If you parents are citizens of the US, it doesn’t matter where you are born.
Wish that were true, then the Republicans can pick someone else from their convention.
But seriously, folks, this is BS.
The New York Times is proving, in case anyone yet had any doubts, that they are complete hacks, who are willing to say or do anything to monkeywrench the Republican's electoral machinery.
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.
If Hawaii had entered the Union five years later, would they be saying these things about Mr. Obama. I DOUBT IT.
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
Stupid claim: McCain was born to US military parents.
yet are they mentioning about their love obama and how he has kenyan citizenship
are they mentioning about how obama goes to a racist so called church and admires a racist preacher
are they mentioning about how obama won’t salute the flag of this country
are they mentioning about obama’s wifes anti white racist wrting and anti american statement
are they mentioning about how he obama won’t wear an american pin on himself
are they mentioning about why obama won’t say he disagrees with farrakam’s racist anti white statement, obama will only disagree wit him on the anti jewish statements but not on the anti white statements
are they mentioning how obama won’t commit himself to hard questions
the list of news is endless yet the NY times feels that MCain again is news
Nah like the liberals say their is no bias in the media
ARF AND ARF AGAIN
So? Obama has dual US-Kenyan citizenship. WHEN WILL OBAMA RENOUNCE ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?
Proof that the Dems are afraid of McCain getting crossover votes! Another sabotage piece!
Is the NYT serious? How could the “paper of record” not spend the minute of research it would take them to find out that the “natural-born citizen” clause refers to people who are U.S. citizens at birth, as opposed to “naturalized citizens” that acquired their citizenship later on in life.
Persons born in the Canal Zone at the time that John McCain was born were U.S. citizens at birth if at least one parent was a U.S. citizen; in McCain’s case, both of his parents were U.S. citizens. In fact, since at the time of McCain’s birth both of McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens and had lived in the U.S. for several years at some point in their lives, McCain would have been a U.S. citizen at birth even had he been born in Russia.
I hope the liberal media keeps throwing these softballs at McCain. What a bunch of maroons.
Incredible display of ignorance. Is it their ‘staff’ or do they think their readers are this stupid. . .or both.
Interesting that neither of the two likely nominees was born on the US mainland - Obama having been born in Hawaii.
John Tierney re the Canal Zone;
“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.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/december99/panama_canal1.html
As for military bases, isn`t one of Bush`s main arguments about Gitmo (and the reason he chose to use it) is that it is not US territory, therefore prisoners held there do not get Constitutional protections?
The New York Times editors are so cute when they pretend to care about the Constitution....