John123 raises several questions some of which have been previously addressed.
As to this one, Wiki is correct. Although the issue has been discussed in professional periodicals and among the Constitutional bar on a number of occasions.
The term "natural born citizen" arises from an English Common law term "natural born subject" which is pretty clearly defined from a legal point of view as meaning a person who is born subject to the sovereignty of the ruler of the place where he was born.
Only change in the US Constitution was to substitute "citizen" for "subject" because we don't have subjects but only citizens. And done that way because the framer's thought we shouldn't have a chief executive who was subject to the ruler ship of some non-US sovereign.
Born in Keyna, Obama is subject to the sovereignty of Kenya at the time he was born (the English king I assume); born in Panama, McCain was in the same boat with respect to the government of Panama.
The issue has been discussed extensively in my own history at the time Goldwater was nominated. At the time, my sense of it was that the Constitutional lawyers I knew--the Con Law professors at my law school; etc.; thought that Goldwater probably qualified because Arizona was admitted to the Union after he was born there when it was a territory.
I have posted that several times but ran into a lawyer in DC several months ago who had seen that comment and knew I had posted it and who told me that the Dems were set to challenge Goldwater--there might have in fact been another sovereign (over the Arizona territory prior to statehood) and thus Goldwater wouldn't have passed either. That was abandoned when it was clear Goldwater didn't have any chance to win.
There is I believe, an issue as to who the President is if Obama is kicked out. No President is yet qualified for the current term. Joe acts until someone is qualified.
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was US territory at the time (before Jimmah Carter gave it away). I belive that his father was also stationed there at the time, in service to the US Navy - otherwise how would that effect the eligibility of future service brats who were born at the parents overseas posting?
Thanks again, David.
Ping to #404.
.
That’s how it was presented to me, that Joe acts until it is determined who is qualified. If it follows history, it will be a vote in the House of Representatives that will decide the issue.
The question is who’s names will be on that ballot?
My reading of the commentary by Leahy in the Senate non-binding Resoultion regarding McCain’s plac eof birth leads me to think the democrats set a trap for McCain ahd he won: Leahy stated that ‘since McCain was born on an American base and both his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth’ ... this was factually incorrect based upon the evidnece they cited! McCain submitted the proof that he was born in Colon, Panama. Also, Barry Obama inserted a phrase which would appear to try to give him cover for not being born in the USofA! I can post the wording for you, if you haven’t seen it yet.
As for McCain, there has been disagreement as to whether he was born in the Canal Zone or in Colon, Panama. If it were the Canal Zone, there would be no problem. (The McCain birth certificate posted over the Internet - indicating he was born in Panama - has been shown be FReeper Polarik to be a fraud, likely posted by a Democrat lackey.)
Do you think there’s a chance of restoring The Republic? Wouldn’t lay odds by any chance, would you?