NYT: McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

Stupid

There are better issues to concentrate on.

 

I saw this was being discussed on Fox this morning when I was the gym. This seems like such a non-issue that I find it hard to believe how much attention it is receiving.

 

Being born to two US citizens has made a person a "natural-born" citizen since 1790. Being born in the US has made person a "natural-born" citizen since the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. This a non-story.

What happened to the journalistic integrity of the New York Times?

 

been dead since jayson blair

 

As long as he wasn't born by Cesarean section. That would be a genuine unnatural birth.

 

It's an interesting constitutional question, particularly in the context of alexander hamilton, as well as in the case of hypotheticals - it's not even on the front page.

You paranoiacs need to dial it down and stop chasing the evil media bogeyman.

 

Not quite as simple as you think - if it were, McCain's people wouldn't have been looking for a legal ruling in 1999. From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1][2] This was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case as a form of naturalization.[3] The Dred Scott case, however, was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is some debate over whether other persons with citizenship can also be considered citizens by birth, or whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized". Current US statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," as opposed to citizens by birth.[4] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[5] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[6]

Others argue that foreign-born children who are "citizens at birth" under the law (on account of having been born to American parents overseas) are "natural born citizens" — citing the 1790 law to show that the early Congress considered such children to be natural born — and, as such, would be eligible for the Presidency.[7] Examples of persons who become citizens at birth (whether "naturalized" or "natural born") would include: birth to Americans overseas, or birth on U.S. soil, territories, or military bases overseas.[8]

That said, as others have posted, this is a silly issue and is not going to affect the Presidential election. Why it's a story, I'm not sure.

 

would it set a precedent

 

If Birnam Wood should come to Dunsinane then we'll start to worry

 

Actually - it said that in the article that they're still looking at it today. I guess nobody bothered to read it before engaging the liberal media diatribe subroutine.

 

Times to Republicans= Something wicked this way comes.

 

Friggin' stupid

 

I think McCain will be ok. But I really want to see this issue settled and clarified once for all.

 

A precedent for the president?

 

Is this really receiving a lot of attention or is this just a bit of mildly interesting news to plug into the 24 hour news cycle? I don't think this is an issue "natuaral born" would seem to cover having been a citizen from birth. Further since the Canal Zone was then US territory its not like McCain was even born on foriegn soil.

As an interesting hypothetical would be if 35 years from now someone born to US military personel at Guantanamo bay ran for President as the current Admin. has made the argument that Gitmo is outside of US jurisdiction and is essentially has no soveriegnity.

 

The technical issue here is this:

Current US statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," as opposed to citizens by birth.[4] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[5] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

 

^ That is some interesting stuff. I'm still curious though since the Canal Zone wasn't just a military installation or embassy but actually a territory would that be considered part of the US? For instance would someone born in Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands be considered a natural born citizen?

I guess its lucky for Obama that he wasn't born 2 years earlier or we might be having the same discussion about him since Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959.

 

Considering the majority of the first 20 or so Presidents were not natural born US citizens except for being born in a territory that eventually became part of the United States, this should not be an issue.

 

While I think it's a silly argument, it's one that's still interesting. I heard the argument that it would be completely unfair to tell our servicemen and women stationed abroad that their children cannot ever be president should they be born on an overseas base.

Still, I'd like to see what constitutional scholars have to say about the issue.