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 ...
I probably participated in that thread, and was wrong. I had not read section 217 of Law of Nations. If we are to accept the LoN defintion of natural born in section 212, we pretty much ought to accept the "exception" in section 217, don't you think?
You are clueless as to Natural Born status vis a vis USA citizenship ....
The way to figure that one out is to ask yourself, Would a baby born to locals on the American base be a US citizen via the 14th Amendment? If the answer is "yes", then the base is American soil. If not, then not.
McCain's citizenship status is because of his parents, not where he was born.
where’s the conspiracy in asking a question?
Actually, military bases are considered Amreican soil re birth — my brother was born on one in the 1960s.
Citizen at birth and natural-born citizen are one and the same. The Constitution identifies only two ways of acquiring citizenship - natural born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other. This if further confirmed by the fact that nothing in the Constitution or Federal law defines what a natural-born citizen is and how that differs from a citizen at birth. If there is a difference then there should be a definition somewhere, right?
NO the established place, i.e. “Base” means nothing. Many small bases and military units over seas do not have facilities. Few realize it, but there are a lot of military bases CONUS that do not have medical facilities either. That is what CHAMPUS was/is for. The military member that serves where medical care is not available has CHAMPUS as the backup option. CHAMPUS provides payor responsibilities to the civilian community when care is not available. The parameter was a 25 mile radius without a military org. with full medical facilities.
Stationed at NAS Dallas we did not have a base hospital. We fell under CHAMPUS guidelines ... but we chose to use Carswell (a 40 mile drive) instead. Beat the hell out of more paperwork.
And our oldest daughter was born in Cebu .. she is a Natural U.S. Citizen, NO discrepancey about that at all.
“In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html
I suggest you learn for yourself what did or did not actually happen. Period.
So sayeth Lord High Justice Faucetman? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I could also say that comments made in dicta are not binding as precedent.
Incorrect. Federal law cannot overturn a Constitutional definition, i.e. it could not rewite the defintion of treason or make the minimum age that one can become President 22. But where the Constitution does not define the term then federal law or court decisions must.
Federal law does not make an exception for those outside the country serving the county. What is does is define persons born outside the country to any two citizen parents as citizens, or with more limitations, even those with only one citizen parent.But of course those are statutory citizens, not 14th amendment or natural born citizens.
Actually it does. It defines such persons as citizens at birth, which is synonymous with natural-born citizen.
I highly doubt Congress would ever pass such a law, anyway For one thing, Vattel and the various court cases favorably citing "Law Of Nations", would be brought up, and it would be argued that such a law would be unconstitutional.
And Blackstone could be brought up in arguing such a law is. Or, more likely, prior Supreme Court cases would be used as justification one way or the other. The matter would not rest solely on Vattel.
But, in the absence of a such a statutory exemptions for citizenship of person's not born in the US, such as have existed since 1790, yes I would argue that Vattel was the understood meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and thus of one category of citizen.
And I would argue that Blackstone is just as valid in his definition of natural-born citizen.
I guess you felt it necessary to post this twice.
Now, who is the fool?
That's nice.
The only BC of his I can recall seeing shows his place of birth as Colón Panama.
Although curiosity says it's fake, McCain has never repudiated it.
curiosity? can you provide a "genuine" McCain BC?
Not that it much matters to me. Born on the base or on the economy, either way he wasn't born on US soil.
Suppose he had been born in Honduras? That would color any decisions or comments he made on Zelaya's attempt to seize power and install himself as el Presidenté-for-life in direct violation of the Honduran constitution. The same would apply if Panama's president tried to pull a fast one.
An American president must be free of any hint of divided loyalties, affiliations or affinities.
I suppose one could argue that 0bama fits that bill as he seems to have no loyalty or affinity for anything American, and has undivided affiliations with every enemy of America.
He is pure. Purely an enemy...
Think again dreamer, the sense of the senate resolution settles nothing, it is not law, nor does it purport to be. It is an opinion, just like yours, and is equally wrong.
My point was that it wasn't just some “fringe” movement interested in the subject as it pertains to John McCain; my point was that the subject received a full Congressional attention.
What you think it means you can sort out for yourself itsaloon, but let us not try to pretend that no Congressional attention was paid to this matter and that it was only a lunatic fringe interested in McCain's eligibility.
It was forged and submitted into evidence by the plaintiff in a court case challenging McCain's eligibility.
Although curiosity says it's fake, McCain has never repudiated it.
Well, he has stated that he was born on the base, so he has directly contradicted the information on that BC.
He also privately showed his real BC to a Washington Post reporter, who confirmed on the record that McCain's BC says he was born on the base.
(N.B.: McCain has never made any images of his BC available to the public).
Not that it much matters to me. Born on the base or on the economy, either way he wasn't born on US soil.
Well, my understanding is that the canal zone at the time was US territory.
At any rate, McCain never had to be naturalized, and there are only two types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. So if he's citizen at all, he must be natural born.
Source please?
Those are the only two types of citizen mentioned in the Constitution.
Count me in.
I just wanted to say that I completely agree with you on the eligibility issue. I’ve spent alot of time on Leo’s site and many others. I really don’t get how people don’t get the split allegiance concerns of the founders. No dual citizenships need apply to be our president. They are disqualified. We need the SCOTUS take this case.
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.