Posted on 02/28/2008 9:07:57 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said Thursday the question of whether he can run for president, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone, was put to rest 44 years ago in Barry Goldwater's run for the White House.
McCain added that he doesn't know why his campaign sought legal analysis of whether his birth outside the continental United States might disqualify him from the presidency.
The Constitution says only a "natural-born citizen" may serve as president.
McCain's campaign asked former Solicitor General Ted Olson for a legal interpretation of the issue.
McCain himself insists the issue was put to rest when fellow Arizonan, Barry Goldwater, ran for president in 1964.
"Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory, Arizona was a territory, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court," McCain told reporters Thursday on his campaign plane. "And there's no doubt about that. And it was researched again in 2000."
The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born on Aug. 29, 1936.
As for the reason for seeking Olson's opinion: "I don't know," McCain said. "Maybe my staff talked to him, but I didn't. But I have absolutely no concern about that."
"It's very clear that (the idea that) an American born in a territory of the United States whose father is serving in the military would not be eligible for the presidency of the United States is certainly not something our founding fathers envisioned." McCain's father was stationed in the Canal Zone by the Navy at the time of his birth.
McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said the request for Olson's help was routine, and it wasn't necessary to bring it to the attention of the senator.
Olson said he is still researching the issue but is certain McCain is qualified. The plain meaning of "natural-born citizen" includes those born to parents who are citizens, particularly when they are born on a U.S. military base as McCain was, Olson said.
"I am confident that the United States Supreme Court, should it ever address the issue, would agree," Olson said in a statement.
According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, people are born U.S. citizens if they are born in the U.S. or their parents are U.S. citizens. The question arises because Article II of the Constitution limits the office of president to a "natural-born citizen," a term on which the Founding Fathers did not elaborate.
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a prominent backer of Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, introduced legislation Thursday that would define a "natural-born citizen" as anyone born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces. Obama's campaign announced late Thursday that he will co-sponsor the bill.
"Those who serve and sacrifice for their country, like John McCain and his father, deserve every honor and privilege that our nation can possibly provide, and that includes the ability to run for the highest office in the land," Obama said in a statement.
Associated Press writer Sam Hananel in Washington contributed to this report.
Was McCain schooled at a Madrasa? Is he a Mormon? Does he have a muslim middle name?
Only ONE of these has been considered a fair question in this election. The other two are verbotten so that the Golden Child can be annointed.
If this is all the drive-by’s have, measure the drapes for President McCain.
It is not necessary, Hussein.
This stinks like those MTV announcements about Bush's impending draft and the Iranian Nutjob's "pardon" for the British "spies" he held prisoner for a show trial.
That’s mighty white of him.
You have that right. Sticking by one’s principles is not always good: discretion is the better part of valor.
In 1992 people thought voting for Perot was a good thing...it was, FOR CLINTOON.
McCain - Feingold
I often wondered if Clinton and Perot had a financial arrangement . Perot system did very well under Clinton and EDS expanded greatly .
I recognize you from 2006
You were telling people not to vote in 2006 too .
What exactly is your point?
Kenya restricts foreign-born citizenship to those born after 1962 of a Kenyan parent. Sorry Barry!
Poor NY Slimes. Two hit pieces in two weeks and both go up in smoke.
McCain - Kennedy
************************EXCERPT*********************
Last week, the New York Times ran a debacle of a story about John McCain that lacked credible sourcing and any hard facts to back up whispered, third-party allegations. It was a story that was deemed unworthy for publication by the Boston Globe, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and Beltway insiders like Morton Kondracke, and even the Times' own ombudsman, Clark Hoyt. As Hugh cites below, there is a Rasmussen report that of the roughly two thirds of people polled that say they followed the Times story fairly closely last week, two-thirds of them believe it was a hatchet job by the Times to hurt McCain.
So after their credibility took a huge hit, how do they follow up this week? Carl Hulse runs a story with the headline, "McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out." John McCain, it's true, was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a serving military dad and mom. But the problem with the Times story is they do not cite anyone who is politically questioning McCain's eligibility. Part of reporting is explaining the who, what, when, where and why. Mr. Hulse and his editors forgot the who. He gets comments from a few legal scholars as to what they think the term natural born citizen means, and whether or not these experts think McCain might have a problem, but doesn't get into who's making the allegations, and more important, what the impact of those allegations will have on military families.
The left loves to tell Americans how much they love and support the military despite being against the war, as was on display once again in the Senate this week, where Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and his friends on the Democratic side of the aisle unsuccessfully tried once again to cut and run in Iraq in the face of increasing progress on all fronts.
But the question should not be about whether McCain is or isn't eligible to run on a potential technicality the left wants to interpret from the writings of the founders. The U.S. base where McCain was born at the time was U.S. territory. The real question is are the Democrats really anti-military enough to essentially indicate to thousand of families sacrificing for and serving this country abroad, at the request of the United States, that part of their sacrifice includes banning their children from aspiring to run for the top job in the land, the same land they are fighting and dying to protect?
Americans may be split on the issue of Iraq. Americans may have differing views of what role our military should have in foreign policy. That's a fair debate. But Americans will not tolerate a political party that penalizes American citizens' future political ambitions because of their parents' active duty military service. And the Times' attempt to sling mud stories week after week is going to eventually sound like the paper that cried wolf.
Many comments at the Blog.....
McCain is covered.
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.