McCain is clearly a citizen. But I think he flunks the Constitutional eligibility test to be president.”
FWIW, the State Department has stated: “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.” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
McCain’s citizenship claim rests on a statute: “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.”
So the only question in my mind relates to the fact that he was born of American parents. The State Department further concedes:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency “The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided . . . Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
The foregoing simply restates the claim you have been making, but what interested me was some language I found from an existing Supreme Court opinion:
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898) the Supreme Court has already ruled:
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
My hat’s off to you. I started this as a rebuttal to your position, but now see after some investigation why you are making this claim. Heretofore, I thought McCain’s case was bulletproof by virtue of being born of 2 U.S. citizens: hence the exact location in Panama didn’t matter. Now I see that unless someone can prove Obama was born outside of Hawaii, he actually has has the far strongly legal claim to meeting the qualifications for presidency. What a mess.
Well that's pretty good legal work. And there is some new material here I have never seen and wonder where you found 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency.
McCain's citizenship does rely on the statute but I don't think he is stuck with the Canal Zone statute or he would have a problem. The citizenship statute makes a person born to two U S citizen parents outside the US a citizen--so based on the published information which I have not confirmed that says both his parents were citizens, it is my opinion that McCain does not have a citizenship problem.
Wong Kim Ark accurately states the citizenship law. But one of the essential points is that the Congressional definition of citizenship does not operate as an amendment of the Constitutional provision regarding eligibility to serve as President provided in Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the Constitution. The fact that a person is a citizen under the statutes does not make him or her "natural born" for purposes of the Constitutional test and I think the Supreme Court is likely to hold if asked that to be "natural born" for purposes of the Constitutional test, an individual needs to be born in the geographical area of the states.
And the point to McCain is that an earlier Congressional fiction about the Canal Zone doesn't make it part of the United States; and, further, that even if it did, McCain wasn't born there anyway--he was born in an offbase hospital in Panama.
So I might differ a little with the tone of your bottom line--McCain is a citizen; but is probably not eligible to serve as President. Obama's claim to both citizenship and eligibility rests on his position that he was born in Hawaii. As of this date that claim is supported only by a fraudulent Birth Certificate. His birth doesn't appear in Vital Statistics; some of his Kenya relatives claim they were present at his birth in Kenya; the Wayne Madsen update claims that official birth records of his birth in Kenya have been located there and are now in DC. I think it is a reasonable inference that Obama was born in Kenya and under the circumstances it does not appear that he is either a citizen or eligible to act as President of the United States.
1. You said: “wonder where you found 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency.”
It’s on p. 8 of the URL I posted:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
2. You said: “His birth doesn’t appear in Vital Statistics;”
What does this mean? In my world, Vital Statistics is an annual compendium of aggregate birth statistics, by state or for the nation. It doesn’t list individual births. Someone did claim that each state keeps a master book with consecutive listings of births as recorded/certificate. Are you saying someone has checked that book and discovered no listing for BO on his alleged birth date? If so, that’s news to me.
3. You said: “some of his Kenya relatives claim they were present at his birth in Kenya;”
OK, but unless someone proves the Hawaii BC is fraudulent, any court is going to accept a written record over decades-old family recollections, especially given that BO’s father had several wives (and progeny?) in Africa. Hence, they may simply be remembering a different birth.
4. You said: “the Wayne Madsen update claims that official birth records of his birth in Kenya have been located there and are now in DC.”
Great, but in light of the “Whitey” tape fiasco, I’ll believe claims such as this when I see them. I don’t know Wayne Madsen, but it’s clear this country is full of people who are shameless when it comes to grabbing 15 minutes of fame.