Can McCain legally be President?

[RecycleMichael]

Not just anyone can be President, each candidate must be a natural-born U.S. citizen.

McCain was born in the then U.S. controlled Panama Canal.

How can he be President?

[sgrizzle]

If his parents were american citizens at the time, then he is considered natural born, regardless of physical locale.

Hank Hill ran into this same problem with his Texas citizenship.

[RecycleMichael]

This from wikipedia...

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

This was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case as a form of naturalization. The Dred Scott case, however, was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is some debate over whether other persons with citizenship can also be considered citizens by birth, or whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized".

Current US statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," as opposed to citizens by birth. One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen.

According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is herefore "naturalized." Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

[sgrizzle]

This from the gubmint:

1) CHILD BORN ABROAD TO TWO AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS



A Child born outside of the United States or its outlying possessions to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States, is entitled to citizenship provided one of the two parents had, prior to the birth of the child, been resident in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. (No specific period of time is required.)

[cannon_fodder]

OMG!!!one!!11!!eleven

Obama was born in Hawaii, he is Hawaiian and not a natural-born US citizen:
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C1126750129/E20080215214658/index.html

Do you really believe this argument RM or are you just having fun?  If you really believe it then you are grasping for straws my friend.  He was born to citizen parents serving the US government on territory controlled by the US.   You would honestly argue against such a person being considered a natural US Citizen?  Really, there is no merit to this argument and it is propagated by people who have no background, research nor knowledge in this area.

The Washington Post covered this story in 1998 and concluded "he shouldn't have is any question about his eligibility to be president."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm

As much as I wish I could cite Wikipedia as my authority, I think I'll go with the US Code and Cornell University on this one:

The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution as well as doctrine of Congress have decreed that it is Congress duty to pass laws pertaining to citizenship and underlying classes and criteria in that regard; and they have done so.

quote:The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.

Act of Congress March 26, 1790.  Chapter 1, 103. Available at http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=nonestatnum:1_103

More specifically, there are 8 categories of persons considered natural-born citizens:
1) Born in the incorporated territory of the United States
2) A person born to a Native American tribe
3) a person born outside the United States of citizen parents one of whom has been resident in the United States
4) Born to a citizen parent who has lived in the US and one parent who is a non-citizen national
5) Born to a citizen parent who was a resident of the US for 1 year
6) Born to a citizen who has been a resident of the US or outlying area for 1 year prior
7) Unknown parents found in the US under the age of 5
Born outside to a citizen parent and lives in the US for 10 years (can lose if leave for 5)

Cornell Law "Naturalization and Citizenship," subsection "Categories of Citizens: Birth and Naturalization," page 270, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag62_user.html . Citations and case law available in footnotes.

John McCain was born to two citizen parents who had been residents of the United States.  He is therefor considered a natural citizen and thus fully eligible for the office of The Presidency.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[RecycleMichael]

Obama was born in 1961 and Hawaii had been a state for two years already.

Are your facts about natural citizens (as opposed as naturalized) not challengable?

Could a strict constitutionalist like Supreme Court Justice Scalia interpret this otherwise?

[rwarn17588]

They tried the same malarkey with Barry Goldwater because he was born in Arizona -- before it became a state.

Fortunately, nearly all the American people gave this "controversy" the attention it deserved.

Crickets.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Obama was born in 1961 and Hawaii had been a state for two years already.

Are your facts about natural citizens (as opposed as naturalized) not challengable?

Could a strict constitutionalist like Supreme Court Justice Scalia interpret this otherwise?

You can challenge it if you're bored, but it's been hashed over for hundreds of years already. Why must we flog the deceased equine?

[Conan71]

Happens with the military all the time.  There are a lot of military brats born in Germany who are American citizens.

One of my friends was born in Ireland, one parent is Irish, the other a U.S. Citizen.  He has dual citizenship.  Quite legal and yes, he'd be eligible for elected office.

You are sounding a little desperate.

[cannon_fodder]

RM, my blip about Obama was clearly tongue in cheek.  

And yes, everything can be challenged.   You'd lose and waste millions of dollars, but you could challenge it if you wanted.  Actually no, you probably would not lose millions as it would get denied at the district level and probably not even picked up on appeal.  So just several thousand dollars.

Frankly

quote:The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States

is not open to that much interpretation.  Unless the court wanted to take the power to dictate citizenship away from Congress and over rule about 2 centuries of case law - it can not realistically be challenged.

I'll back up

MACKENZIE v. HARE, 239 U.S. 299 (1915) (available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=239&invol=299), a woman had her citizenship challenged.  It was, in part, a direct challenge based on the Constitution arguing that laws pertaining to citizenship are "beyond the authority of Congress."   That question is answered in the negative, as the Court not only concedes the authority to Congress by utilizes it's laws to come to a conclusion.

Thus, Congress is that which gets to set citizenship tests, status, and rules.

Congress went on to pass 8 US 1401 (available at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html), the latest incarnation in a string of similar laws - this one taking effect in 1952.  Among list, as I pointed out above, is the following:

quote:The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
. . .
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

So:

1) The Constitution is the Supreme Authority of the land
2) It is interpreted by the Supreme Court
3) The Supreme Court has decreed that matters of immigration are the domain of Congress
4) Congress has passed laws that validate John McCain as a natural-born citizen.

Seriously, this issue is dead.