Posted on 08/05/2008 7:20:42 AM PDT by pissant
-PJ
Maybe John Dean can tell us.
McCain is a Panamanian citizen, born in Colon in Panama outside the former Zone. Although he may well also be a U S Citizen, he is not a "natural born" citizen under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the Constitution and is thus not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
The Sense of the Senate Resolution to the contrary is all very interesting but it is the kind of direction to the Supreme Court from Congress that the Court usually ignores.
Under the laws of D.C. and fifty states, a nominee for President must sign an official designation of his/her Presidential Electors. Only at that point can anyone in any of those 51 jurisdictions file suit claiming that Obama is not qualified under the US Constitution to be President, and therefore unqualified to sign that designation.
The cases could be in state or federal court, though I would expect federal would be preferred. And there is zero doubt that with up to 51 different cases, there would be two that disagreed. Therefore, the issue would reach the Supreme Court on an accelerated basis to make the mega-decision, either yes he is qualified, or no he is not qualified.
All right now here, sir, your conclusion about absence of a current judicial remedy is in my opinion correct. As I am sure you are aware, there were a number of Federal District Court actions commenced seeking a Mandamus type of remedy to state election officials to require them to decertify the delegates they have certified to the National Convention pledged to McCain on the grounds that he is not eligible. (Someone posted that one of those cases has been dismissed--I have been unable to locate the court file.)
As far as I can determine, although the rest of those cases survive procedural dismissal periods, they have not been pursued--which in McCain's case would be easy to do with a Summary Judgment Motion because there are no facts in dispute. That hasn't happened because in order to affect the delegate count, it would be necessary to pursue most of the cases and win them all. And I assume those cases were filed, not for the purposes of obtaining an adjudication but rather to affect the Credentials Committee.
In my view, similar cases could and should have been filed against Obama and those actions would in fact have presented a "case or controversy" which would get you to the appellate courts. That didn't happen and it is now in my view too late to get a decision in that kind of case.
However, you say "Under the laws of D.C. and fifty states, a nominee for President must sign an official designation of his/her Presidential Electors. Only at that point can anyone in any of those 51 jurisdictions file suit claiming that Obama is not qualified under the US Constitution to be President, and therefore unqualified to sign that designation". It seems to me that at that point, you would still get thrown out on the "no present case or controversy" because the court would say, "well he might not win the election in which case the argument would be moot".
The argument to the contrary would be that you were depriving the voters of the state of the opportunity to vote for an eligible candidate. You might be able to create an original jurisdiction argument (Supreme Court--a case involving an argument between two states) if you could get a Secretary of State of one state to refuse to accept the elector designation and then sue a state that did accept on an Equal Protection theory (Bush v. Gore). Do you know of any legal research that has been done on any of these matters?
I see the argument as resolved before the nomination process is concluded, both as to Obama and Senator McCain. If either one of these guys got elected, every one of their legal acts as president would be subject to challenge in any available District Court on the theory that the act was void because the actor was not "eligible" to hold the office. I doubt that the political establishment is likely to let the argument get that far down the road because it exposes the country to being tied up without executives who can act.
On the other hand, if the argument is not resolved by the political process, and there is post election litigation, one would like to be as prepared as possible.
There isn't any evidence of any nature I know of that he was born in Hawaii--nothing; zip. No birth certificate; no hospital; no doctors.
A bunch of published news reports (the campaign is out busily scrubbing) of interviews with Sarah and two of his half siblings that they were present when he was born in Kenya; the Wayne Madsen update that records of his birth in Kenya have been found (and are now circulating in DC). The missionaries who were returning from Kenya in July 1961 when Stanley Ann was bumped off the flight because of her advanced pregnancy.
BOAC flight schedules for July and August of 1961 are posted on the main thread--the return to the Western US from British Africa in 1961 was from Nairobi through Glaskow to Vancouver BC; connecting in Seattle to Honolulu. The Susan Blake interview was still up last time I looked putting Stanley Ann on Mercer Island in Seattle at a point she still hadn't learned to change diapers which would be early August 1961. Looks like a stopover by Stanley Ann and baby Obama on the way from Kenya to Honolulu to me.
Only argument against is a birth certificate that is a clear fraud.
Didn't you just sign on to Free Republic a couple of days ago?
It's what the statute says. To get federal funds, you got to get the FEC to certify that you are eligible to hold the office.
To be fair, a candidate who can raise more money privately than he can get from the government might not take the federal money--although Obama was adamant throughout the campaign that he would take federal money. However in his case, there are a number of news stories that have the Saudis and the Palestinians trying to buy a President of the US with several hundred million dollars of "campaign contributions" so he gets more money from them than he does from the federal government. All illegal of course but no practical remedy at the moment.
Wow David, thanks for this information. Very interesting indeed.
I wish we could get the word out there that Palestine is contributing to his campaign. Especially since he said yesterday that there WILL be a state of Palestine.
There isn't any evidence you want to accept, but it's there- there is a birth certificate and there are his own statements. Would you expect a hospital to hold records of a birth that occured 40+ years ago? I would be surprised if that was the case. If there is a doctor who was at the birth still alive, I would be surprised if he could remember one birth from the 60's.
A bunch of published news reports (the campaign is out busily scrubbing) of interviews with Sarah and two of his half siblings that they were present when he was born in Kenya; the Wayne Madsen update that records of his birth in Kenya have been found (and are now circulating in DC). The missionaries who were returning from Kenya in July 1961 when Stanley Ann was bumped off the flight because of her advanced pregnancy.
Could you please provide links to these reports, if you have them available?
BOAC flight schedules for July and August of 1961 are posted on the main thread--the return to the Western US from British Africa in 1961 was from Nairobi through Glaskow to Vancouver BC; connecting in Seattle to Honolulu. The Susan Blake interview was still up last time I looked putting Stanley Ann on Mercer Island in Seattle at a point she still hadn't learned to change diapers which would be early August 1961. Looks like a stopover by Stanley Ann and baby Obama on the way from Kenya to Honolulu to me.
I'm really not sure what this is supposed to show. Could you please explain?
Only argument against is a birth certificate that is a clear fraud.
The only evidence we have that the certificate is a fraud is the work of two anonymous bloggers. Why haven't we heard from a Hawaii official if this certificate has been tampered with?
I have a hard time believing that his mother, 9 months pregnant, flew halfway around the world to a 3rd world nation, had a kid, then flew right back. She then proceeded to lie about his birthplace for decades, never telling a soul. Then the next step in the conspiracy is that Obama, knowing he was not eligible for the Presidency, proceeded to roll the dice anyway and run, hoping that no one would ever figure it out.
I have a real tough time buying that narrative.
McCain is not a Panamanian citizen. Very few countries, the US being one of them, grant citizenship solely based on being born in the country.
And McCain is a natural born citizen- he was a citizen at birth due to his parents both being American citizens. His place of birth is wholly irrelevant. There is simply no rational argument that can be made that the child of two American citizens is not a citizen from birth, and therefore not a natural-born citizen.
When a candidate signs the certification for his/her Electoral College delegates, that is an official act which has a factual consequence. As a result, the appropriate number of Electors will become official candidates on the ballot in each jurisdiction. (Under state laws, when you vote for “Smith” for President, you are actually voting for the Electors for Smith for President.)
So, contrary to your conclusion, the issue is ripe for adjudication. The case does NOT have to wait until a candidate wins the election before a decision can be reached.
As for your reference to Bush v. Gore, I wrote one of the 14 briefs in that case. There are no issues common to that case and the present issue.
John / Billybob
The case does NOT have to wait until a candidate wins the election before a decision can be reached.
***But... can we time it so that it gets decided in October? ;-)
It can be done that quickly any time it's needed. Witness Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board, 2000, which went through the Supreme Court twice in two months. Time to act is not a problem in such cases.
BTW, I filed successful Supreme Court briefs in both of those cases, so I know this can be done.
John / Billybob
First of all, welcome to Free Republic.
The only evidence we have that the certificate is a fraud is the work of two anonymous bloggers.
***Note that they’re independent, and at least one of them has credentials up the kazoo. And there are dozens of others who’ve been on the case, so by this time your statement is bogus.
Why haven’t we heard from a Hawaii official if this certificate has been tampered with?
***That statement strikes me as very naive. The first Hawaiian official who says that is going to have his head chopped off by the democratic party operatives over there.
I have a hard time believing that his mother, 9 months pregnant, flew halfway around the world to a 3rd world nation, had a kid, then flew right back.
***Why is that hard to believe? She was young and stupid and probably clung to some hope that she could put this whole thing together if she could just SEE the father. When she realized she had been treated like a piece of meat, she went back home. No woman from our culture wants to be the unmarried concubine of a man who has more than 1 wife already.
She then proceeded to lie about his birthplace for decades, never telling a soul.
***I’ve seen mention of several people in Kenya that have said they saw Obama born there, and his mother probably did tell other souls. She just wouldn’t have told anyone who would have a vested interest in taking his political career down a notch or two. She seemed very well versed in tweaking the immigration system so that her daughter had an american birth certificate, which suggests she was familiar with the process.
Then the next step in the conspiracy is that Obama, knowing he was not eligible for the Presidency, proceeded to roll the dice anyway and run, hoping that no one would ever figure it out.
***That’s not too far from the probable truth. Maybe Obama himself was lied to by his own mother.
I have a real tough time buying that narrative.
***There have been tougher narratives bought by the American public, such as “I never inhaled” and “I didn’t have sex with that woman”.
LOL. Touche.
In your estimation would filing such lawsuits help or hinder a budding young lawyer’s career? Something has to be done to get the MSM to pick up this story.
I'm now out of this kind of work, being an old dog who cannot be retrained.
John / Billybob
Bump.
Senator McCain did not require being "Naturalized", therefore he is a natural born U.S. citizen.
My daughter was born on Portuguese Air Base No. 4 (Lajes Field) but obtained a Certificate of Live Birth Abroad from the U.S. State Department. At no point was she a foreigner. The only thing we told to do when we returned to the ConUS was register her birth with the State of Georgia.
I’m going to weigh in on this as my daughter and son-in-law are both employed overseas in a U.S. embassy with the U.S. state department. My daughter herself with her job deals with citizenship and visa requirements. She pointed me to the section regarding citizenship. As you can imagine this comes up frequently with those U.S. citizens serving our country abroad in foreign service.
According to the State Department “A child born abroad to two U.S. married citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.”
This was further ammended by congress to insure “natural born” status for those children whose U.S. Citizen parents are employed either in the military or foreign service for the U.S. government. This would be the case for John McCain as his parents were serving in the military in the canal zone in 1936.
In addition regarding McCain, under Section 303 of the INA it states: “SEC. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403]
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Its important to remember the the canal zone prior to 1999 was U.S. TERRITORY.
Therefore its my understanding both legally and within our own gov’s state deparment that even if McCain were born outside the military base in 1936, he was STILL BORN IN U.S. TERRITORY. Even if that is challenged he is still natural born because his parents were in the military while living in Panama. Thus he is natural born in every aspect and qualifies to be President.
To suggest otherwise, is to penalize all children of U.S. military personnel or government workers serving within the foreign service and deny them the right to serve their country in political office. That would be absurd. You would be in effect saying, “You can serve your country in the military, but if you give birth, your child won’t have all the same rights as you!”
McCain’s qualifications to be President is settled as far as I’m concerned because my daughter maintains that birth certificates issued for the children born overseas to married foreign service personnel will state ‘natural born’ citizen!
Of course this does not apply to Obama if he were born in Kenya. Even though his mother was a citizen his father was not, there is the real possibility he was born out of wedlock due to Dad Obama having another wife, and a whole new set of rules apply when one is born out of wedlock PLUS the addition of a non-U.S. citizen parent in the mix. There is also the possibility that when adopted by Soetoro his U.S. citizenship was voluntarily forfeited in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship which is another can of worms.
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.