Posted on 09/28/2009 9:46:05 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Yesterday, Public Policy Polling released results of a poll showing that 42 percent of Republicans nationwide do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. This sort of statistic has become old news by now. Despite overwhelming evidence that the president was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen, a core of Americans remain convinced he was born overseas.
But with pollsters frantically trying to get in on the birther action, has anyone stopped to ask whether Sen. John McCain was born in the United States? McCain was actually born in Panama, but is considered a natural-born citizen, since he was born to an American military family stationed on a U.S. base. And, except for perhaps a small fringe, no one has questioned whether he would have been constitutionally qualified to be president.
We've poked around a bit and been unable to find any professional poll that asked Americans whether they believed McCain was born in the U.S. The fact that he was physically born outside the U.S. should have had no bearing on his own legitimacy, real or perceived, had he been elected president. But it would be interesting to see how many of the people who believe, incorrectly, that Obama was born outside the U.S. realize that McCain actually was not.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.newsweek.com ...
Just because I'm not a Birther that doesn't make Obama my hero. Another one of the many weird Birther theories I spoke of.
Nope, that is not the document Hawaii provides now when you request a copy of your birth certificate. The document you get now when you pay your fee, is the one Obama has already provided.
Where did you get that definition???
Depends on the definition of "on US soil", does it not? Or is that "in the country"? (the latter is the Vattel "Law of Nations" terminology, at least in English translations).
From Why For McCain But Not For Obama? by Mario Apuzzo:
According to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” E. Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature. Sec. 215-217. Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country. Hence, it can be argued that McCain is a “natural born Citizen” under federal common law that emanated from the law of nations which had its source in natural law, as described by Vattel and all of which the Framers accepted as our federal common law during the Founding.
If a court would find that this is the case, it would certainly be Good News to those serving the Republic outside it's borders.
His mother says he was born on base. The birth announcement in the local English Language newspaper, Panamanian American says he was born on the "submarine base". A Washington Times reporter, Michael Dobbs , who says he saw the actual birth certificate, rather than one of the two more or less obvious forgeries floating around on the net, indicates it says JSM-III was born on the base. Dobbs also verified that the Navy doctor whose signature is on that document, Captain W. L. Irvine was actually stationed at the Coco Solo Naval base in 1936. Although from the argument in my previous post, it would not matter.
I've gone back and forth on this issue, but I had not seen the additional information from "Law of Nations" until today.
True. In fact, before there were Obama "birthers" there was talk about whether McCain really was eligible for the presidency.
In September 2008, the Michigan Law Review did an issue on whether John McCain could legally become president. At that point, I don't know if they even acknowledged the potential controversy concerning Obama.
There are pages and pages of "indications". You just dismiss them.
That $10? It gets you the birth certificate you just dismissed.
But when this all began, that $10 would get you a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth, but you had to specifically ask for it, and it would take longer to get. It's only since mid summer that they say they will not issue the certified copies, and will only provide the abstract version. That is well documented.
Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401 > Paragraph c of the U.S. Code.
Those parents, or generally the father, are serving the country, even though outside of it. Vattel's law of Nations apparently has an "exception" to the normal rules for persons serving the country outside it's borders.
I left out the quote and section, it's 5 sections down from the "natural born" definition.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
I seem to remember something about that in the "Wong Kim Ark" case, where it was stipulated that Wong's parents were not in the service of the Emperor of China. ... Yep, part of the stipulated facts.
That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.
That pretty much implies that if they had been, then Wong would have been a subject of that Emperor, not a US citizen imder the 14th amendment, as the Supreme Court found him to be, due to his birth in the US, "subject to it's jurisdiction".
I do not see the words "natural born" anywhere in that paragraph, no in the whole of section 1401.. Paragraph c reads.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...
(c) 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;
So such persons are citizens at birth, declared so under Congress power to define an uniform rule of naturalization.
You mean "Wong Kim Ark". But Wong was declared to be a citizen, under the 14th amendment, due to his birth in the US. He was not declared to be a Natural Born citizen.
No, it depends on what the Constitution and federal law says. And the U.S. Supreme Court. Not Vattel.
Then of course you can point out what does define 'natural-born citizen'.
So such persons are citizens at birth, declared so under Congress power to define an uniform rule of naturalization.
Citizens at birth and natural-born citizens are synonymous.
More importantly, so does federal law. But are you saying that if federal law said such persons were not natural-born citizens you would insist that they were? Because Vattel said so?
Those are very likely forgeries, declared so by the same person, Polarik, who analyzed the 'bama COLB images and found them wanting. The long form "certificate" was supposedly issued by the Hospital in Colon, while the short form comes from the Panama Canal Commission. Did it every occur to folks to ask why the PCC would be issuing a BC for someone not born in the Zone? The Long form is an obvious fake, some of the printing "wipes out" the line it's printed on, rather than just overwriting it. (the line is not visible under the text). The short form, supposedly issued by the PCC, shows the birth in Colon, *outside the Canal Zone*, and appears to use the exact same rattan background as the fake Obama COLB. I guess it's possible that the PCC would be using the same paper in 1980 as Hawaii was in 2007. Seems kinda unlikely though. But again, why would the PCC issue a BC for someone not born in the Canal Zone?
Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence to indicate McCain was born on the Coco Solo Submarine base. See post 106
Where "Now" is defined as after early July of 2009. Prior to that time, and possibly still, you could get a certified copy of the long form, Certificate of Live Birth (or other source document), but you had to specifically ask for it, and it would take longer to get than the computer generated Certification of Live Birth.
“I was also born in a territory of the US in 1949, and am a natural born US citizen. My parents were both American citizens as were McCain’s”
My cousin was born in France to a USAF Sargent in the late 50’s in a civilian hospital. It nearly cost him an appointment to the Air Force Academy. After legal wrangling it was determined he could not qualify to ever run for president. The ruling was, he was not born on a military reservation and it did not qualify as US soil, even though my uncle was stationed there.
I rather equate the birthers with the truthers. Both sides have their nut fringe. But the truther nuts require a special kind of bat-guano conspiratorial loonyness!
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.