Posted on 06/01/2011 7:21:28 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
John J. Tierney responds:
The question reflects the view held by many Americans during the 1978 treaty debates. Senator Strom Thurmond expressed it as follows: “We on it, title in fee simple.”
The issue of American sovereignty, however, was always a myth. Philippe Bunau-Varilla, who wrote the 1903 treaty in favor of the U.S. testified that “The United States, without becoming sovereign, received the exclusive use of the rights of sovereignty…” The words of the original treaty allowed the U.S. to use the Canal “as if it were sovereign,” later expressed in President William Howard Taft’s famous phrase “titular sovereignty.”
Usage over the century reflected the distinctions between Federal rule of the several states and ownership over foreign property, namely the Canal Zone:
The United States paid Panama annual indemnities; something a sovereign would not possibly do;
Panamanians born in the Canal Zone were citizens of Panama, not the United States;
The U.S. surrendered its rights to tax incoming goods from Panama to the Canal Zone;
United States General Laws (such as the criminal code) could not be applied in the Canal Zone;
The United States Constitution never automatically applied in the Canal Zone;
A 1930 U.S. Supreme Court decision defined the Zone’s ports as “foreign”;
The 1936 Hull-Alfaro Treaty termed the Canal Zone as the “territory of the Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.” The U.S. Senate ratified this pact;
A 1948 Supreme Court decision declared that while Congress “controlled” the Canal Zone, the U.S. did not possess “sovereignty”;
After World War II, Washington officials repeatedly recognized Panama’s sovereignty in the Canal Zone, as did all presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Carter.
Whether or not the Canal “should have been retained by the U.S.” is a judgement call and the jury is still out on that. In a perfect world, I would agree with the writer, but the political pressures for a transfer were severe in 1977 and had been developing for decades. The judgement of U.S. authorities — with Senate concurrence — was that retention was not worth the political and military price which the situation demanded.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/december99/panama_canal1.html
Vattel knew McCain?!
And that pony show and dance in the Senate was nothing BUT to cover up for the criminal in the Whit-Hut, pure and simple and most of the American People at slumber eat it with with hook, sinker and line!!!
Sorry that’s a very naive & wishful thinking. Until the U.S. create a Honduras event, we are totally “sold” down in the Marxist/Muzzie rat hole!!!
AND, who-else were on the ballots, LOL+???
No, Vattel was merely giving the circumstances under which citizenship is universally and/or naturally recognized. He said the citizenship of the child naturally follows the condition of the father and that the place of birth is nothing but the place of birth. That said, his definition of natural born citizen, which has been used and affirmed by the Supreme Court, is all children born in the country to parents who are its citizens. For those children born at sea or in the Armies of the state, they are reputed to be born in the country. If they are born to citizen parents, this means they are natural born citizens.
As for McCain’s place of birth, three different sources place it at the base hospital at Coco Solo: his mother, a contemporaneous newspaper account (unlike Obama’s birth announcement, it says EXACTLY where McCain was born); and a Washington Post reporter who said he saw McCain’s birth certificate as presented to him by a McCain staffer. The birth certificates presented in the Hollander v. McCain case are neither original, doctor-signed certificates. If they are genuine, they are most likely abstracts that may have been filled out incorrectly. Neither parent signed these certificates either.
One more thing, the Colon Hospital was operated by Americans (military, I believe). It’s quite possible that the doctors there did double duty between Colon and the base hospital (which was more of an infirmary when McCain was born).
There is one ruling that the SC doesn’t have to make and would be out of it’s province to do so. That is that the Constitution explicitly mandates that POTUSA be a ‘natural born citizen’ as opposed to the mandate for Representatives and Senators to be ‘citizens’. The Founding Fathers knew the difference and did not leave it up to the SC to decide.
Yeah, I remember following the controversy during that election, and seeing the document online, which (I think) was completed in handwriting.
I thought the action by Congress was a weird deal, unnecessary, and only raised suspicion. I tended to believe that his parents military duty placing them in Panama granted him NBC status.
It was equally weird that they didn’t vet Obama at all.
Someone with standing needs to challenge what is going on and that will take place only thru the courts. Otherwise, Congress and the political parties will decide who is eligible and not eligible to run. And if you don't want the courts involved, the only other alternative is to amend the Constitution defining more precisely what "natural born citizen" means in terms of running for President.
No. It's a birther myth. It comes from a a fake birth certificate that's floating around the internet saying he was born in Colon, but he was really born on the Coco Solo naval base within the canal zone.
That's simply not true. Stop repeating disproven internet rumors as if they were fact.
No he wasn't. You're repeating a long-debunked false rumor fueled by a fake birth certificate floating around the internet. The Coco Solo naval base in the Canal Zone had a medical facility, McCain was born there, and this has been proven. Sources available upon request.
There are some disputes. These fall into groups of what Obama and his enablers argue and those that go with what Ben Franklin, Jay and Washington argued when the Constitution was founded.The Senate resolution giving McCain eligibility was non binding and had little if any Constitutional standing except for the purpose of setting up a challenge in case McCain won. That noted lawyers would carry the argument for such a resolution comes as no surprise. My experience with any class of lawyers is they will promote what makes them money even to arguing against other lawyers.What is really needed is a public law/declaration of what standing is and the individuals right to have such. I understand some states are looking at that issue and the sooner courts are told what individual standing means the sooner there will be meaning to the expression ‘We the People’.
Now you seem to agree that this will have to be challenged in the courts, which is my position. Obama is in the WH. McCain was on the ballot. If the definition of "natural born citizen" is so accepted and well defined by every legitimate legal authority and constitutional scholar (Tribe and Olson excepted), then why did this happen? Both political parties accepted the results.
What is really needed is a public law/declaration of what standing is and the individuals right to have such. I understand some states are looking at that issue and the sooner courts are told what individual standing means the sooner there will be meaning to the expression ‘We the People’.
Standing to do what? And would such a law be constitutional?
You are reading me wrongly. The SC does not have to and I contend cannot rule on whether or not there is a difference between ‘natural born citizen’ and plain ‘citizen’ because that such a difference exists is/was embedded in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers as to eligibility for POTUSA and for Congresspersons to be different. If you do not acknowledge that this differentiation exists in the Constitution we certainly are not in agreement. I make the point again another way that because both ‘parties’ accepted the results of an ineffective resolution only means that the ‘parties’ were in cahoots to bamboozle the public for their own purposes. There will probably be the opportunity to find out if individual standing is possible under the Constitution when a State or States make a law that recognizes such in challenging the certification for eligibility of a nominee for POTUSA.
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Do you agree with that?
If you do not acknowledge that this differentiation exists in the Constitution we certainly are not in agreement.
The differentiation is not clearly defined. The proof? We had two candidates for President who you believe did not meet that "clear" criterion. So how do you intend to change things without getting a SCOTUS ruling or having the Constitution amnended to define and reflect that difference?
What is the definition of "natural born citizen" as defined in the Constitution--and don't use any SCOTUS or legal decisions to interpret it. Just provide the definition as contained in the Constitution beyond Article 2 Section 1.
There will probably be the opportunity to find out if individual standing is possible under the Constitution when a State or States make a law that recognizes such in challenging the certification for eligibility of a nominee for POTUSA.
"Standing" is a legal term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.