Posted on 02/27/2008 6:12:38 PM PST by Kay Ludlow
NYT: MCCAIN'S BIRTHPLACE IN CANAL ZONE RAISES ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS...
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Founding Fathers originally started life as British citizens, including Franklin and Washington. McCain's father was a famous admiral in the U.S. Navy, and McCain was born at a military post. This is such a non-story smear attack by the Slimes that it isn't even funny anymore.
Sen. J. Sydney McQueeg is getting what he deserves from the Lib media with which he chose to cuddle.
Wait until the General when all his voters go back to the Dims and he loses in a landslide.
This saved us from Weicker who was born in Paris to US citizens. McCain's having US parents doesn't control IMHO. What controls is whether the territory would be considered US soil. The intent of the provision is clear. We could have a president who never set foot on US ground but be eligible to be a president merely because of his parents citizenship.
It would have been presumed that birth in this country would have been followed by lifetime residency.
“The Canal Zone was leased for 99 years from the country of Panama.”
Wrong!
We purchaced every square inch of the Canal Zone. It was NOT leased.
Jimmy Carter gave it way.
Also, read the treaty. It is easy to understand.
If Hawaii had entered the Union five years later, would they be saying these things about Mr. Obama. I DOUBT IT.
“Someone tried to use this claim against George Romney back in 1968. Not USA born.”
“Some shyster lawyer tried the same crap against Goldwater (born in Arizona before it was a state) in ‘64.”
This never became a problem because they never became the presidential candidates of their party. They dropped out before that.
The NYT should have waited for McNutty to become the candidate of his party before springing this.
Much as I hate to admit it, the NYT may be on to something;
“The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”[1][2] This was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case as a form of naturalization.[3] The Dred Scott case, however, was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
“Current State Department policy reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”[6]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
We should be very careful about this question.
I agree that the question is legitimate and it brings up the issue of whether we conservatives really believe in original intent or we only adopt it when convenient.
McCain may very well be eligible but it is not really clear based on past presidents and there being no actual settled arguments.
The article above describes that the 1st congress declared the meaning of natural born to include born to US citizens abroad. Absent other evidence, that would sway me toward recognizing McCain as eligible.
For Freepers to close off debate merely because the result is one they desire is not a good thing. A strict “natural born” interpretation may shield us from worse future candidates who gain popularity with the masses. Remember the law of unintended consequences.
“He was most probably born in a Naval Hospital,in that he was the dependent of an active duty Naval Officer.....”
His father was stationed at Quarry Heights. He would have been born at Gorgas Hospital, Canal Zone, which is just down the hill a few yards.
Had he been born in a Naval hospital, they would have had to drive to the Atlantic side (Coco Solo) which is about 50 miles away.
As for the Panama Canal Zone, if I remember correctly, we had a 99 year lease on it. Having a lease on something does`nt mean they own it. I have a lease on my apartment and pay rent. I don`t own the apartment.
McCain was also born to American parents who were in the military. We have hundreds of US citizens born all over to world every year to deployed military family members. How many realize that McCain’s father was an Admiral, and that his grandfather also was an Admiral. He comes from a military family.
In the case of George Romney (Mitt’s dad), IIRC, George’s father’s citizenship seemed clearly to be Mexican. George’s parents clearly had emigrated to Mexico prior to George’s birth. George’s mother’s citizenship was dependent on the her own emigration to Mexico. The question appeared to be whether or not it was prior to Utah’s statehood, the status of those who emigrate from territories instead of states, etc.
They appeared to be real questions, but they were made moot by George’s dropping out of the presidential campaign. I don’t think anyone ever demanded an official ruling.
Stupid claim: McCain was born to US military parents.
“The United States of America does not recognize dual citizenship. Some other country might, not the U.S.A.”
Yes it does. I should know. I am dual.
“Coco Solo Air Base in the then-American-controlled Panama Canal Zone.”
If you keep reading Wiki, it will fill you so full of misinformation, folks will start laughing at you.
Coco Solo was not an air base.
“Current State Department policy reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”[6]”
that does not specify a difference between U.S. citizens or persons of another country presumably working on a U.S. base. it would seem to be dealing with the latter,not the former. A child born to U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen
lol, what I believe and what is law is not always in sync.
“Wasn’t Panama a breakaway region of Colombia ? Seem to remember reading their breakaway was encouraged by Uncle Sam because of the canal.”
You are correct.
We “encouraged” by helping.
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.