Panama was NEVER a U.S. Territory. Even IF it was (IT WASN'T) It's not the United States, it's a FOREIGN COUNTRY!
Even IF it was (IT WASN'T), John McCain was born in Colon Panama, specifically EXEMPTED from U.S. control in the Panama Canal Treaty 1903, have you read it?
He was born a “NATIVE” because of his parents heritage and service., But NOT “Natural Born” which only applies if you want to be president or vice president.
HE WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, what is so hard to understand here?
Don't give me that crap that a treaty changes the constitution.
“Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!”
The Panama Canal Treaty can't change Article II. PERIOD!
If we were to sign a treaty with England (I know it's an island, humor me) to build a canal, would the framers (not farmers) approve of a president whose father was born there?
OF COURSE NOT! If you said yes, you are an a**hole. (with all due respect)
Barack Obama, (even IF he was really born in Hawaii), is the poster child for Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. He has no real ties to the United States. His parents and grandparents were Communists. His stepfather was obsessed with anti-colonialism. Obama was raised a Muslim and STILL IS! John Jay is rolling over in his grave.
Unfortunately, Reid v. Covert was decided (in 1957!) by a 4-2-2 split court, with only four justices proclaiming your absolute, 2 ruling to free Mrs. Covert but NOT to declare the Supremacy Clause, in effect, void, and 2 outright traitors.
This decision was formed under pressure of the Bricker Amendment, which had almost achieved 2/3 votes in each House, and which would have unquestionably passed and been ratified if the decision had gone the other way. This Amendment (a very good one, BTW) would have clarified the Supremacy Clause the way you (and I) want.
Do you seriously believe that today’s court would uphold Reid if a new case were on point? I don’t.