McCain was not born in the U.S.?
February 28, 2008
We learn something new every day (CNN):
He was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was stationed there in the Navy.
…
The New York Times reports the circumstances surrounding McCain’s birth raise questions about his ability to become president since our founding fathers specifically said only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the highest office in the land. The idea was to prevent foreigners from becoming president.
There’s no precedent for McCain. No U.S. president has ever been born outside the 50 states. But, McCain’s campaign says they’re confident he meets the requirement, that they researched the question during his last run in 2000 and this time around as well.
Advertisement
32 Comments
Comments are closed.
I hate to say I told you so M.Z., but I did.
Katerina,
U.S. law says that anyone born to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen. When I was stationed overseas there were hundreds of babies born in military hospitals to servicemembers every year. No one doubted they were U.S. citizens. Just another hit piece by the NY Times.
I don’t think hit piece is an accurate descriptor. If I start hearing people debating between voting for the Muslim or the Panamanian, I’ll concede it’s a hit piece. At this point it is trivial entertainment. If suit is filed to remove McCain from the ballot, then we’ll have news.
No, just as I pointed out below, its negative. Especially given the blatant hit piece on McCain having an affair. But as I noted, negatives will more likely come from the left. Though perhaps the NY Times will point the contention that Obama has dual US, Kenyan citizenship. Then the Times will be offering fair and balanced trivial entertainment.
i’ll vote for a Panamanian before i vote for this: http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction
It’s not negative. You would have to establish how it would influence someone’s vote to claim it is negative. An alleged affair is negative. Discussing whether ‘natural born citizen’ is inclusive of those born in foreign lands while on official US business is an attempt to establish a legal point.
Cool, then the next trivial headline should read:
Ex-Muslim, US-Kenyan Obama to face Panama Canal Zone born, U.S. Citizen McCain for presidency.
And since we’re discussing legal points, can someone holding duel citizenship become president. As a trivial legal point of discussion of course.
Removing the “Ex-Muslim” portion would make that headline fine. I will assume you are conceding my point that the nature of McCain’s birth can in no way be concieved as a negative hit piece, since you didn’t address it further.
I actually think that since you point out that it raised a legal point that it was not trivial. Since one is raising a legal point about whether a candidate can become president it hardly seems innocuous. Given the NY Times reporting it also seems that they take it rather serious. For example they note:
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”
“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.” whose outcome would be “unpredictable” in the courts.
So for the NY Times it is “…not a frivolous issue” whose outcome would be “unpredictable” in the courts. They thus raise it in all seriousness it seems. Thus at a minimum it is negative. Perhaps mildly so but, given the Times’ most recent history, it is a hit piece. Perhaps this is all they have. Perhaps they’re also looking for National Guard records. I doubt this will be the last trivial bit of entertainment from them.
But since we’re discussing the law, can someone holding duel citizenship become president. It seems a issue whose outcome in the court is not “predictable.”
Gee… I just thought it was an interesting point and decided to post it given that I am a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Aren’t those who become U.S. citizens through his parents “naturalized” citizens? Or not? I know naturalized citizens can’t be presidents.
There are different rules for diplomats and members of the military.
That would make sense, M.Z., Thanks.
I don’t see this as a hit piece. There are clear criteria in place for the office of President. If McCain does not meet this criteria (I don’t know if he does), then he cannot be President.
The mere raising of it is ludicrous. He most certainly meets the criteria. The piece is designed to raise doubt where there really is none. The fact that informed people on this blog are confused only shows what it will do for the more gullible. Thus a hit.
But if this is all so reasonable, again can Obama holding dual citizenship be president? Seems like he can’t be. If he doesn’t meet the criteria he cannot be president.
If McCain does not meet this criteria (I don’t know if he does), then he cannot be President.
Yeah, I always thought the rule was that if you were not born in the US, you could not be president.
But if this is all so reasonable, again can Obama holding dual citizenship be president? Seems like he can’t be.
Why? The rule, to my understanding, is regarding where one is born, not the issue of being a dual citizen.
M.Z.,
Michael makes my point. Smart people duped. Hit piece.
I had thought that the Canal Zone was American soil back then. Why wouldn’t it count?
If you are born to US citizens, you are a native-born US citizen, no matter where you are born.
There are different rules for… members of the military.
Yes, always.
Even if we are to maintain that people have been duped, the cause of action that will be taken with this knowledge most assuredly is not a declination to support.
MI,
As well it should be.
As well it should be.
Um, I guess.
If anything happens with this (it won’t of course), then I’ll be interested to see how some of the “strict” interpritive judges handle it.
“If anything happens with this (it won’t of course), then I’ll be interested to see how some of the “strict” interpritive judges handle it.”
Probably look to how Congress in 1790, that had members, including James Madison, who drafted the Constitution, dealt with the issue when they passed a statute which included this passage:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.
“If McCain does not meet this criteria (I don’t know if he does), then he cannot be President.
Yeah, I always thought the rule was that if you were not born in the US, you could not be president.
But if this is all so reasonable, again can Obama holding dual citizenship be president? Seems like he can’t be.
Why? The rule, to my understanding, is regarding where one is born, not the issue of being a dual citizen.”
Michael J., Michael J… What about all the talk regarding unjust laws?
It isn’t a question of where one is born. The phrase “natural born citizen” stands in contrast to “naturalized citizen.”
McCain is a natural born citizen, having been born to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. There was no other bureaucratic process that changed his citizenship status.
Katerina is a naturalized citizen, having been born a citizen of another country, and having been made a U.S. citizen through the naturalization process.
There is no in between state of being born to U.S. citizens outside the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union.
I’m no McCain supporter, but this issue just seems silly to me.
Is this the blog of the NY Times? I must have clicked the wrong link. Of course it’s a hit piece, the headline is like a tabloid and doesn’t even connect to the article. Nobody in the article even questions the eligibility… so who is “questioning” his eligibility? Just the NY Times (and Vox-Nova). Since no reasonable people actually question it, it has an intention to fallaciously case doubt.
God Bless,
Matt
Since no reasonable people actually question it, it has an intention to fallaciously case doubt.
It’s unreasonable to raise a question about a candidate’s eligbility to run for president? Who cares if it was the New York Time’s or the National Review who raised the question, and who cares what the reasons are? It matters not whether we are dealing with McCain or Obama. If a candidate is ineligible, the public needs to know. We’ll see where things go from here.
By the way, your argument is logically ridiculous:
P1: No reasonable people question McCain’s eligibility
P2 (implied): Unreasonable people question McCain’s eligibility
C: Therefore, the New York Time’s intends to cast doubt.
The conclusion is unrelated to the premises. Ironically, you were the one to pull the “falacious” card.
Politicratus,
By the way, your argument is logically ridiculous:
P1: No reasonable people question McCain’s eligibility
P2 (implied): Unreasonable people question McCain’s eligibility
C: Therefore, the New York Time’s intends to cast doubt.
The conclusion is unrelated to the premises. Ironically, you were the one to pull the “falacious” card.
Your argument collapses because P2 is not intended or implied by my argument. In fact I don’t contend that anyone (including the NYT or VN) questions McCain’s eligiility. I contend that if they actually questioned it they would examine the facts and present a case based on those facts. Neither NYT nor VN did so, and furthermore the headline in both cases does not reflect the substance (or lack thereof) in the article, so it is indeed sensationalism, and to what end? To cast doubt fallaciously. Ie. when both NYT and VN know there is no doubt, but that they want to weaken his candidacy.
God Bless,
Matt
Looks like Obama is going to give McCain an assist:
“Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a prominent backer of Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, introduced legislation Thursday 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. Obama’s campaign announced late Thursday that he will co-sponsor the bill.”
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/509902.html
Blackadder,
I’m a little concerned that “assist” is a back handed way of trying to suggest that McCain is not currently eligible. The fact is that he is eligible. He was an American citizen by birth, and not naturalized.
Donald points this out:
Probably look to how Congress in 1790, that had members, including James Madison, who drafted the Constitution, dealt with the issue when they passed a statute which included this passage:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.
Anyone who pushes this issue, including McCaskill and Obama are engaging in the most heinous form of political mudslinging. McCain, like him or not, he appears to be way above this sort of thing, so far he has not made an issue of any of the similar issues which lie dormant around the Obama candidacy, some of which may be legitimate but are inflammatory. McCain is approaching this election based on policies, character and real qualifications.
God Bless,
Matt
Why? The rule, to my understanding, is regarding where one is born, not the issue of being a dual citizen.
The issue isn’t “where you were born”. It’s what was your citizenship “at birth”. If you were born a citizen of the U.S., you are natural-born citizen (i.e. not made a citizen by law)