Posted on 02/16/2008 8:19:47 PM PST by Tai_Chung
There have been some posts on this topic already, but they are incomplete and the Mccain campaign, Wikipedia, and other sources have weaseled around it with a reference to a 1790 act of Congress defining foreign-born children of US citizens as natural-born, thus meeting to requirements to run for President.
I started digging into the Act of Congress that Mccain's campaign said got him around this (5th Congress, March 26th 1790), but found that this act was repealed by the same Congress, January 29th, 1795, RE-defining such children as just American citizens (not natural-born, as required for Pres. by the Constitution), and that this act was re-repealed April 14th, 1802 by the 6th Congress, keeping the same definition of foreign-born US citizens.
Unless someone can show me something I've missed (and I can find nothing anywhere referring to ANY other defense on this issue as of yet), Mccain is NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States and according to all applicable laws I've found, is NOT eligible to run for President. Links to these Acts of Congress:
Oh, not again.
How many times are we going to bring this up?
“If the source listed as the “Daily Paul” on the original post indicates that this less than meaningless sham of an objection is coming from the Ron Paul bunch, that’s disgraceful.”
Because it is true? And no, I am not a Paul’s fan.
Until folks educate themselves.
I don’t like McCain, don’t support McCain and wish he were not going to be the Republican nominee. OK? But, when they start trying to disqualify a person as not a “natural-born citizen” because he was born in a military hospital in a foreign country while a parent was stationed there in the course of military duties, I’m sorry but I lose respect for that candidate and his campaign. I also happen to think they’re probably technically wrong on the issue since foreign military bases and embassies are considered U.S. soil for a variety of purposes with this type of thing being one of those purposes. If it’s coming from Ron Paul’s people, he should put a stop to it or publicly disavow it.
No, you did not hurt my feelings.
A Canal Zonian is unique. No one, I mean no one, can understand how we lived and what we had to live through every time the congresscrooks stuck their noses in a perfect life here in the Canal Zone which benefited the United States. The Panama Canal, as it ran, never cost the U.S. taxpayers a dime. But may I clarify this point. Huge projects like building a huge bridge over the Canal did cost U.S. taxpayers. These huge projects had to be approved by the U.S. Congresscrooks. The Canal budget consisted of many, many things, but to build a zillion dollar bridge was not in our budget.
I would have answered you much, much sooner, but one of my kitty cats walked all over my keyboard and erased everything I had for you.
Regards.
Military installations on foreign soil are not U.S. territory.
You may be correct and I won’t argue it. There’s more than enough room to argue against McCain on the issues. If Ron Paul and his supporters choose to stick with this, hell, let ‘em burn!
“You may be correct and I won’t argue it. There’s more than enough room to argue against McCain on the issues. If Ron Paul and his supporters choose to stick with this, hell, let ‘em burn!”
Actually, I am not saying I am correct. What needs to be done is that this present Supreme Court take this case and decide this once and for all should McCain live that long.
If McCain drops dead, it will no longer be a problem until next time.
What ever is decided, it will not affect my life. I am not running for president, and I still have to pay U.S. taxes.
Bummer.
If someone wants this heard by the Supreme Court, then I guess they need to file a case challenging his candidacy and follow it on up. I haven’t heard that anyone is doing so. If this “challenge” to his candidacy is nothing more than some press releases, that’s about on the level of putting dog poop on the sidewalk where McCain might walk next week.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(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;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
“We will probably never really know whether an American citizen born outside the US can become President (or Vice-President) until a lawsuit involving such a candidate finds its way into the courts. This could happen, of course, if a foreign-born candidate were elected and the electoral college’s choice were challenged in court; or, more likely, if such a candidate’s right to federal campaign subsidies (matching funds) were questioned, or if a challenge were mounted against a foreign-born candidate’s right to be included on a state primary election ballot.”
Seems to me it could be settled a lot less dramatically by simply having the Congress address the issue specifically the matter of dependents born while the parent was assigned to an overseas post as an agent or employee of the U.S. government.
“He was naturally born in Panama.”
Panama knows so too. : )
I believe he is. According to www.usconstitution.net, Title 8 paragraph 1401 clarifies what "natural born" means. Perhaps its time for the Supreme Court to settle this issue once and for all, since we all interpret Title 8 differently.
Yes he is, because he was born of U.S. parents both of whom were citizens of the United States and one of whom had been a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to McCain's birth. For him to be disqualified you will have to point to what defines 'natural born citizen' as only one born in the U.S.
Very astute/brilliant thinking/summation on your part.
You just put my thought processes on a whole different level that now makes sense.
“Following your info in the original post, I think what could happen is that if McCain were elected the question will arise whether McCain is a ‘citizen by birth’ or a ‘citizen by law’.”
It was right under my nose, and I couldn’t see it!!!
You hit the nail on the head. THAT IS THE KEY ISSUE!!!
Thank you.
You are brilliant!!!
You summed it up brilliantly.
I have nothing more to say but much to remember about what you said.
Thank you.
Good night to one and all.
10-4
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.