Some of you thought I was kidding last month when I raised the issue of John McCain's eligibility to be President of the United States. I am serious -- not that I think he should be counted out, but that it is an issue that is legally unresolved and may need to be reviewed by the courts. Well, it looks like it's going to happen. A complaint has been filed with a federal judge in California.McCain was born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, then a US territory. His father was stationed there by the US Navy. There's no doubt that children born of American parents on US military bases or at US embassies are American citizens; however, that is a designation made by law or government regulations. The qualifications for president are written into Article II of the US Constitution:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Two other men who have been serious contenders for the presidency have had similar questions raised: George Romney (Mitt's dad), who was born to American parents in Mexico; and Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona when it was a territory. Neither was elected, so the concept was never tested. The Supreme Court has never looked into the matter of who is or is not "a natural born Citizen."
18 comments:
Well, I've said, I am a huge proponent of the process and I'm happy to see that someone has issued a challenge about the eligibility concerns. Regardless of the outcome, it is another important civics lesson: testing the Constitution so that it doesn't stay a static document. I just hope the candidate's supporters and handlers don't try to advocate for not vetting the issue. After all, John McCain's endless profession of loyalty to the nation and to the Constitution should dictate that he encourage a full examination of his eligibility. He should advocate for such an examination as a reinforcement of his appreciation for the document that steers this nation.
The language is clear. If it makes it to the Supreme Court, a complete waste of time and money, they will state as much. Just because someone files a lawsuit, or someone in a position of power believes something to be important doesn't make it so. Common sense isn't so common these days. Reminds me of a former president who offered, "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
John McCain has done more than "profess" his loyalty to the nation and the Constitution. Check out the regsiter at the Hanoi Hilton.
Hanoi Hilton's register with John McCain's name has nothing to do with the Constitution. Nobody is diminishing his devotion and bravery to this country. He has done more than most Americans and nobody is questioning his devotion and loyalty and duty to this country. He has endured more than most will ever endure. You are correct, the lawsuit doesn't make it so that he is ineligible. The process will determine if it's true or not.
I'm amazed that these sorts of things aren't investigated and/or laid to rest at the time a candidate registers. There are all kinds of requirements that need to be met why not add "meets the definition of American Citizen as defined by the Constitution" to the list?
It's ludicrous to wait until the field of candidates has been whittled down so that the only clear remaining contender for a particular party is made to have his citizenship called into question?
Although a Democratically leaning independent, I don't prescribe to these tactics as a means to blow away the Republican competition. We don't need it and it is a slap in the face to Senator McCain after all he has done for this country.
To McCain challengers: Did anyone challenge when he enlisted to the armed forces? Did anyone challenge when he was a POW? Did anyone challenge when he ran for U.S Senate? This is why liberals are the ones who ruined this great nation! I can't believe we are discussing this.
Who is challenging McCain? The guy is a war hero, no doubt. Some of us are just pointing out that the Constitution -- you remember that document, no? -- has some qualifications for the presidency, and we're wondering if he qualifies. It's a fact that no US court has ever ruled specifically on what the phrase "natural born Citizen" means and that, theoretically, a decision could be rendered that disqualifies someone not born directly on US soil.
By the way, some Republicans are attempting to change that provision to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run in the future.
Well , if we consider the way the law is applied then there should be not problems for Mc Cain.My mother in law was born and lived in foreign country untill she was 55. Her father worked in America and become an American citizen before she was born.After the WW2 she and her father got isolated in their country as country became comunist. Meanwile she had never claimed to be a US citizen because of the fear. Right after communism fall she went to American Embassy and explained to them her situation. Even though she had no documents at all to back up her claim, the staff researched and verified it. Soon after she was given citizenship, no question asked. Not only that, but because she was considered US citizen all along, she received some help dedicated to people in her condition.
Not to belabor the point, but in response to the last post: The law, in a sense, has nothing to do with it. The Constitution supersedes all laws, and eligibility to serve as president is part of Article II.
McCain is clearly a citizen according to the law, but the question at hand is whether he is a "natural born Citizen" as stated in the Constitution. Since there is no direct precedent (as far as I am aware) it will be up to a court to decide what that phrase specifically means.
There are provisions within the Constitution for "Naturalization" - a process by which a person becomes a citizen. This provides further context for the question of whether someone is a "natural born" citizen. This has been further elucidated by Title 8 of the US Code, which enumerates who is a citizen at birth. Anyone born as a citizen, need not undergo the process of naturalization, and is therefore elligible to become president.
You don't need to to be a legal scholar to figure this out. This clearly is a challenge to McCain and a waste of resources. Even if Hillary had been born on Mars to American citizens, I wouldn't... wait a minute, let me get back to you on that...
This was posted today on the web site of a California ABC affiliate:
"John McCain claims to have been born in the Panama Canal Zone on Aug 29, 1936 at the Coco Solo Naval Hospital; therefore a Natural born Citizen of the United States. The Area known as Coco Solo Hospital at the time of McCain's birth was NOT located within the Canal Zone. It was later added to the Zone by Franklin Roosevelt through EXECUTIVE ORDER 8981 on Dec 17, 1941."
Jimo; what do you mean that"he claims?", he is stating a fact that he was born thre. Its not a claim but a fact. Where do you claim to have been born? That is ridicolous
Please don't vilify me here. I'm not saying that the children of those serving abroad in the military should under any circumstances be prohibited from holding any office. What I am saying is that the Constitution appears to imply that and no court has ever ruled either way.
As for John R.'s comments: Legal scholars, from what I've read, have no consensus on how this would be decided by the courts, though most say, as do I, that eliminating someone like McCain would be unjust.
"Naturalization" and "Title 8 of the US Code" are irrelevant. In teh case of the former, naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen when one is NOT a "natural born citizen"; as for the latter, laws have to square with the Constitution.
Thank you Jimbo for your classification. Whether your supporting him or not we must not and cannot exclude someone of his position from running for office.
As for the "he claims" part, note that I didn't write that, but that I am quoting someone. However, I wasn't there when John McCain was born and I haven't seen a birth certificate or other legal document, so being that -- at this point -- it is hearsay, I don't really find a problem with "he claims" or "he says."
If, as that person "claims" in the comment I lifted from another site, McCain was born off the base in Panamanian territory, then that would seem to cloud the issue even more.
Jim, your interpretation of "Natural Born" is that a person must be born on US soil. I disagree and I believe that the use of "Naturalization" in the Consititution is in direct contrast to "Natural Born" and is relevant. Additionally, Title 8 of the US Code addresses citizenship, specifically who is born as a citizen. Although, the Constitution does supercede all laws and all laws must be Constitutional to be enforceable, I don't believe that the issue of citizenship and by extension the phrase in question are being addressed without precedent. You may believe differently but I assure you that, if the 9th Circuit doesn't, the Supreme Court will press those who argue before them on what laws and case law exist that ought to influence their decision.
John R.: Thank you for your smart and relevant comments. Unfortunately, a significant number of postings on any issue are either overly simplistic or personal attacks, so I appreciate reading something that actually addresses an issue and makes sense.
John R is correct that Natural Born and Naturalization are two different things in the eyes of the law. Natural Born is a condition and Naturalization is a process to obtain citizenship and the rights and obligations thereof.
However, it appears from the discussions I've seen on the Constitutional Law blogs and some conversations I've had with colleagues at my institution's law school, there is no precedent on this matter. There have been cases about the citizenship of certain groups of people born in the U.S. prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. There have also been cases about citizenship or other legal rights of children born to US soldiers overseas. But those cases have to do with whether the individual is a US citizen (with all the rights and duties of citizenship) or with legal rights to inheritance or child support. The issue of the definition of "Natural Born" has just not come up, at least not in the modern era.
In this case, the person filing the suit is actually a McCain supporter. I've read that he's doing this to clarify the matter. I agree with John R, though. I don't think this will go anywhere. It's not that there isn't a real issue of debate. At least Constitutional Law scholars appear to think that there is some ambiguity in the Constitution on this matter. And as the US builds more military bases overseas, and more US citizens are born on those bases, it is arguably an issue that should be resolved. This won't be the last time a US citizen born overseas will run for the presidency. But I understand from my colleagues who get excited about things like this, after the Bush v. Gore debacle, few courts in the country want to get involved in a potentially election-swaying court battle during an election year.
Although this thread appears to have stopped, the discussion continues at http://panamajohn.dominates.us/forum where you are welcome to join in.
Post a Comment