MCCain is not a Natural born U.S. Citizen.

I was trying to find out more about McCain's birthplace and couldn't figure this out.

en.wikipedia.org...

Coco Solo was a United States Navy submarine base established in 1918 on the Atlantic Ocean (northwest) side of the Panama Canal Zone, near Colón, Panama.
United States Senator John McCain was born in 1936 at a navy hospital[1] at Coco Solo Naval Air Station.[2]
Coco Solo Hospital was constructed in the Summer of 1941. The area containing it was transferred from the civil part of the Panama Canal Zone to the naval part when Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8981 on December 17, 1941.

A Base was established in 1918
John McCain was born at a navy hospital in 1936
The Hospital was built in 1941
The area containing the Hospital went from civilian to naval control in 1941

What? Does that mean that the 'navy hospital' was actually on civilian Panamanian land until after John McCain was born? Or am I misreading something?

DocMoreau


[edit on 13/7/2008 by DocMoreau]

Originally posted by Distractions4Nothing
I'm no lawyer but I would imagine any reasonable judge would say that anyone who becomes a citizen the moment they are born is by definition a "natural born" citizen.

This is supported by the U.S. Code and implied by the fact that "natural born citizen" was only used in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and nowhere else.

Originally posted by kleverone
Another GREAT contribution by Dale Gribble

Hmmm but he has a valid point...

If a service family on a US airbase say in Germany has a child is that child an American born or not?

I am not familiar with this but would like to know... as that would have to be an important consideration...

Otherwise any military births would have to be rushed back to US soil

Edit to add...

Okay read the rest of the thread and see several answers...

So even though you are in service to your country.. if you have a brat ready to be born and if you want a future President in your family you better hurry on home...

Seems to me that is a really stupid rule... but hey welcome to America



[edit on 13-7-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by kleverone


how many would show up for a head count to find out LOL

reply to post by zorgon

If a service family on a US airbase say in Germany has a child is that child an American born or not? I am not familiar with this but would like to know... as that would have to be an important consideration ... Otherwise any military births would have to be rushed back to US soil

Congress has the power to decide who is a citizen. See Powers of Congress, US Con. Article 1, Sect. 8: The Congress shall have power . . Clause 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization . . "

But for the qualifications to be president, see US Con. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4: 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 . . "

Yes, Congress can make John McCain a citizen but only his mother's presence on US soil at birthing time makes him NATURAL BORN. I'm sure without knowing that any pregnant woman living abroad with her military husband would be flown back to the US to deliver if she wanted (and timed it right).

The problem is no one here understands "citizenship" and "natural born" are not equivalent. They must have missed that 7th grade Civics class lesson.

[edit on 7/13/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
The problem is no one here understands "citizenship" and "natural born" are not equivalent.

Well... almost no one.

:bnghd:

Thanks for your input.

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Does that mean that the 'navy hospital' was actually on civilian Panamanian land until after John McCain was born? Or am I misreading something?

Doesn't look like you're misreading anything. Interesting information. But that's all I'm going to say about it.

reply to post by DocMoreau

What? Does that mean that the 'navy hospital' was actually on civilian Panamanian land until after John McCain was born? Or am I misreading something? DocMoreau

Its meaning is not altogether clear but since I was alive and well when FDR signed the Ex Order you mentioned, let me try to explain what I think it says. The Panama Canal Zone was a 10 miles wide strip of land running from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, which contained the Canal and several cities and many military and naval facilities. Similar to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Both places were land under the jurisdiction and control of the United States. As mentioned elsewhere, Congress has full power to say who and under what circumstances anyone is or is not a citizen. But Congress cannot change the laws of nature.

The Canal and Canal Zone was a Corps of Engineers project. The hospital transfered from civilian to military or navel control merely meant the facility - located in the canal Zone - was taken from one US government agency (Public Health Service probably) and was put under control of another US government agency (Navy Department probably). That has no bearing the McCain issue. John McCain is a citizen by Act of Congress. But Congress cannot make him NATURAL BORN.

[edit on 7/13/2008 by donwhite]

Donwhite, you haven't discussed anything that defines "natural born citizen." I did a whole post on it, two actually. The U.S. Code doesn't make that distinction, and seems to imply that it just means that you become a citizen at birth. The only place I can find that phrase is in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

reply to post by Johnmike

Donwhite, you haven't discussed anything that defines "natural born citizen." I did a whole post on it, two actually. The U.S. Code doesn't make that distinction, and seems to imply that it just means that you become a citizen at birth. The only place I can find that phrase is in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

I'm sorry Mr J/M. I was lazy. I got here late. I did not read all the posts. Your question is germane to the issue. My short answer is that NATURAL BORN is in the general lexicon and is understood to mean born on the soil. Judges and courts are allowed to take judicial notice of settled and accepted fact. Like dawn follows night every 24 hours. You don't have to prove everything in a court of law. Everyone knows what NATUAL BORN means. It's axiomatic. Till the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.

The 14th Amendment is not involved here although it does exclude from US citizenship subjects of foreign powers - ambassadors etc - because we entertain the historic fiction that an embassy is "foreign" soil and people inside it are not subject to American laws.

[edit on 7/13/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Oh, it's fine. I don't really know what we can use to take "natural born citizen" and have it explicitly mean someone who must be born on U.S. soil. I'll restate and expand on what I said previously.

Our two sources for information are the current, or at least recent, U.S. Code, which is our law regarding citizenship, and the Naturalization Act of 1790, the only document I can find which contains the term "natural born citizen" and gives it some sort of definition. We can conclude from the text of the Naturalization Act of 1790, which states:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

that people who were given citizenship at birth overseas were considered to be "natural born."

The problem now is that no current law uses the term "natural born citizen." But the U.S. Code does make a distinction regarding those who are given citizenship by birth overseas. So apparently, through law, the term, "natural born citizen" most likely means "a person who is given citizenship at birth." Or at least that people who were born overseas and are given citizen at birth as a result of their parents' citizenship should be considered to be natural born.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by donwhite
The problem is no one here understands "citizenship" and "natural born" are not equivalent. They must have missed that 7th grade Civics class lesson.

The real problem is that some people seem to think that "natural born" means "born on U.S. soil". It doesn't.

This page does a good job of explaining what the common law term "natural born" meant in the 18th century when the Constitution and Naturalization Acts were written.

The best point I took from this page was:

If the drafters of the Constitution had wanted to require that presidents be born in the United States, they could have done so. Instead, they invoked the then-standard idea of natural citizenship as reflecting natural allegiance to the king or the state.

reply to post by IAttackPeople

The real problem is that some people seem to think that "natural born" means "born on U.S. soil". It doesn't.

My sine qua non on John McCain

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4. “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.”

It speaks for itself that the Founders KNEW the difference between a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and a CITIZEN. Otherwise using both in the same sentence would be nonsensical. The Founders differentiated citizens in a clear way as to which class of citizen was eligible to be president. They understood what NATURAL BORN meant.

The Founders set forth 3 requirements for anyone seeking the high office of president. 1) Nature of citizenship, 2) attained age and 3) years in residence. The first, nature of citizenship, is qualified. One is to be not just a citizen, but must ALSO be a natural born citizen. Had the Founders cared not a whit about the birth origin of the president, they would have left that out. But they did care and inserted the NATURAL BORN phrase. AS to number 3, No one would argue 14 years living in Panama would meet this qualification. See below.

I assert that all the Founders knew full well that NATURAL BORN meant born on the soil. I offer this as evidence: Historians say the exception clause - or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution - was inserted at the request of George Washington to make his close friend Alexander Hamilton eligible to the presidency. Hamilton was the senior aide-de-camp and confidant to General George Washington and led three battalions at the decisive Siege of Yorktown. Hamilton was born on the British West Indian island of Nevis. en.wikipedia.org... Resume.

The writers of the Article Two clearly meant to differentiate between NATURAL BORN citizens and NATURALIZED citizens of the United States.

The First Article endowed Congress with the power to make uniform rules for naturalization [of immigrants]. See Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . Clause 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization . . “ Couple this provision with the “necessary and proper” clause in Clause 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

Say Hello Citizen John McCain. But note the Constitution does not give Congress the power to suspend NATURE. Congress cannot make John McCain NATURAL BORN. Only his mother could do that and she choose not to. Aside: I suspect that John is eligible for dual citizenship in Panama, if he ever needs that.

Point of Interest: Signatories to the United States Constitution - -
“Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia . . . [for others see link] www.law.cornell.edu...

HISTORY. Twelve states sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention. Rhode Island refused to send delegates The US Con was ratified by the requisite 9 states on June 21, 1788. Rhode Island did not ratify the US Con for nearly 2 years, on May 29, 1790.

The FIRST presidential election was held on January 7, 1789, but not all electors were chosen that day. Some states held popular elections, some held conventions and still other electors were appointed by the legislature. Only ten states voted in that election. NY could not agree on electors and NC and RI signed on too late.

Thirteen men were considered for our FIRST president but when George Washington consented to serve, the electors voted to a man for Washington. The first inauguration was held on April 30, 1789, just 57 days behind the Constitutional provision of March 4.
gwpapers.virginia.edu...

[edit on 7/14/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by zorgon

 

If a service family on a US airbase say in Germany has a child is that child an American born or not? I am not familiar with this but would like to know... as that would have to be an important consideration ... Otherwise any military births would have to be rushed back to US soil

The problem is no one here understands "citizenship" and "natural born" are not equivalent. They must have missed that 7th grade Civics class lesson.

[edit on 7/13/2008 by donwhite]

Not quite sure why you entitled your response to me with THIS
"When You Don't Like the Facts, IGNORE Them!"



Well thanks for the reply but I understand fully what the difference is being a 'natural born' German and having both Canadian and American 'citizenship' now

But you did not address my question..

If we are having service families working off American soil in the defense of this country... why would there not be a way that any children they have while away from home would be 'natural born'?

I am no expert on American politics but it seems to me there should be some way to solve that issue...

Now looking at the McCain issue it does appear that he was NOT born on an official American base... so that would be a really big issue

[edit on 14-7-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

Now looking at the McCain issue it does appear that he was NOT born on an official American base ... so that would be a really big issue.

As a functioning democracy - or oligarchy - your choice - America does not meet the criteria set by the Carter Center for monitoring elections. I cast my first ballot for Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and I have not failed to vote afterwards. Any state-wide vote tally closer than 5,000 votes is suspect. I bring this forth because we do not have a court system that could resolve that issue. After 2000 we learned the US Supreme Court is purely political although they had claimed a non-partisan approach prior to then. And we as citizens joined in the delusion because it gave us comfort.

I beg to differ with you on the base issue. As I tried to explain in an earlier post, the Canal Zone hospital where McCain was born was physically sited in the Zone. I don’t know but surmise from other posts, that the hospital was under the control of the U.S. Public Health Service. When War 2 broke out, it was transferred to the U.S. Navy - IMO - but always was on territory over which the US exercised sovereignty but that sovereignty was qualified or subject to treaty provisions which I have never read.

I have said TOO much but the Canal Zone was never the United States. It was always Panama. We called it “The Panama Canal Zone.” NOT the United States Canal Zone.

But you did not address my question.. If we are having service families working off American soil in the defense of this country ... why would there not be a way that any children they have while away from home would be 'natural born'?

See my lengthy exposition just above where I give it my best. By Act of Congress they are US citizens from the git-go. But Congress cannot make them NATURAL BORN. And I'm not contrasting or confusing "natural" with C-Sections either.

I am no expert on American politics but it seems to me there should be some way to solve that issue ...

It will not be an issue. 1) McCain will lose. 2) The Republican Supreme Court would vote 5-4 or 6-3 that Panama was indeed the United States. So why should Dems forever be labeled as SORE losers?

[edit on 7/14/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


So the same founders that intended for "natural born" to mean "born on U.S. soil" passed an act in 1790 that states that "natural born" doesn't have to mean "born on U.S. soil"?

It looks to me like you argument is pretty silly if you look at the actual evidence we have. You can quote Article II of the Constitution all you want, but the bottom line is that the Constitution absolutely fails to describe what a "natural born citizen" is, and that an act of Congress from the same time period directly contradicts your theory.

Records state, JS McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, at the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, Colon, Panama Canal Zone.

Then there's this, U.S. Naval Hospital at Coco Solo, Panama, could not have been the “birthplace” of JS McCain III, who was purportedly born in 1936. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Executive Order 8981 - Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone,” was signed December 17, 1941. It authorized the creation of the base hospital boundaries entitled, “Boundary Map of Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone.”

The land surveys for the hospital construction had been completed in May, 1941, nearly five years after the birth of JS McCain III. The base had no hospital in 1936, so McCain could not have been born on U.S. sovereign territory, even if the base was leased.

From the June 24, 2008 issue of The Idaho Observer newspaper

What won't they try to capture and hold power.

Originally posted by donwhite
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4. “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...”

It speaks for itself that the Founders KNEW the difference between a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and a CITIZEN. Otherwise using both in the same sentence would be nonsensical.

Of course they did. Who doesn't?

To understand the phrasing of the Clause one must consider that at the time the Constitution was written there were no "natural born citizens" eligible for the Presidency. Were we to wait 35 years until the first "naturally born", i.e. born a U.S. citizen, children became eligible? Of course not.

They had to "grandfather-in" the current citizens ("a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution") so that somebody could be President. The early Presidents were not "natural born citizens" of the U.S. They were born English subjects.

The clause merely solved the practical problem of creating a Presidential eligibility pool until naturally born citizens could be President.

I assert that all the Founders knew full well that NATURAL BORN meant born on the soil.

The Founding Fathers, being British, were very well versed in English Common Law and were influenced by it when forming the Constitution. They surely would have used the term "natural born" in the light of English Common Law which does not imply "born on the soil" but to your allegiance, or more specifically, your parents' allegiance.

I offer this as evidence: Historians say the exception clause - or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution - was inserted at the request of George Washington to make his close friend Alexander Hamilton eligible to the presidency. Hamilton was the senior aide-de-camp and confidant to General George Washington and led three battalions at the decisive Siege of Yorktown. Hamilton was born on the British West Indian island of Nevis. en.wikipedia.org... Resume.

The writers of the Article Two clearly meant to differentiate between NATURAL BORN citizens and NATURALIZED citizens of the United States.

Only as a means to solve the temporary problem of needing eligible men to be President until natural born citizens achieved eligibility. Again, ALL the early Presidents were natural born British. The "exception" clause was needed to make *any* of the early Presidents eligible because they were all, obviously, not natural born citizens of (or even born on the soil of) a country that didn't exist at the time of their birth.

Originally posted by Johnmike
We can conclude from the text of the Naturalization Act of 1790, which states:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

that people who were given citizenship at birth overseas were considered to be "natural born."

That act was REPEALED. The words "natural-born" were removed.

So, as of the act of 1795, people born outside the US to US citizens were simply citizens.

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by donwhite

 

So the same founders that intended for "natural born" to mean "born on U.S. soil" passed an act in 1790 that states that "natural born" doesn't have to mean "born on U.S. soil"?

It looks to me like you argument is pretty silly if you look at the actual evidence we have. You can quote Article II of the Constitution all you want, but the bottom line is that the Constitution absolutely fails to describe what a "natural born citizen" is, and that an act of Congress from the same time period directly contradicts your theory.

Not to mention, the decider, decided the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.

That alone tells us the true intentions of the bush government by there handlers.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That act was REPEALED. The words "natural-born" were removed.

So, as of the act of 1795, people born outside the US to US citizens were simply citizens.

There's no way you can keep seriously repeating that. Either you're trolling or just not reading.

The words "natural born" were removed. From everywhere. That language is in no consecutive acts. That means that the Naturalization Act of 1790 is the only act that makes the distinction between a "natural born citizen". Therefore that is the only act of Congress that gives us any insight whatsoever into what those who wrote the Constitution meant by "natural born". The reason for using such an outdated act is that no other law, including our current law, contains the phrase, "natural born citizen".

Jesus Christ, if you want to play the repeating game like we're in first grade, I'm game, but I think it makes you look a little immature.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Johnmike]