Law of Nations" also indicates that the children of both diplomats and those "in the armies" of hte nation are "reputed" born in the Country

[El Gato]

I disagree with you, also, on your general belief that a statute can't clarify (or elaborate) on a constitutional term

I said "change" not clarify or elaborate. They can do the latter as long as they stay withing the original understanding of the term. They can apply the meaning/understanding to modern conditions, but they cannot change it.

If they could, they could change the entire Constitution. They are the Congress of the United States, not the British Parliament, who can in effect do just that, since they have no written Constitution. We do, for a reason.

[rxsid]

"Yes. I want the truth out, in public, fully exposed and resolved. BUT, I also share David’s concern, quote:

” . . .I view the eligibility issue as an increasing handicap to Obama’s effectiveness which is good. I am not so sure that we want him kicked out and replaced by Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Pelosi—they are effective enemies under circumstances where Obama is shooting his toes off, one a week. And they would have an advantage in the 2012 election.”

I view it in a far bigger light, bigger than party politics. If he is allowed to sucessfully usurp the Constituion for a full term, and merely voted out (instead of being found inelligible and forced out), his precident will be set for future foreign usurpers.

[rxsid]

David: "I am not suggesting that we need to find more birth certificates although I think that too may happen; we already have two that I believe are likely to be accepted as evidence. And frankly, there is an accumulation of evidence that he was born in Mombassa besides the certificates of his birth.

rxsid: ""If such evidence as multiple Kenyan B.C.'s really do exist, why not hold them up at a press conference yesterday? Is it because whomever holds this alleged evidence believes that somewhere, someday, in some court, someone will actually be viewed by a court as having a particularized injury...and therefore standing?"

David: "That has been done. By Orly. Nothing happened. Her presentation was insufficiently articulate to make it clear what it was she had.

She let true copies of the documents float on the internet; the Obama Forces immediately reproduced copies with flaws in font's and name spellings while leaving the essential data intact; then put out a release that the certificates were forgery's."

So your alleging, that the copy that Orly has is genuine? How do you know that? You don't appear to be anyone who would be involved with either Dr. Taitz or Lucas Smith.

Furthermore, you allege there are more copies, other than the one she has? You said there were two (presumably true) copies. Who has the other one and why don't they go public with it? Or, are they waiting for that all elusive (near) perfect situation to come along....someday?

[El Gato]

We ought to just turn that around--tell me again on what theory you might reasonably think the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction?

I said I wasn't disputing it, just wanted your thoughts.

He is a Public Minister, but I'm thinking that section of the Constitution contemplates Foreign Nation's public ministers, not ours.. but I'm not sure.

[Beckwith]

It would only make sense for Congress to pass a simple statute to clarify any ambiguity as to the presidential eligibility of McCain and others in similar circumstances.

That would make John McCain a "statutory" citizen.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Statutory citizenship means that a person's citizenship requires a law or laws to define it. A citizen via statute is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

A person who is natural born requires no laws to define their citizenship. Only a "natural born" citizen is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

"Natural born" citizens are in a class separate from all others. They are, in fact, in a classification or category unto themselves because they alone are eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief -- a fact that unsettles many.

Besides, McCain already gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act -- "by statute."

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] Persons born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.Sec.

This case fails the test of jus soli -- NOT born in the USA

This case meets the test of jus sanguinis -- parents are US citizens

This person is NOT a "natural born" citizen and is NOT eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

[rodguy911]

They do it all the time there is a word for that....

[Uncle Chip]

but the courts have since ruled that "citizens at birth" via statute must be considered "naturalized at birth" for Constitutional purposes, under Congress' power to define an Uniform Rule of Naturalization.

What court decisions would those be???

[Uncle Chip]

The simple case is that he is not eligible because he is not a "natural born citizen"--he was born in Mombasa. There is abundant evidence proving where he was born

In your opinion, what is that "abundant evidence"???

[Uncle Chip]

Besides, McCain already gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act -- "by statute."

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] Persons born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

So then McCain's SR511 was an end run attempt around not only the Constitution but also these statutes.

[David]

"There is also evidence, also possibly untrue, of birth outside the US, specifically in Mombasa, but some more circumstantial evidence of Canadian birth."

I know of no evidence that he was born in Canada. There is testimony that when he arrived in Seattle in August of 1961, he was coming from Vancouver but that is exactly where he would have been coming from on his way from Mombasa on BOAC.

[rodguy911]

The mombasa to canda scenario has alway made the most sense hard to veirify however we need airline tickets,other verification.

[Beckwith]

I believe SR511 was the result of a deal between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Basically, I won’t make my oposition research public if you don’t make yours public.

As a result, McCain never went after Obama’s lif-long association with communists, terrorists, swindlers — oh, and that little “eligibility” thing.

For the doubters — you explain to me why a bunch of extremely progressive Democrats would help the Republican candidate 6 months before election day.

This was the conspiracy that gave us Barack Obama, and McCain isn’t quite as honorable as he’d like you to believe.

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#LeahyResolution

[TheBigJ]

Excellent point!

Perhaps brokered by Hillary, the one with nothing to lose. Expecting nomination, she could have sabotaged McCain if he actually did win Presidency?

Doesn’t get nomination yet Barry gives her Secretary of State job as well? She’s blackmailing him?

Top conservatives or conservative commentators are not exempt from guilty either, they ignored the Constitution.

Biggest question I have, why so much silence for 2 candidates with nbc issues by conservatives? Too much corruption, status quo going on. Criminal negligence.

[Spaulding]

El Gato, Vattel's "Children born in the armies of the state" has raised questions, and was mentioned in the statements of several supreme court decisions as a qualification about which was in doubt. Certainly the legislature, in 1790, considered it enough of an issue to support provision 217 from Vattel's book one, to claim it as law. But they rescinded it, since the interpretation of the Constitution is not in their "Constitutional Charter".

Not an expert in Vattel or the legal philosophers of the time I don't know how precise Vattel was in his use of words, or how careful were his translators. The Vattel translation we may both be using by Thomas Nugent uses the adjective "reputed" with "born in the country". That is an interpretation "referring to what is accepted by general public belief, whether or not correct." A natural born citizen is a citizen by nature, not by general public belief. There is no question that McCain is a citizen by statute - he is a "reputed" citizen because our society deems it. But a reputed citizen because he is reputedly born in the country is a judgement of citizens and not nature. Making McCain a natural born citizen requires an amendment.

If our founders had intended that extension of the concept, they would have cited it. Besides Wong Kim Ark, which refers to both Minor v. Happersett (which cites and quotes Vattel) and British Common Law, every supreme court reference to natural born citizen follows the citation of Vattel by Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus. The reason the the Jay proposal to include it was accepted so easily was that there was no doubt about its wisdom. Jay, Marshall, Hamilton, Wilson, Story, Madison, Washington, Franklin - these people all talked, and all read Vattel. Jay spoke of the risks in four of the first Federalist Papers and James Wilson in his Lecture on Citizen and Aliens spoke extensively about the responsibilities

At the time our founders were thinking about separating from the Crown there were many playing both sides; they had property in The Colonies and many would surely end up in our diplomatic corp or military. The goal of the founders was not equal opportunity for government employees. It was insuring the preservation of a nation built upon ideas, not royal bloodlines.

Suppose a naval captain's wife, the captain having been born a British subject of course, is visiting mom at the family estate in Surrey when she gives birth. She is a U.S. citizen because her husband is, having been granted citizenship in Connecticut where he purchased a sizable estate. The child, by Vattel's provision 217, is a natural born citizen. He is raised in England till the age of 21, Cambridge educated, and returns to the U.S. for law school at Harvard (with those Unitarians). When he is 36 he decides to campaign for the Senate, and then the presidency. He is a committed royalist, but he only tells his closest friends. Once in office he does his best to destroy our economy and our military to force reconciliation under The Crown. I think our founders thought deeply about those possibilities, and thus meant exactly what they said.

Jefferson taught Natural Law and Law of Nations with Vattel as the text at William and Mary. Marshall was part of the Virginia Ratification convention. Hamilton studied Vattel under James Duane and quoted him extensively in the 1784 case Rutgers v. Waddington in which he, Hamilton outlined the notion of judicial review.

Our founders attempted to protect us from a leader with foreign principles and allegiances with the natural born citizen requirement, and would have if our judicial system were still committed to obeying and protecting our Constitution. Obama Senior was an alien, hostile to the principles of free enterprise, freedom of religion (he was a Muslim, though not observant, and must have held that Americans were non-believers to be converted or killed, as the Koran dictates).

[David]

"Furthermore, you allege there are more copies, other than the one she has? You said there were two (presumably true) copies. Who has the other one and why don't they go public with it? Or, are they waiting for that all elusive (near) perfect situation to come along....someday? "

No. Not two copies of the same certificate. Two certificates.

The first is a file photocopy of a certificate issued in connection with Stanley Ann's divorce proceeding from Obama Sr. The second is an original obtained by Smith by bribery. Two different certificates of the same event.

There have been a number of attacks on both documents as one might expect since either one by itself is dispositive. I have looked at those attacks and believe that if there is ever a real court proceeding in which the validity of either one of these documents is at issue, the document will be sustained--they are both actual certifications of his birth on August 4, 1961 in Mombasa.