NY Times’ Latest McCain Hatchet Job

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 28 February 2008 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

About half the time when the press falls down on the job, I attack the whole press. But sometimes, I attack the New York Times in particular. Especially on so-called investigative journalism, when the Times prints a piece on a new subject, other media will run with it, assuming that the Times has done its homework.

Therefore, when the Times butchers its homework and produces a biased article, it is important to attack the Times and do so right away. That way, perhaps a few of the following media will get the message, and not run off the information cliff following the Times.

This morning (28 February, 2008) the New York Times ran an article by Carl Hulse, entitled, “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether that Rules Him Out.” The article spends 21 paragraphs getting sweaty palmed over whether John McCain is eligible to be elected President, since he was born outside the mainland United States.

The article begins, of course, with the requirement in the Constitution that to be President a person must be a “natural born Citizen.” The Constitution also requires that President be “thirty five Years” old, and “fourteen years a Resident within the United States.” The Times left out that last requirement, which makes clear that citizenship and residency are not the same thing.

The article quotes various experts who claim McCain might not be eligible. Only three paragraphs from the end does the article mention that Congress passed a law to deal with this precise matter. That law defined children of US citizens born in the Canal Zone after 1904, as US citizens “at birth.” The Times also misses a law passed in 1790, written by many of the same people who wrote the Constitution, which provided “citizenship at birth” to children born to US citizen parents, outside the country.

The story which the Times also ignores the power of Congress to pass laws defining citizenship. The original authority is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which gives Congress the power to “establish an (sic) uniform Rule of Naturalization.” More recent and more important, the 14th Amendment begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....” That Amendment ends with, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Note the critical phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....” Jurisdiction is a legal matter, which is defined in this instance by federal law, not by accidents of geography.

The bottom line is clear. The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to define a child of US parents born outside the US, as nonetheless a “natural born citizen.” Therefore the Act of Congress to include children born to US parents in the Canal Zone is plainly constitutional.

So, by doing incomplete homework, perhaps deliberately, the New York Times has created another hatchet job on John McCain, to benefit either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, either of whom the Times prefers. The Times has also, again, damaged its reputation as a newspaper that supposedly seeks and publishes the facts.

But the Times has also done an accidental public service with this article. It has drawn public attention to Congress’ authority to define, by law, the circumstances which make a child a “natural born” American.

If Congress has the power to declare that a child of American parents, but born overseas, is an American, then Congress has the equal power to declare that a child born of Mexican parents in the United States is NOT an American citizen. That would apply only if the Mexican, or Canadian, or any other nationality, parents were not legally in the US at the time of the child’s birth.

Long before I became a candidate for Congress, I was writing that the problem of “anchor babies,” children of illegal immigrants who were “US citizens by birth,” could and should be solved by Congress. As I pointed out months ago, it is routine federal law that children of embassy personnel in D.C. are citizens of their parents’ nations, not of the US, even when they are born in US hospitals. This is not rocket science.

Those who say that only a constitutional amendment can solve the “anchor baby” problem, including the Times, are incompetent in doing their homework.

What is the application of this (somewhat) tedious discussion of law to the race for Congress? Anyone who seeks to serve in Congress ought to have a basic understanding of how the federal government works, including the Constitution. The New York Times has just displayed its ignorance about citizenship law. How many candidates for Congress were able to spot the errors in this article, immediately?

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He is running for the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina.

- 30 -

[Congressman Billybob]

I am grateful to my colleagues on FreeRepublic. There was a discussion at a reasonable hour last night about the coming NY Times article this morning. I read that with great interest. And, as a result, I was able to attack the NY Times this morning, right after breakfast, with chapter and verse of the law and the Constitution.

Ain't the Internet grand?

John / Billybob

[AGreatPer]

Great job John, as usual. Sure hope Rush talks about this today.

[Obadiah]

Here are the Cliff notes to BillyBob's article:

...by doing incomplete homework, perhaps deliberately, the New York Times has created another hatchet job on John McCain, to benefit either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, either of whom the Times prefers.

Perhaps deliberately???

[MarkT]

Not to dis in any way Mr. Armor, but I heard that Ted Olsen had said that the NYT’s position was absurd ab initio and that McCain was certainly eligible to hold the office of President. When Mr. Olsen, former Solicitor General of the U.S., speaks, I listen and so should the NYT.

[Grampa Dave]

[Congressman Billybob]

I absolutely agree with you that Ted Olson is a more respected source than I am. It is true, however, that I took up this subject months ago in my article on "anchor babies" that was published on FR and elsewhere.

I'm glad that national attention has been focused on the legal concept of citizenship, precisely because that highlights Congress' abject failure to act on this issue. By contrast, Congress acted promptly on the issue of citizenship of children of American parents, in the Canal Zone.

John / Billybob

[cake_crumb]

I read part of that thread just a few minutes ago. Thank you for adroitly and eloquently BUSTING the Time’s propaganda. IMO, McCain should grab the Times article and run with it.

[rolling_stone]

I don’t think it is a clear cut as first impression might make it:

I have no dog in this fight, but feel it should be clarified by Congress.

McCain DERIVED (the term used by immigration officials, not natural born not naturalized) citizenship because of one or both of his parents. There is still a question by many of whether his citizenship is “natural born”

According to the Acts of Congress one may believe he is in fact naturalized:

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538
(see section 3 -and the act is called An Act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,(not citizenship and naturalization)

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=192

this is not a new issue see below concerning Natural Born Citizen Act introduced in Congress in 2004 and not passed, so I believe there is in fact an issue.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128

http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc

......Support for the position that the term “natural born Citizen” should include children born outside the United States to citizen parents is particularly well articulated in a law review article by Jill A. Pryor entitled The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty. This article argues that “any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.” .......

see a more complete discussion and question as to who can challenge eligibility-it is not laid out in our constitution like it is in the Philippines.. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php

Is it not possible for this issue to end up in the Supreme Court or have Congress hastily pass a law to decide the issue? I believe the electorate and those who contemplate running for office deserve to have the issue clarified one way or the other. I also believe it would be unfair to disqualify one to be President based on foreign birth while parents are subject to US jusrisdiction just like it would be unfair to make one a US citizen by way of birth in the US or possesions or CZ when their parents are here illegally. How would one go about challenging either?

regards rs

[Grunthor]

“NY Times’ Latest McCain Hatchet Job”

Good times, pass the popcorn!

[onedoug]

McCain disappointed.

[Republican Red]

Best line making its way around the internet:

“Good thing McCain wasn’t born on February 29th, they’d be debating whether or not he is over 35.”

[Congressman Billybob]

There is a specific Act of Congress, passed when many Americans were moving to the Canal Zone to build the Panama Canal, which recognizes that children born to American mothers, in Panama, ARE American from birth. The word "naturalized" has a meaning from when it was written into the Constitution. It means to accept someone, by law, into American citizenship.

One can only be naturalized if one is first born as a citizen of some other country or place. No one who is a citizen "at birth" ever needs to be naturalized. So, the only way that the "McCain-Panama" question is not a slam dunk, is if Congress lacked the power to do what it did, when Teddy Roosevelt was President.

Don't read a lot into what Congress has or has not passed in recent years. When you do that, you're assuming that Congress is AWARE of what prior Congresses have done. Unfortunately, many Members are dumb as a hoe handle about their own, legislative past.

John / Billybob

[Inspectorette]

This is SO over-the-top egregious, and will create such a huge wave of sympathy for McCain, that I’m starting to wonder if the NYT is actually rooting for him - or are they that stupid?

[HawaiianGecko]

Actually you are describing Title 8, Section 1403 when you speak of the law concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(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."

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401/a> defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States
• AnAny Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national li>
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

AnAnyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

[MitchellC]

Armor for Congress PING!

John Armor for Congress

John Armor on YouTube

Freepmail or ping me on the thread to be added to the new John Armor for Congress ping list.

[PGalt]

Thanks very much for the ping. WOW! Outstanding article Congressman!

(That last sentence sure has a nice ring to it. What if Congress consisted of FR’s finest? We could all pursue happiness, secure in knowing that our lives and liberties were in the best of hands.)

OUTSTANDING article John! Thank you sir.

[palmer]

One quibble only: it doesn’t matter whether he was born in the Canal Zone or on the moon. He is a citizen by 8 USC 1401(c) regardless of where he is born, and redundantly by (a) being born in the Canal Zone.

[palmer]

Here's the link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html 8 1401(c) applies regardless of where he was born or the status of the Canal Zone.

[MitchellC]

Bump

[Congressman Billybob]

I’ve met some editors and reporters for the Times. I even went to college with one of the editors. They are not “stupid” people. They are extremely bright. But many of them display a bold ignorance of the real world and of the consequences of what they do.

I refer to them as educated fools. In fairness, I could have wound up that way, myself. But having done a wide variety of jobs including short order cook, I learned some things they don’t teach at Yale, etc.

I no longer require a government-ordered sign that says, “Wet manure is slippery.” I know it is. I’ve read the Congressional Record.

John / Billybob