Posted on 02/28/2008 3:40:11 AM PST by SkyPilot
WASHINGTON: The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
McCain was born being a US citizen, as opposed to being "naturalized" (applying for citizenship and jumping through the hoops)
From the link I cited earlier:
Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the term “is declared to be a citizen” (emphasis added), that leans heavily towards a lex soli position (naturalization). And persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with U.S. intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply naturalization and not by birth since it is dependent on the law and a calendar date.
Furthermore, naturalization is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(23):
(a) As used in this chapter—
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
In other words, naturalization means a person is made, conferred, or “declared” a citizen after birth, leaving “natural born” to only mean becoming a citizen at birth. This is consistent with 8 USC 1403(a), which was enacted when John McCain was 16 years old. So at 16 years old John McCain was naturalized as a citizen by legislation, that legislation being the INA.
Classic drive by tactic: throw mud on the wall and see how much sticks and keep on driving.......
From the link I cited earlier:
If you look again at 8 USC 1401(c) and 1403(a), you see a big difference. 8 USC 1401(c) address births outside the U.S., meaning clearly that the “born in the United States” clause of the 14th Amendment cannot apply to this form of citizenship. Therefore a person that falls under 8 USC 1401(c) has to be a naturalized citizen. 8 USC 1403(a) already “declares” citizenship and implies naturalization. The only logical conclusion is that the Canal Zone was considered to be outside the United States, else these sections (8 USC 1401(c) and 8 USC 1403(a)) never needed to be codified into law in the first place, and 8 USC 1401(a) would apply instead.
1403 doesn’t apply to McCain because he was already a citizen under 1401. He was natural-born, so he could not be naturalized.
Citizen at birth means natural-born citizen.
Hamilton wasn’t president. This law in fact may have been introduced specifically in order to prevent him from becoming so.
Looked through your link, muddy thinking for sure. Read again and you will see that the lex and jus arguments are flawed and contradictory but 1401 is applicable. Then he throws the 1403 argument in just to contradict himself again!
Actually I did read the article, and again you didn’t bother to answer my question, if it’s moot point why print it?
To use your analogy, the new york times basically says: person found near crime, didn’t commit crime, but was still found near crime, why was he there?
He was born on a military installation.
Looks like the drive-by media is at it again. ABC’s GMA had a little blurt about this NYT’s hit piece earlier today. I don’t know if they followed it up and discussed it though.
That was the question I ask, can an act of congress modify the constitution??
See #83
It doesn’t matter if he was born on US soil, as long as both of his parents are American born citizens. Sheesh won’t these people ever get it.?
True, but he cannot be president.
Can an act of congress change the constitution???
Because it’s interesting to look at the history and the legal thought behind it.
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/why-john-mccain-ineligible-be-president-united-states-second-update
The flaw in their arguement is 8 US 1401. That defines nationals and citizens of the United States. Section (c) says "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" are natural born U.S. citizens.
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.