ok here is the previous post on FR that has some interesting info. Like I posted here, McCain is a US citizen, he DERIVED citizenship from his parents, but the question still remains whether he is a ‘natural born citizen”
........................
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971696/posts
There have been some posts on this topic already, but they are incomplete and the Mccain campaign, Wikipedia, and other sources have weaseled around it with a reference to a 1790 act of Congress defining foreign-born children of US citizens as natural-born, thus meeting to requirements to run for President.
I started digging into the Act of Congress that Mccain’s campaign said got him around this (5th Congress, March 26th 1790), but found that this act was repealed by the same Congress, January 29th, 1795, RE-defining such children as just American citizens (not natural-born, as required for Pres. by the Constitution), and that this act was re-repealed April 14th, 1802 by the 6th Congress, keeping the same definition of foreign-born US citizens.
Unless someone can show me something I’ve missed (and I can find nothing anywhere referring to ANY other defense on this issue as of yet), Mccain is NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States and according to all applicable laws I’ve found, is NOT eligible to run for President. Links to these Acts of Congress:
In my mind an act of congress cannot ratify the constitution, or am I missing something?
Except the Canal Zone was under the American Flag at the time of his birth. It was, as any federal territory, administered through ovesight of the Congress of the U.S. It was as much the U.S.A. as the Arizona Territory into which Barry Goldwater was born. Had Obama been born 18 months earlier would he be denied eligibilty because Honolulu was located in a territory and not a state?The argument is silly, and on the part of the Times arrogantly ignorant.
He is either "natural-born" or naturalized. There are no other choices. Since he is not naturalized, he is natural-born.