• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

will McCain's elegibility for POTUS be challenged in court?

FoBoT

FoBoT

No Lifer
the US Constitution says:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Click to expand...

McCain was born to US citizens on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, so is he a "natural born citizen" ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...f=politics&oref=slogin

The phrase ?natural born? was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to ?declare expressly? that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications ? a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be ?unpredictable and unsatisfactory.?
Click to expand...

i wonder if anyone will try to file a suit to bring this to the SCOTUS and if they do, will they wait until after the election?
 
Great, now if McCain wins in November, all we will hear on ATPN for 4 or 8 years is "McCain is an illegal president" or something along those lines.
 
No one will file, no one will pursue it, and if they did they would lose. I guarantee it. There's just no way that an American child born to American parents on an American military base isn't going to be considered natural born.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
No one will file, no one will pursue it, and if they did they would lose. I guarantee it. There's just no way that an American child born to American parents on an American military base isn't going to be considered natural born.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Didn't the NYT times know this when they endorsed him?

Didn't they know it when he ran in 2000?

Wonder where the story was then?

Just earning that fishwrap nickname, I guess.

McCain is obviously eligible and the NYT knows it.

More readers turn away...
 
8 U.S.C. § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, 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 chapter, 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.
 
Even as a partisan democrat, I hope no one will assert that McCain is not a natural born US citizen. I believe the canal zone, at the time of John McCain's birth, was technically part of the US in any event. And because McCain's father was serving in the US armed forces and a citizen of the US, such a niggling enforcement of a vague and untested clause of the constitution would be highly discriminatory against US citizens doing government service outside of the strict boundaries of the USA. Should we ask the females in such families expecting a child to rush back to the USA to give birth on the small but finite chance that their child may later become the POTUS?

Hopefully, and on a bi partisan basis, the door will forever be slammed on that kind of foolishness.

And while I was writing this, I see LTC8K6 resolved that law question about Panama, but it should be extended to all other nations in the case of government service.
 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
8 U.S.C. § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, 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 chapter, 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.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't if he's a citizen or not, it's if he was natural born. So.. that doesn't actually clear things up any.

Regardless, it won't be an issue as per my previous post.
 
It's cleared up. It was cleared up long ago.

He was born of 2 American citizen parents serving with the US military in the Canal Zone.

The NYT is just trying to lose the last of it's subscribers.
 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
"or a citizen of the United States"

He's a citizen.

It's cleared up.
Click to expand...

The operative part was "a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution".

He's a citizen, but you could argue (stupidly) that he was not natural born.
 
The part about the time of the adoption of the constitution was put in for people who had been born before there was a constitution, like George Washington.
 
To play the devils advocate in a position I don't believe in, its still the courts who can declare any such laws unconstitutional. Congress can make laws but cannot make laws that conflict with the constitution. So the courts would still be the final arbiter in such a dispute and it could take many years to get the final word from the SC.

But because the congressional law says McCain is a natural born citizen, he has a green light to run and the burden of court results is on the nay sayers.

But since this question has now come up, I think it would be best if the SC rules and forever puts this type of foolishness to a final end.
 
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: eskimospy
He's a citizen, but you could argue (stupidly) that he was not natural born.
Click to expand...

Unnaturally born? Did he come out the wrong hole or something?
Click to expand...

If you were born the citizen of another country but later gained US citizenship you would not be a natural born citizen. There might be some controversy if you were fired out of someone's ass as well though, yes.

LTC8K6, yes that's true. What I was saying was that the "or a citizen..." part didn't apply to McCain because even as old as he is, he wasn't around when the constitution was written up.
 
McCain is a natural born citizen and there is really no question about it.

Attempts to redefine the term for McCain alone are not going to go over well.
 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
It's cleared up. It was cleared up long ago.

He was born of 2 American citizen parents serving with the US military in the Canal Zone.

The NYT is just trying to lose the last of it's subscribers.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to say that it was some sort of hit piece against McCain? Jesus, talk about seeing what you want to see.

Nobody is trying to redefine anything... are you just searching for something to get angry or take umbrage at?
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
"or a citizen of the United States"

He's a citizen.

It's cleared up.
Click to expand...

The operative part was "a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution".

He's a citizen, but you could argue (stupidly) that he was not natural born.
Click to expand...

No only you could argue that....
 
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
"or a citizen of the United States"

He's a citizen.

It's cleared up.
Click to expand...

The operative part was "a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution".

He's a citizen, but you could argue (stupidly) that he was not natural born.
Click to expand...

No only you could argue that....
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? Eskimospy has already said that he doesn't believe in the argument and doesn't believe it would hold up. That doesn't mean there isn't a technicality present that provides room for debate among those interested in debating it.

Obviously he's not the only one that could argue that since the New York Times has published a story about it, and others have argued about it for a while as well.
 
He has to have been born in U.S. territory. It's why Arnold can't run.

Obviously, no one is worried McCain will become an anti-U.S. agent, which was the whole purpose of this language being included in the Constitution in the first place.
 
I suppose if a court found him unworthy, it could be moved through congress and only a foolish senator would risk his reputation by voting for an ammendment to make it clear that mccain would be eligible, so this is a non-issue, really.
 
The first time I heard of this stupidness was from conservative talk show hosts trying to scare people into voting for Romney. Specifically JD Hayworth, former (R) Dbag US Representative from AZ was using it. He claimed it was a legitimate concern lol.


My daughter was born in the Panama Canal Zone on Howard A.F.B. and she is definitely a natural born US citizen.
 
I know with U.S. Embassies they are sovereign U.S. terrority (even if the land is leased from the host country)... I do believe this holds true with military bases as well.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I suppose if a court found him unworthy, it could be moved through congress and only a foolish senator would risk his reputation by voting for an ammendment to make it clear that mccain would be eligible, so this is a non-issue, really.
Click to expand...

If they do look at it, I hope they don't just do it for McCain. I hope they take a hard, longview of the issue and come up with a modern solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top