RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States; Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:
Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘nat2 ural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Con3 stitution of the United States.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:18 Apr 28, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR511.RS SR511 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Correct, because they rejected any clause that would have broadened the scope of NB status that the Senator was attempting to inject into SR511.
Three problems here: The oblique reference to Socialist Roger Calero, who is not even a citizen of any kind; the contention that John McCain was born on a base in the Canal Zone, when his birth certificate clearly shows he was born in Colon, Republic Of Panama; and the strange assumption that this Resolution can determine Constitutional issues without adjudication. This would represent a usurpation of powers reserved to the Judiciary branch by the Legislative branch.