(I probably am rehashing a lot of things here, but I just want to add my $0.02)
I am a law student, and I know that having TWO parents who are U.S. Citizens does mean he is a citizen, no matter where he was born. Whoever thinks
otherwise is really ignorant, and is simply trying to cause trouble. The argument over the words "natural" and "born" are moot, not to mention
stupid to argue over, especially in light of people calling for this rule to be overturned to give the Governator a chance to run some day...
In some of these citizenship cases, the situations are somewhat sticky, depending on whether the father of the child is a soldier, and whether or not
other particulars are involved...anyway, back to the topic...
It doesn't matter where his certificate was issued, it's a piece of paper and doesn't really reflect anything but what his name, weight, sex, and
hand and footprint were like when born. Whether the nation of his father and mother accepts him as a citizen (it does, legally) is what is important.
He could have been born in Russia to Mrs and Mr. McCain, and still would be considered a U.S. citizen, as a result of his parents' citizenship.
Furthermore, your bickering over the difference between natural born citizens and citizens is ridiculous, considering some of the interpretations of
the Constitution that have been created and thus upheld by the Supreme Court. Their suggestion that that the Constitution suggests a "separation of
Church and state" through a penumbra, or "shadow of a shadow" (see the official ruling) somehow holds water today. While the original meaning of
the founders is not upheld (the amendment really means no official "Church of the U.S." can be established), yet it still is a court precedent
today. The difference between natural born citizens and citizens is more detailed, and not a shadow of a shadow, as through the laws of the time he
was born, McCain was a citizen. Natural born? Yes, otherwise the feds would have already pulled him from running, anyway, despite the legal rules that
already make him an American citizen, red blooded, natural born, etc, just like the majority of you bickering here. There really is no difference
there. A U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen. They don't really have to be born on U.S. soil, as "natural born" really just implies that the USA is the
country of origin, they speak American English, and are the creation of at least one American parent, in a marriage.
Stop trying to substantiate your political hatred towards the conservatives of the world through the use of more penumbras.
Substantiation of my claims (find the church/state ruling case brief yourself, you lazy bum!):
Federal law states that "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"
[edit on 13-7-2008 by joesomebody]