John McCain's Panama Canal Birth Raises Constituitional Questions, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 28-2-2008 @ 09:01 AM by grover

John McCain's Panama Canal Birth Raises Constituitional Questions


www.nytimes.com
McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

By CARL HULSE
Published: February 28, 2008
WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 09:18 AM by ThichHeaded



reply posted on 29-2-2008 @ 08:40 AM by apc
reply to post by grover


About what? The fact that he is an admitted traitor or that he probably isn't disqualified from the office because of his place of birth? I can only hope I'm wrong about his disqualification. I would rejoice if this is the issue that brings that scum bag down. He deserves to live what life he has left in prison.


reply posted on 29-2-2008 @ 08:42 AM by grover
reply to post by apc



The admitted traitor. I have never heard that allegation before.


reply posted on 29-2-2008 @ 01:50 PM by Sublime620
reply to post by apc



While that was off topic, I found that much more compelling. He was born on a military base, it's a non-issue. However, actions as a POW and more importantly, in Congress to cover it up, are fair game.


reply posted on 29-2-2008 @ 02:04 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by apc



Your posts have been starred

I FULLY agree!

About the topic at hand, though: I think it can go both ways. He was naturally born to citizens of the United States, so that could be represented as a natural born citizen.

Then again, natural born citizen can be represented as natural born within the 50 states. Panama isn't a state, nor is our military base. Most military bases are leased and aren't permanent, at least to my knowledge. That makes this technically Panama land.

His birth certificate reads Panama. He was born in Panama. Panama isn't a part of the United States. And he's a corrupt bastard. So I vote no on him being eligible. Unfortunately that and 50 cents will get me a newspaper because it doesn't matter what I vote.


reply posted on 29-2-2008 @ 02:11 PM by dbates
So if your mom is born and raised in Mexico and she swims across the Rio Grande illegally and gives birth to you on the Texas side, you can be President cause you're "Born here". But then if your father is an admiral in the U.S. Navy, serving his country in a foriegn land you're not an American because you're not "born here". What kind of messed up logic is that?


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
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


But what is a "natural born Citizen"? It doesn't exactly say in this part of the Constitution. That's left open for Congress to decide. It's spelled out exactly in law.


Title 8 of the U.S. Code

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 the law is quite clear in this manner. The thought that an American serving honorably in the U.S. military would loose some of his rights, such as having his offspring not being citizens, is detestable. If anything, members of the military have extra privlidges that normal citizens do not have. Yes, they do actually. Read section G of the same law and you'll see that extended citizenship privlidges are given to the children of citizens who are serving in the armed forces. The extension is so great as to extend citizenship to even children from unwed couples where one is a military member serving abroad and the other is not a U.S. citizen.

Basically, if one of your parents is in the U.S. military, you could be born on the moon and be a citizen of the United States.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by dbates]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 3 days ago with 81 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 15 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 3 days ago with 48 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 9 days ago with 37 member flags