Replies

2. May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941

If you were born between May 25, 1934 and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one lived in the United States before you were born. You didn’t have to do anything special to keep your U.S. citizenship.

This is addressed to the McCain issue?

No doubt McCain is a citizen. Question is whether he is a "natural born" citizen under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the U S Constitution. Although there is disagreement, the usual consensus among the Constitutional lawyers is that he is not because the usual interpretation view is that "natural born" means born in the geographical U S.

I have addressed this issue several times and set out in detail the analysis that gets to that result--I urge you to read it.

That analysis is certainly not a "final word"--the courts might get to a contrary result.

My own predictions about the outcome as to McCain is affected by the pendency of the issue with respect to Obama. If a legal attack is mounted with respect to Obama (there are cases pending in several district courts challenging McCain; none challenging Obama yet as far as I know); existence of challenges to both will occasion a more careful examination of the issue with respect to McCain and in that environment, a political decision would likely disqualify both.

There are only two types of citizens- natural-born and naturalized. No other type of category exists. You are proposing the existence of someone who is an American citizen at birth, but not a "natural born" citizen. That is a completely illogical creation. John McCain was not naturalized, he is qualified to be President.

I'm curious why you think "the usual consensus among the Constitutional lawyers is that he is not." Do you have some backup for this?

you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth McCain, is a natural born citizen...It was given to him at birth. I don't see how he could be considered otherwise. In fact, he were not given natural citizenship then there are virtually millions of AMerican who were born on Army bases who should not be considered citizens. Obama, if he were born in Kenya, is different. It's like apples and oranges. McCain has also hidden nothing. Obama, continues to stonewall the issue. Either way, I agree with you, that this needs to be addressed in the courts soon.

...among the Constitutional lawyers is that he is not because the usual interpretation view is that "natural born" means born in the geographical U S.

The original interpretation was that you are "born in the USA geographically" to be considered a natural born citizen. That has been modified over the years, as has been shown on this forum. McCain or Obama may be deemed natural born citizens even if they were not born on USA soil.

So I fail to see where you're coming from with the idea that there is a usual consensus among constitutional attorneys, (Like Obama?) that you have to be born on USA soil. Can you show me your source?

“No doubt McCain is a citizen. Question is whether he is a “natural born” citizen under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the U S Constitution.”

Since one can aquire US citizen only as either natural-born citizen or via naturalization, and McCain was never naturalized from another country, he is a natural-born US citizen.

“Although there is disagreement, the usual consensus among the Constitutional lawyers is that he is not because the usual interpretation view is that “natural born” means born in the geographical U S.”

Again with that canard. No, that’s *not* the usual interpretation, it’s an incorrect interpretation that most legal experts reject handily. ‘Natural-born citizen’ in English common law was a citizen at birth. see previous cites. Natural-born citizen in 1790 law was equated to citizen at birth. Explicit laws that extend citizenship at birth beyond citizen based on place-of-birth have been in place since before our country was founded.

“A far more logical and reasonable meaning, however, is one who became a citizen naturally, through the circumstances of birth, and not through being naturalized, the lengthy and onerous process by which aliens become United States citizens.” -Kresge

This is why the 1790 law was written thusly:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. —First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

Now why would the FIRST LAW on this matter EXPLICITLY refer to ‘natural born citizens’ who acquire citizenship from being born ‘beyond the sea’ if natural-born means born on US soil only? It’s an absolute and utter contradiction.
Clearly, the members of Congress, many of whom WROTE the Constitution, had in their original intent to mean natural-born citizen to equate to those who were citizens at birth, where-ever they were born.