Leo, of course it has not been adjudicated, notwithstanding two law suits and a half dozen or more Congressional hearings, but here is the gist of what Arizona Professor Gabriel Chin's analysis explained: In 1936 the Canal Zone was one of a few regions used by our government for which a sovereignty agreement had not been signed. The agreement is like a treaty, and must have Congressional approval. It was, apparently, an oversight, and such an agreement was granted in 1937. Thus the evidence that McCain was not even born in the Canal Zone, the base being dependent upon the Colon Hospital just outside the boundary of the Canal Zone, and, by the birth certificate which was provided during one of McCain's eligibility law suits, the place of his birth, is moot.
This is an issue Congress had thought about before, passing a Naturalization Act of 1790, which made foreign born children of US citizens reputed natural born citizens. But that act was entirely withdrawn in 1795 and the term "natural born citizen" replaced with "citizen". At this time there was no "Uniform naturalization code" as the Constitution had assigned congress to create. The only citizen defined by the Constitution was a natural born citizen, a responsibility the framers probably felt too important and too urgent to leave to the legislature. Congress didn't get around to creating their first citizens until 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment. Before that citizens were defined, often using different criteria, by each state legislature. The definitions for different classes of citizens are always changing, but the defintion for a natural born citizen has never been amended or re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. Minor v. Happersett made the Vattel definition into precedent, but the Vattel definition was used in a dozen or more cases before Minor v. Happersett, and in over two dozen after 1874. There is no doubt.
This does not require analysis of "Photoshopped" copies of birth certificates or conjecture about Kenyan relatives. Those were intended distractions. Obama told us he is not a natural born citizen, knowing that with McCain as an opponent, and a captive media, no questions about the law would be allowed, or answered. That code of silence is being honored by most legislators today. The only legislator to defy that code was Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal, who was run out of government by Democrats. Deal is now Georgia's governor, where questions about eligibility are at least being given a hearing.
Some confirmation of the understanding by lawmakers of McCain's deficiency is the Obama/McCaskill (Obama campaign committee chairwoman) bill “To Make foreign-born children of military citizens eligible to the presidency.” To try to pass a law to correct an injury which isn't an injury makes no sense. Dems were frantically working all the angles to insure that McCain would be their opposition. The young attorney at Kirkland and Ellis who submitted the paper 2006 paper to the Chicago Kent Law Review “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement...” was working for McCain defense lawyer and Kirkland senior partner, Christopher Landau. (I have read, though can't find substantiation, that Kirkland's Landau was paid for by George Soros, who certainly provided financial support to McCain related to McCain-Feingold).
Personally, I would approve of an amendment, but don't approve of simply ignoring a Constitutional provision because it seems unjust in the face of McCain's service. It isn't hard to imagine why our framers limited the presidency to natural born citizens. Someone born overseas, albeit to citizens, could spend his entire youth in a different country, living under its laws, but come to live here for 14 years and reach the age of 35, still controlled by bonds to the foreign place of his birth. Some, like Marco Rubio, can be born here of parents who intend to naturalize. The requirements for the presidency were not then subject to our fair employment opportunity laws. The intention was to protect the nation, and, until we, Democrats and Republicans, chose to ignore the Constitution, it had not interfered with our political choices (though it almost did with the Hughes-Wilson election in 1916, where Hughes, perhaps a better choice, was not a natural born citizen). Article II Section 1 eliminates many who might have served as wonderful presidents, but it would have eliminated someone who clearly does not have allegiance to our principles, born to an alien father who was decidedly against the guiding principles of our Constitution.
McCain's ineligibility is certainly germain, but not nearly so important as helping citizens to understand the certainty of our laws. That doesn't mean that courts will deal honestly with the Constitution. Owning General Motors is certainly not an enumerated power. But anyone interested in an exhaustive analysis of Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark, the cases most cited when discussing what the law is, should read Leo Donofrio's Amicus Brief. Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have shown that there are still honorable attorneys. The thoroughly Alinskyed Orly Taitz has taken another valuable approach by exploring the clues left by Obama as he has lived on the edge of the law for much of his life. Read Minor v. Happersett with Leo Donofrio's guidance. Minor is as readable as Wong Kim Ark is obtuse. Donofrio has disected both of them. And Mario Apuzzo has written dozens of historical essays leading up to having the Supreme Court refuse to hear his case with Col. Kerchner. naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com and puzo1.blogspot.com are, with rxsid's thread on the meaning of natural born citizen here at FR, great sources for analysis for anyone wishing to dig deeper.