John McCain’s Citizenship
[Guest post by DRJ]
The AP reports that, at the request of the McCain campaign, bipartisan lawyers have reviewed John McCain’s citizenship and agree he is eligible to be President. Republican Ted Olsen, who supports McCain, and Democrat Laurence Tribe, who supports Obama, conducted the review:
“A federal judge in California has been asked to determine whether McCain meets the legal test to hold the nation’s highest office. Although McCain has called questions about his eligibility nonsense, his campaign, as it did in his first White House run in 2000, sought a review from legal experts to put the issue to rest.
“Based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” the review found.”
It seems to me that only a court can interpret the meaning of “natural born citizen” but it is still a good PR move for the McCain campaign to request this review.
The AP article also notes that Sen. Claire McCaskill has introduced legislation that would define a “natural born citizen” as anyone born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces. Barack Obama is co-sponsoring the bill.
— DRJ
my opposition to mccain is well-documented but i knew this was about as stupid an arguement as anyone could ever make. by being in the military and on a military mission his father was unquestionably under the “jurisdiction” of the USA.
its almost a shame this couldnt have longer legs to it. might be a nice way to clear up citizenship by birth if the SCOTUS would use the correct meaning of the word “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment
chas (68d8c2) — 3/28/2008 @ 5:16 pmAnd of course they detemined this by totally disregarding the Constitution. You can’t be “natural born” in two different countries.
The idiots who are bringing the legislations are idiots. You need an Amendment to change the Constitution.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 5:43 pmAnd of course they detemined this by totally disregarding the Constitution. You can’t be “natural born” in two different countries.
The Gospel according to noR lauP. Hasn’t the little Nazi-lover dropped out of the GOP primary, anyway?
nk (34c5da) — 3/28/2008 @ 5:48 pmIt’s a bizarre issue to me; he was born in the canal zone, which was a US territory at the time. Of course he’s a citizen.
—————–
Sen. Obama’s willingness to sponsor this bill is to his credit.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:05 pmMcCain should return the favor by introducing a bill that Obama is a natural born citizen of The United States.
nk (34c5da) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:13 pmI can’t stand John McCain and won’t be voting for him. But there can be no doubt that he is constitutionally qualified to seek the presidency.
For any who wish to pursue the point, here’s a nice discussion of the issue.
Paul S. (289d5e) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:29 pmBut there can be no doubt
Everytime I see that phrase, there is tons of doubt. It’s never seen it used when there is truly no doubt.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:38 pmI was under the impression 99.99% of legal experts laughed at the idea he’s not eligable to be president. Is that not the case?
Eric (09e4ab) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:45 pmThe only problem I have with McCaskill’s proposed legislation is that it doesn’t include children born to American citizens abroad who aren’t in the military. What about State department employees with families abroad, or families abroad because of one parent’s employment? A friend of mine went to high school in Belgium because her father was working at the Belgian branch of the American company he worked for. Had they been stationed there a few years earlier, her little brother could have been born in Belgium instead of the U.S. (my friend was actually born in Orleans, France – her father was in the military at the time).
Natural born should mean one who is “naturally” a citizen of the US, one who does not need to do anything or jump through any hoops to be a citizen (born to at least one US citizen parent) and not have to be “naturalized”.
kimsch (2ce939) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:47 pmJust what exactly is your fantasy, j curtis? That McCain will be disqualified prior to the GOP convention making Herr Doktor lauP the nominee and the Democrats will nominate Obama who will be subsequently disqualified because one of his parents was not a U.S. citizen? And then we will have money made only of gold and silver, be able to drive without the necessity of a driver’s license, and enjoy the private ownership of Hellfire missiles to protect ourselves from the Jews who come to steal our gold?
nk (34c5da) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:49 pmkimsch has it right. If you are U.S. citizen without the necessity of naturalization, you are a natural born citizen.
nk (34c5da) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:51 pm#7 – well list some of the doubts. but please make them credible.
(hint – the “natural born” in two different countries isnt credible”)
chas (68d8c2) — 3/28/2008 @ 6:55 pm10. Just what exactly is your fantasy, j curtis?
That the Constitution be adhered to. I know, it’s wild ain’t it? And what’s with the Ron Paul strawmanning? Do you think I like Ron Paul or something?
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:05 pm12
Are you saying that someone can be naturally born in two different countries? It looks like that’s what you are saying.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:07 pmAs I understand it, there is a procedure available for Americans living abroad to register any child born abroad as a US citizen.
kishnevi (ce4e0f) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:11 pmAre you saying that someone can be naturally born in two different countries? It looks like that’s what you are saying.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. I have no doubt that Obama can qualify for Kenyan citizenship because his father was a Kenyan citizen even though Obama was born in the United States.
And just how does your Constitution define “natural born citizen”? And, if you’re going to go to the Fourteenth Amendment, “within the jurisdiction”? If McCain’s father had gone after every Libertarian on the base with an axe, who would have put him on trial? And since there is no provision in any law, ever, for McCain’s naturalization, is he an illegal alien?
And it is the Wrongbots and nobody else who are pushing this nonsense.
nk (34c5da) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:26 pmkishnevi #15,
There is a procedure for declaring somebody dead. It does not kill him. (If that’s what you meant to say.)
nk (34c5da) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:34 pmThat’s exactly what I’m saying. I have no doubt that Obama can qualify for Kenyan citizenship because his father was a Kenyan citizen even though Obama was born in the United States.
We aren’t discussing citizenship. McCain should certainly be granted a US citizen. We are discussing the other necessary qualifier — natural bornedness. Stay focused. Obama isn’t a natural born Kenyan. He was, assumedly, born in Hawaii when it was a US state.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:41 pmj curtis,
I’m still waiting for the cite to your Consitution defining a “natural born citizen”.
nk (34c5da) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:49 pmj curtis – why do you interpret the phrase “natural born” to mean tied to geographical boundaries?
chas (68d8c2) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:50 pmIt seems to me that a native-born street-sweeper on Bangkok can interpret our Constitution.
The question is who can make law with the interpretation.
Which question would be irrelevant in this context as I understand it, The Senator did not ask for a precedent-setting ruling or order, he asked for an interpretation. Which interpretation seems obvious and for which there is precedent.
And it would appear that at least on President was in violation of that section.
LarrySheldon (3ed3e0) — 3/28/2008 @ 7:54 pmj curtis – why do you interpret the phrase “natural born” to mean tied to geographical boundaries?
Comment by chas — 3/28/2008 @ 7:50 pm
Because the clause was suggested by John Jay who felt that that a foreign born might lead a rebellion against US sovereignty. Kinda like John McCain is doing with his fellow Latin Americans.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:24 pmThat’s a pretty ridiculous statement, j curtis.
The purpose of the clause was to keep foreign citizens from being naturalized and then running for President. The only real target of the clause was Alexander Hamilton. And he’s now dead.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:30 pmThe only real target of the clause was Alexander Hamilton. And he’s now dead.
Stop with the soap operas. Do you really think the Framers inserted language for the purpose of keeping Hamilton away from the presidency?
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:35 pm#22 – i think we are very much in agreeance when it comes to mccain and his immigration policies.
do you have a cite for jay suggesting that clause? i do know he wasnt part of the constitutional convention but that doesnt mean he didnt discuss things w/ the participants during, however i had never heard that was his brainchild. and i dont recall him mentioning it in any of the Federalist Papers he wrote.
but even if it were his idea, dont you think he realized the foreign born children of an ambassador or others in the service of their country abroad would not be disloyal just because their birth was outside geographic boundaries? i’m gonna say he didnt mean it the way you are taking it since he himself served in france and abroad in service to the country and im sure he wouldnt think any children he might have had abroad should be excluded from the presidency.
comment #6 provides a link to volokh’s post that pretty well establishes what the meaing of “natural born citizen” was at the time of the writing of the constitution. its much more comprehensive and explanatory than just saying it was john jay’s idea and he didnt like foreign influence. that explanation for your definition is very lacking and unpersuasive.
chas (68d8c2) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:39 pmdo you have a cite for jay suggesting that clause?
Oh come one. Google it. It’s not obscure.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:42 pmHey, maybe cutis is on to something. Sounds to me like it means you can’t be president if you’ve been born by c-section.
Are any of the candidates “from [his] mother’s womb untimely ripped?”
Eric (09e4ab) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:46 pm#24 actually the clause is what made hamilton eligible the part that reads or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution would have applied to hamilton.
chas (68d8c2) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:47 pmno, i will not google it. you made the claim, you provide the citation. otherwise your talking out of your ass
chas (68d8c2) — 3/28/2008 @ 8:48 pm29
You are Googley refusistic?
I just got the first and only google entry for refusistic, by the way.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/28/2008 @ 9:03 pmyou make a statement of fact you provide the facts. otherwise you just lost.
chas (68d8c2) — 3/28/2008 @ 9:04 pmThanks nk (#11)
kimsch (2ce939) — 3/28/2008 @ 9:10 pmj curtis, are you not aware that the Canal Zone was a US Territory at the time of McCain’s birth?
Your claim is ludicrous.
Steverino (6772c8) — 3/28/2008 @ 9:29 pmOther than actually including the phrase “natural born” this bill seems redundant to Sec. 1401.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/28/2008 @ 10:14 pmI can’t see how any federal court could enterain this question. Unless someone is suing to keep McCain off the ballot (a lovely thought, imo), “asking” a court to decide a legal issue sounds like asking a court to render an advisory opinion–which federal courts have no authority to do. Where am I going wrong here?
Alan (f1706f) — 3/28/2008 @ 11:30 pmOh Good Lord.
Why are we still wasting time and bandwith on this?
Paul (b8f307) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:48 amObama co-sponsoring the legislation demonstrates his lack of knowledge and or his misunderstanding of the constitution. His opposition to Roberts and Alito pretty much confirms his view of the constitution (or lack there of).
Joe - Dallas (d29492) — 3/29/2008 @ 5:17 amPablo:
Thanks for the cite to Title 8 Section 1401. You would think a US Senator, Harvard law grad, former constitutional law professor (though a short gig) would have some working knowledge of the constitution and relevent statutes.
Joe - Dallas (d29492) — 3/29/2008 @ 5:20 amThe purpose of the clause was to keep foreign citizens from being naturalized and then running for President. The only real target of the clause was Alexander Hamilton. And he’s now dead.
Um, no. The operative language reads:
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.
(Emphasis mine)
Hamilton was eligible, as was anyone already a citizen at the time of adoption. If you could come up with a 220 yr old man who was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution, he would be eligible too whether he was born in the United States or not. Good luck finding him.
M. Scott Eiland (b66190) — 3/29/2008 @ 7:36 amBy definition, the following Presidents were not born in the USA
George Washington – February 22, 1732
Horatio (55069c) — 3/29/2008 @ 8:31 amJohn Adams – October 30, 1735
Thomas Jefferson – April 13, 1743
James Madison – March 16, 1751
James Monroe – April 28, 1758
Andrew Jackson – March 15, 1767
John Quincy Adams – July 11, 1767
William Henry Harrison – February 9, 1773
Maybe someone should take a deep look into Hussein Obama’s claim to be an American. There is a lot of doubt.
Scrapiron (c36902) — 3/29/2008 @ 9:14 amIt was definitely smart to get this issue tabled. It could be a distraction later on in the campaign, once average people are actually paying attention. On the other hand, it might be fun to watch Dems try to delegitimize him based on his family’s military service. THAT would play well in Peoria.
And they would try it, too. Remember in 2000 when they tried to invalidate the votes of troops serving abroad? The Dems are a Marianas Trench of shamelessness.
JWesley (1f4c23) — 3/29/2008 @ 9:54 amSomeone should realy consiter the honesty of HILLARY and OBAMA especialy many of those demacrooks
krazy kagu (d982eb) — 3/29/2008 @ 12:34 pmYou can’t be “natural born” in two different countries.
Of course you can. Country A says: anyone born within the territory of this country is a natural born citizen. Country B says: anyone whose birth mother is a citizen is a natural born citizen.
In that case, a child born to a citizen of country B while in country A is a natural born citizen of both countries.
This isn’t even a hard case.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:10 pm44
And country C can say everyone in the world with red hair is a natural born citizen of country C. Pretty irrelevant I’d say.
Imagine you had a time machine and could go back and ask John Jay “Should someone who is a natural born citizen of multiple countries be eligible for the US presidency?”. He’d probably think you’d gone mad.
Dual citizenship is unconstitutional enough, and McCain might be a dual citizen. One of his advisors is actively trying to supplant US sovereignty and the jerk, Juan Hernandez, is somehow a dual citizen. The naturalization oath makes people renounce their old country so I don’t understand how this dual citizenship crap can be allowed to happen here and it sure as hell can’t be tolerated for a President.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/29/2008 @ 5:24 pmj curtis, you conveniently overlooked my post: McCain was born in a US territory. He’s not a citizen of Panama, he’s a US citizen.
Keep spouting your imbecilic views, though. It’s always good to have a hearty laugh.
Steverino (6772c8) — 3/29/2008 @ 5:40 pmYou can’t rent ignorance that special, you have to buy it. Dual citizenship is unconstitutional? Where is that exactly? Article MSU (make stuff up)? And what makes you think McCain is a dual citizen? From your earlier comment:
Moving the goalposts a bit, aren’t you? Now that you realize you were wrong about his being natural born, you have to do something, right? BTW, rather than assume, you could have used Google to find out that he was born in 1961 in Honolulu, two years after Hawaii became a state. Are you Google refusistic (congrats on making up an exceptionally ignorant word, like I said, you have to buy ignorance that special). Stay focused. McCain is a natural born citizen… deal with it.
Stashiu3 (c8e98a) — 3/29/2008 @ 5:50 pm47
You are an angry little person aren’t ya?
The Constitution specifically empowered Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. I think those established rules are an extention of the Constitution. Those rules require US citizens to renounce loyalty to any other country. Dual citizenship contradicts this rule. I call that unconstitutional.
The “assumedly” refers to the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. I acknowledged that it was a state when he was supposedly born there. I wasn’t at the hospital when he was born so he could have been born in Djibouti for all I know and had a fake birth certificate made. I’d say that is unlikely but the fact still stands that I can’t personally vouch for his birthplace.
Natural born and citizenship are two distinct things. Before the 14th Amendment, there were all sorts of ways of being natural born without being granted citizenship.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/29/2008 @ 6:48 pmStashiu–whether or not McCain is a natural born citizen, I think we have stumbled over a natural born idiot on this thread.
kishnevi (7a9e8b) — 3/29/2008 @ 7:12 pmMcCain was born in a US territory.
We didn’t own the Panama Canal Zone but even if we had owned it, it’s not a state.
I think it was the Dred Scott case that made it clear that the states can’t create citizens that were born outside their borders and when someone isn’t born in a state, it becomes the federal government’s business to citizenize that person, if they so choose, through the naturalization process.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/29/2008 @ 7:16 pm#50 – that is not what dred scott did, it established that a state cannot establish a way of citizenship outside of the constitution. and taney wrongly decided that blacks whether free or slave couldnt be citizens constitutionally.
you still havent provided a cite for your jay claim and i see your channeling his spirit again. put up or shut up ya idiot!
chas (68d8c2) — 3/29/2008 @ 7:38 pmWe didn’t own the Panama Canal Zone but even if we had owned it, it’s not a state.
So if Obama had been born two years earlier, in Hawaii before it became a state, then by your theory, he and every other person born in Hawaii before 1959 (and Alaska, too) is not a natural born citizen.
Oh, and anyone born in Puerto Rico, don’t forget.
Good thing I was born in one of the original thirteen (after 1789, of course). Don’t need anyone to question if I’m a natural born citizen if I ever run for President.
kishnevi (7a9e8b) — 3/29/2008 @ 7:57 pmSo if Obama had been born two years earlier, in Hawaii before it became a state, then by your theory, he and every other person born in Hawaii before 1959 (and Alaska, too) is not a natural born citizen.
The court could make that judgment. I don’t have any opinion about how that should be determined. I think it would hinder a prospective state from entering the union if none of its adult citizens, who would need to vote for that union, would be eligible for the presidency. So there is that practical consideration which might influence how the court would decide that question.
I don’t believe the 14th Amendment would guarantee citizenship in that instance and without the 14th determining it, I’d think maybe there’d be some question about the alien father. That was one of the citizenship disqualifiers prior to the 14th. Even for a natural born. Unless those statutes have been legally repealed.
But hey, you can reject strict constructionism. It’s just something that I personally subscribe to.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/29/2008 @ 8:49 pmj curtis, stupidity makes me angry. I’m funny that way. You haven’t been to space and verified the Earth was round, so I guess that means you’re agnostic about that too, right?
You specifically granted that McCain was a U.S. citizen already, now you’re not based on your personal interpretation of a part of the Constitution you refuse to cite. Having a father who was an alien was not a citizenship disqualifier… that is a flat-out lie. You’re not a strict constructionist, you’re a troll and wasting everyone’s time.
That’s from the Naturalization Act of 1790. Both McCain’s parents were citizens. Time to ignore you.
Stashiu3 (c8e98a) — 3/29/2008 @ 11:02 pmstupidity makes me angry
I suggest you start engaging in less mentally taxing pursuits.
As for your act of 1790, it was repealed and for good reason. If you need to cite repealed law to make your case, you might be in trouble.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/30/2008 @ 5:38 amWhich was no different in the part I cited and has not changed since. Since both McCain’s parents were citizens, you’re still wrong. I went to the original source since you’re such a “strict constructionist”. You are consistent though, when you don’t have a clue you keep going anyway.
You can have the last word (which will of course be incorrect and off-topic) because troll-bashing you has become boring. I’m starting to think you don’t even believe the tripe you’re spouting and are just trying to provoke. Hope you enjoyed it.
Stashiu3 (c8e98a) — 3/30/2008 @ 6:24 amThe real question is what does McCain’s Birth certificate say. Residents of the CANAL ZONE in that era say that babies were delivered at the local public hospital, not on base.
bimbo (0e1ba3) — 3/30/2008 @ 6:26 amWhat local public hospital are you referring to, bimbo? Any sizeable US installation has its own medical facilities. US troops and their families abroad to not rely on local public medicine.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/30/2008 @ 6:46 amCorrection Pablo, my son was born in a Korean civilian hospital. He is still a natural-born citizen, as is McCain, no matter what these idiots contend. Anything to smear an opponent, create doubt, or just sow discord.
Stashiu3 (c8e98a) — 3/30/2008 @ 7:16 amIt doesn’t have to be a state to be a US Territory. Your blithe ignorance of the facts isn’t nearly as charming as you think it is.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/30/2008 @ 7:32 amUsing j curtis’s logic, Barry Goldwater couldn’t have run for President in 1964. He was born in Arizona in 1909, but Arizona didn’t become a state until 1912.
But Goldwater was a natural-born citizen, by virtue of the fact that he was born in a US territory.
Sorry, j curtis, but you’re dead wrong on this issue. Time for you to admit it, and drop your idiotic crusade.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/30/2008 @ 7:39 amfrom wikipedia coco solo
Coco Solo Hospital area became part of the Panama Canal Zone when Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8981, Dec 17, 1941 expanding the Canal Zone.
Mcain was born in 1936, post his Birth Certificate and end the controversy.
bimbo (0e1ba3) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:54 amSteverino–I refer you to what I said in comment 49.
kishnevi (ce4e0f) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:49 amAlthough comment 62 makes it appear another one has joined in the fun.
Either Congress has the power to define natural born citizenship or it does not. If it has that power, existing law makes it pretty clear that anyone born to U.S. citizens abroad is a natural born citizen. If they don’t have that power, nothing short of a constitutional amendment will change that. Thus, depending on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the proposed legislation is either redundant or unconstitutional. Either way, it accomplishes nothing.
Then again, when Democrat-sponsored laws do accomplish stuff, it’s usually not good. So let’s hear it for do-nothing Democrats. They may not be worth a damn, but they sure beat their do-something counterparts.
Horatio: please see #39. All of the Presidents you named were born prior to the adoption of the Constitution, so the natural born citizen requirement did not apply.
J. Curtis: please cite the portion of the Constitution that prohibits dual citizenship. I personally think the Constitution should prohibit dual citizenship for Presidents, Congressmen and other public officers, but to the best of my knowledge, no such prohibition exists. Arnold Schwarzenegger is still an Austrian citizen, for example, and I don’t see Phil Angelides suing his way into the governor’s mansion on your theory. Or are you one of those idjits for whom “unconstitutional” is nothing more than a shorthand for “I don’t like it?”
Steverino: using j curtis’s logic, some did argue that Barry Goldwater wasn’t eligible for the Presidency.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:24 amUnder current Immigration law “1986” McCain would be considered a Natural Born Citizen. The U.S. Immigration and naturalization service very carefully points out on their web-site, that the 1986 law does not cover people born prior. The hard part is determining what the applicable law was in 1936. Certainly, McCain should be allowed to run, but there may be a technicality that prevents it. He and Obama should post their birth certificates like their income taxes.
bimbo (0e1ba3) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:50 ambimbo, there is no controversy except the one fabricated by people like you and j. curtis. It’s an exceptionally weak ploy to introduce controversy where none should exist and will get slapped down in court. Of course, all the useful idiots promoting this fakery will disappear by then because there is no way that you, j. curtis, or the others making this out to be some great controversy will come back and admit you were wrong.
Stashiu3 (c8e98a) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:03 pmplease cite the portion of the Constitution that prohibits dual citizenship
There is an oath that new citizens take where they must renounce all loyalties to their former country. That oath is still given at the naturalization ceremonies.
Now, if some people need to renounce loyalties and others can have dual citizenship, I do believe you have an equal protection problem there. You can only have one or the other or else it’s obviously unconstitutional. I suspect that there is even a racial element involved but it would be even more perplexing if there wasn’t a racial element involved. One Israeli citizen must renounce Israel while the next Israeli citizen gets dual citizenship? How can that be equal protection of the law?
Lest there be any doubt, I’m in the “make them all renounce past loyalties” camp and not the “have no one renounce past loyalties” camp. All dual citizens need to forced to choose.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:32 pm