McCain's birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out (NY Slimes)

International Tribune ^ | 28 Feb 08 | Carl Hulse Published

[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.

[justiceseeker93]

Hawaii became a state in 1959 and "Osama" Obama was born there c. 1963.

As the posted article points out, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory in 1909, but Arizona did not become a state until 1912. However, I do not recall any discussion whatsoever in 1964 - when Goldwater ran for president as the GOP nominee - to the effect that he might not qualify for president bcause he was not "natural-born."

It was a non-issue for Goldwater, and it would be a non-issue for McCain if not for some lefty hypocrites in the MSM. These are the same types who never raise constitutional issues when it comes to any of a gazillion federal social programs enacted and contemplated since the New Deal and even before then.

[Radix]

I wonder if the Times thinks that McCain should be sent back to Panama where he came from.

Oh no wait, Panamanians, and Arabs, and Mexicans, and everybody else are entitled to American Rights under our “Living Constitution.”

[mvpel]

Actually, the treaty did not grant sovereignty to the US, as indicated by the preamble and Article III.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/panama/pan001.htm

[DoorGunner]

“If I were a judge ruling on the issue, I would certainly consider the statute you quoted as dispositive for McCain’s being within the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen.” “

Why would you rule that it is dispositive? The statute explicitly states that such a person is a “citizen.” It also states that other categories of people (who could NOT possibly be considered “natural born,” are legally “citizens.”

In that this constitutional issue is not settled law, a person could reasonably argue that this means McCain is a “citizen” ONLY to the degree that the others are, and that therefore, the intent of the statute cannot possibly be to confer the status of “natural born citizen” upon anybody within its purview.

Note that I am not making that argument, rather that it could reasonably be made. How it would play out in our screwy judicial system is anybody’s guess.

DG

[fightinJAG]

lol!

[madison10]

Bummer...on all counts.

[FreedomCalls]

As the posted article points out, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory in 1909, but Arizona did not become a state until 1912. However, I do not recall any discussion whatsoever in 1964 - when Goldwater ran for president as the GOP nominee - to the effect that he might not qualify for president bcause he was not "natural-born."

From the New York Times, September 5, 1964:

CITIZEN ISSUE RAISED IN GOLDWATER SUIT

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 4 -- Senator Barry Goldwater is ineligible to become President because he was born in Arizona when it was a territory, the California Supreme Court was told today.

From the New York Times, October 3, 1964:

Suit to Remove Goldwater From Jersey Ballot Is Lost

Judge George H. Barlow ruled that Senator Goldwater, the Republican Presidential candidate, is a natural-born citizen, even though he was born in Arizona ...

[justiceseeker93]

Thanks for that info from 1964.

I suppose that those court rulings in favor of Goldwater can be useful as precedents for McCain, should his status as "natural-born" be challenged in court this year.