[El Gato]

The problem of eligibility for Senator John McCain is open to examination. McCain was born, not in the United States, but in Coco Solo, Panama, to US Citizens, while his father served in the U.S. Navy. No foreign military bases existed when the U.S. Constitution was drafted and ratified; however, its authors’ distaste for foreign intervention is made explicit in their writings. By their words, it would seem unlikely they meant ‘natural born citizen’ to have a connotation other than persons born on U.S. soil. The phrase “natural born” appeared in early drafts of the Constitution. Its origin is a letter from John Jay to George Washington, where Jay suggests that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution need declare expressly that only a natural born citizen could be president:

You blew your hole case. Under both common and statue laws of England, anyone born of two British subjects outside the realm was considered "natural born", even if only the father were a British Subject, under the statue law the child was a "natural born subject".

That was pretty much the standard in most countries, although some required both parents to be subjects/citizens if not born in the country. But few granted, or grant today, that status to people merely born in the country, but of alien parents. But England did, and the US does.

If Obama was born outside the US and possessions, he does not meet the criteria, since his father was a British Subject,. He also was not a citizen at birth, because his mother did not meet the requirements of the law in effect at that time.

[TCH]

“...some required both parents to be subjects/citizens if not born in the country. But few granted, or grant today, that status to people merely born in the country, but of alien parents. But England did, and the US does.”

WRONG. READ the ENTIRE post! Reading comprehension is a great thing. NOWHERE in US Statutory Law will you find a proclamation that unites “natural born” to “citizen” where the individual is NOT born ON United States sovereign soil. It cannot be legitimately done.

There is a difference between native born on US soil to US citizens, and born on foreign soil to US citizens. Statutory law recognizes this distinction, AND for good reason has NEVER EFFECTED a change to what DEFINES “natural born.” The US Constition MUST be ammended to effect such a change.

Statutory Law can make anyone a “citizen” BY circumstance of birth, when specific criteria are met; BUT Statutory Law CANNOT make an individual a “natural born citizen,” to wit: born ON United States sovereign soil AT birth, if, in fact, that person is not so born.

The Panama Canal Zone was not sovereign US soil… it was LEASED by Panama to the United States, not ceded to the United States. If not U.S. sovereign soil, then not “natural born,” period.

Don’t like it? Change the Constitution.