A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue

New York Times ^ | July 11, 2008 | Adam Liptak

[reaganaut1]

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

[justiceseeker93]

Then why did Congress later pass a law giving anyone born in the Canal Zone citizenship?

Just to fill in a gap in case any such person's "natural born" status was questioned. I don't know if any such cases actually arose, since "natural born citizenship" (as opposed to mere citizenship) is probably only relevant in meeting the constitutional requirements to be president.

[nikos1121]

I’ll post this again. It’s from Find Law...

This is the law when McCain was born. I think it’s pretty clear. He was a citizen right from birth meaning naturally born...RIGHT WHEH HE CAME OUT OF THE WOMB...

I’m not sure why there is so much confusion on this.

The confusion is with the other guy. He doesn’t provide a valid birth certificate or even tell us what hospital he was born in...Everything...everything is cloaked in secrecy...

WHy not put your energy in getting Obama to come forth then to jump on the band wagon that doubts McCain birth background.

At the very least, both candidates need to vette this and NOW.

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.

You could also get U.S. citizenship if only one of your parents was a U.S. citizen, as long as that parent lived in the United States at some time. If your U.S. citizenship came from only one parent, you would have been required to reside in the United States for at least two years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain your citizenship. If the one U.S. citizen parent was your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules applied if your father legally legitimated you.

This is from FIND LAW

[Calpernia]

>>>WHy not put your energy in getting Obama to come forth then to jump on the band wagon that doubts McCain birth background.

Excuse me Nikos? I merely gave you a definition of the question that is being defined. What is your problem?

[Calpernia]

I copied the argument in the complaint filed. You can go deliver the map to the author, thank you.

[Yaelle]

Actually, not only because McCain had TWO American parents, but it helps. If a baby is born abroad to ONE American parent and one foreign national, but the American parent fulfills the requirement of a certain number of consecutive years in the USA as an adult, the baby is “born an American” and thus natural born. My son is one of these.

In your Barack Obama example, apparently his mother could not have been 5 years in the USA as an adult (or over the age of 15?) because she had him at 18 or 19. So his birth records really do become significant to determine his eligibility.