It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John McCain's Panama Canal Birth Raises Constituitional Questions

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

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)




posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Now wouldn't that be interesting.

The article goes on to point out that McCain was born at a U.S. military base but that the issue has never been fully addressed.

It is pretty clear cut that Arnold Shwartznegger, born an Austrian is disqualified.... but what about someone born on foreign soil from citizens.

I tend to suspect that he is qualified but it will be interesting to see what directions this argument takes.

Clearly he is the most qualified of the republicans to be president and deserves his shot... I respect him but personally I won't vote for him.



www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Just so you guys know..

ATS has discussed that this would be brought into the spotlight.

So we actually covered it 1st.

John McCain was born in Panama

1st post dated 1/31/08

[edit on 2/28/2008 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I am an American first, a Liberal second, and a Democrat third.

I feel that John McCain is fully eligible to become President, (even though he was born on a military base in Panama) and that Sen. McCain is a Patriot and War Hero. This man has devoted his life to the United States. Even I as a Democrat think that anyone questioning his eligibility to be President is way off base, and barking up the wrong tree.

For me this question is a no-brainer... YES... John McCain should be eligible to become President.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Does it really matter where someone is born, as long as it was by citizens of the country? I mean it was just happenstance that he was born on a military base, to parents who serving our country. It would be a slap in the face to every serviceman we have if it became a controversy.


apc

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
McCain should have been executed for treason the day he was released from his POW camp. Unfortunately as the area in question was US territory at the time of his birth, I believe in this matter the rat is not disqualified from holding the office of the President.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


What on earth are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Arnt U.S. Military bases considered US soil? If they are then John McCain was indeed born in this country. He is a natural born US citizen. He does not have dual citizenship in panama does he?

I think YES he should be allowed to become president. Even though I won't vote for him he deserves his shot.


apc

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


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


apc

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I sent you a U2U so to not derail the thread too much. Basically just google "mccain songbird." He admitted to giving the Vietnamese military information in exchange for special treatment. He is no war hero.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
It's a fine line they're walking here. What happens if it's decided that citizens born in other countries are able to become president? It might force the question into a new amendment changing the rules of the presidency.

It wouldn't normally scare me, but with Arnold waiting on the sidelines for any excuse to run, I'm going to be pretty conservative on this issue.

I say 'NO' to citizens born outside of the US gaining the presidency.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
A child of 2 U.S. citizens born in another country is still a U.S. citizen. Should be the end of this story.

My, my, the dems and their proxy the New York Times are getting started early on McCain with the affair story and now this. They must really fear him to be running this kind of "investigative reporting". Although as a conservative, I'm at a loss to figure out why they're so afraid of McCain.

Maybe the dems have realized that in an election that should be theirs for the taking, their top 2 candidates - Billary and O(bs)ama - are basically unelectable.

Another case of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. Just like the Republicans thinking their party was on a roll until GWB came along to ruin it all for them.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent Styx
Does it really matter where someone is born, as long as it was by citizens of the country? I mean it was just happenstance that he was born on a military base, to parents who serving our country. It would be a slap in the face to every serviceman we have if it became a controversy.


Yes, it does really matter because the Constitution says it matters. It will be up to the courts to determine the exact meaning of "natural born citizen" but it's going to have to happen sooner rather than later.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
It will be up to the courts to determine the exact meaning of "natural born citizen"

See my post above. It's already clearly spelled out in black and white. There's nothing to decide and the law is clearly on his side.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I heard on the radio today that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal before the law that granted American citizenship. The caller said the law was not retroactive. What about that, there should be a way to research that.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
A child of 2 U.S. citizens born in another country is still a U.S. citizen. Should be the end of this story.


So lets put it this way.
Great-Great grandparents from Norway (as an example) come to America...have a kid.
That kid, in America then marries another person who was born in America but to Norwegian parents...so in your reasoning they both are full blooded Norwegians.

So the case goes that they have a kid...which would be 2nd generation born in America, but by kids born in America, who are Norwegian because of their mom and dad.

And so the story goes.

In this case, non of them go back to Norway, etc. - but they are Norwegian by blood.

I got the blood bit. Doesnt work with America as well, as what is an American if not the Indians? Everyone else is a melting pot.

So then the question arises why not let Arnold, who has spent so much time in this country be president?

There are so many angles you can go at with this its crazy actually.

In the end does any of it matter?


Peace

dAlen



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join