Redstate

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Did that imply anything about either his character or his policies?

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

So you know what judge of character he is.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

if sen. mc cain is already apologizing to the democrats, it going to be a rough ride.

Did you even read the OP? The Canal Zone was a part of the United States, and the statutes have no bearing on what the text of the Constitution means. Please.

actually the canal was leased and never a territory.

That is why the mccain campaign is focused on the issue of the military base to make the discussion harder.

But they know even this is not the case.

Unfortunately this pot hole, like all to many from long ago in the original constitution that took time on slavery, or prohibition or others.

Obviously he can not run for president.

Must release his delegates and let the convention with romney, huckabee and paul fight it out for the nomination.

Probably a smart idea anyway.

Obama looks like the nominee and originally everyone thought it was clinton.

so the vote was matched up all wrong to beat her but not him.

Smart idea to change horses anyway so we dont loose badly in the general.

The CZ was never leased. See below.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

this treaty allowed us and priviledge by the US and the US developed the land. Property was transferred for use and control.

On the term of acquisition of terrority by treaty in that case doesnt still make someone a natural born citizen.

This is clear since they declared people on the military bases citizens. Whereas they could have claimed they are natural born citizens of the US.

I see what you are trying to point out. But this obviously is a major pot hole from the olden days when the world wasnt so globally focused. Women did not go abroad as often until see going ships and in war until red cross actions occurred.

So definitely i think it goes back to the original 1790 statutes and arguements on why that legislation was dropped.

Somewhere in there are the answers. The world changed to much after that and the cases can not be stretched to meet foreign applications unless the term US has changed as in with actual state seeking territories.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I'm sure they'll dig your idea.

We don't, but I hope you enjoyed your brief stay.

What should we do about persons born in the US by C-section? They aren't "natural born" at all.

I was going to suggest you pop over to the "9/11 Truthers" web site, but I see you no longer exist.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Does putting in a lot of "WHEREAS" make anything true, no matter how much BS it is?

"WHEREAS Barrack Obama considers protecting our national security the first duty of government and his top priority ..."

"WHEREAS Hillary Clinton does not think she knows better than us how to run our lives ..."

"WHEREAS Bill Clinton is modest and selfless ..."

"WHEREAS the Democrats consider economic freedom the foundation of political freedom ..."

Yeah, I like the sound of that.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

That piece says that the Zone isn't a "territory" in the usual sense. TIME described it as "under U.S. sovereignty." I wonder where this falls. Is it more like Gitmo?

that I've addressed much of this below.

so much effort to protect mccain..geesh...

it wasnt under us sovereignty is was leased...Panama retained their own sovereignty...

The treaty between the us and panama showed that.

too many people in media want the east coast liberal leaning candidates to win.

The congress i believe removed the powers of congress on rulings on the gitmo situation. But in the process the court i thought still wrote some opinions. i havent read them.

Does anyone have some links on this to check out to see if something is said on what gitmo is classified under.

I hadn't seen that.

McCain is not, it seems, a citizen for 14th-Amendment purposes, for he was not born in an incorporated territory, but such citizenship does not exhaustively define all citizenship, including Article-II "natural-born" citizenship.

He was born in a place fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Blackstone, and the Founders, would have viewed him as therefore a "natural-born" subject or citizen.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Mccain is definitely a citizen by naturalization but he is definitely not natural born citizen.

So by the constitution he cant run for president.

Too bad our guys didnt blow it in 2006 we could have pushed through legislation to ammend the constitution.

Too late now to do anything about it.

Mccain is stuck and would be stupid for the party to keep him in the nomination run any longer.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

http://www.ronpaul.proboards75.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=jes...

the next move is yours

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

An apparently little known fact about the Constitution is this: if 95% of Americans don't care about an alleged violation then regardless of the facts -- and here they're against you, but we'll leave that aside for now -- there will be no institutional will among the legislators to move forward, and nothing will get done.

If Congress doesn't stop McCain from running and, perhaps winning, he'll do both without any problem. And they won't stop him, Republican or Democrat they'll ignore this completely, because no voters care about this or thinks it's important except for crazies who often vote 3rd party anyway.

Shorter: there's no guardian angel that protects the Constitution if it's violated. Action has to be taken. There's no will for action here, so even if there's a violation (there's not) it doesn't matter. Give it up.

(-2.75, -4.92)

the problem is the treaty seems to hold sovereignty in the hands of panama.

Also the congress declared citizenship for military children in the canal in the us code. The congress cant make a child a naturally born citizen. This will occur only if they region is consider the US. So it appears they "declared" them us citizens which leans itself strongly into being naturalized at birth.

The Constitution does not define "natural born."

The 14th amendment says born or naturalized. It does not address "natural born."

The Constitution does not say that only the Supreme Court can decide what the words of the Constitution mean. Presidents, members of Congress also swear an Oath to uphold the Constitution.

This is, in essence a political question, since it involves another branch and even more so, an office that is filled via election.

The 1790 statute controls.

If Congress had sought to CONTRACT rather than expand the usual definition, you might have a case.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

i still think someone like duncan hunter...or if roy moore would have jumped in...

They would make a nice ticket...

Less than 20 minutes to completely destroy any credability you might have ever been able to build up.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I have a small quibble with Franck's position.

On point (1), it seems problematic that Congress could effectively be defining the Constitution in that portion. It's entirely plausible that Congress was defining a citizen of the United States for its own future statutory authority, grants of rights, etc. beyond the text of the Constitution. If it were attempting to interpret Article II, it was either redundant (e.g., Article II already definied "citizen" the same way), or it was unconstitutional (e.g., it attempted to redefine "citizen").

On point (6), it's really the dispositive point. It's been far, far underdiscussed.

You're the guru. But it seems to me that any nach'l bo'n cizz'n (Pogo talk; don't jump to any other conclusions) of the US would have standing to challenge McCain's eventual election, based on the language contained in the 1898 decision, if that language were included in what we laymen call "settled law," and if it's been fairly represented and attributed here.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

It is within Congress's power to interpret the Constitution (though in many instances Congress must ultimately submit to the Supreme Court's interpretation if the two disagree). Indeed, Congress's general power to interpret is one reason why point 6 in the article carries the weight that it does. Someone has to decide what "natural born citizen" means, and in this case the appropriate body is Congress, not the Supreme Court, as Franck argues in the article. A similar provision is that of Congress's power to declare war. If the President sends troops into action (e.g., when Reagan sent troops to Granada) without a declaration of war by Congress, it is not the Supreme Court's role to intervene and interpret the meaning of "war" issue an injunction for the troops to come home if the Court is not satisfied. This is an issue the President and Congress have to fight out on their own. It's a political question, in terms of Supreme Court case law.

One of the ways Congress can interpret the Constitution is through statute. So there is no theoretical difficulty in Congress using the 1790 law to clarify or interpret the meaning of "natural born citizen" in article II. That's not necessarily redundant, any more than a statute specifying that a "jury" for purposes of the 6th amendment should be composed of a certain number of persons. I haven't studied the 1790 law enough to know whether its actual purpose was to interpret article II, and I grant that it's possible Congress had other purposes in mind such as those you mention. But at first glance it seems likely to me that interpreting article II was at least among Congress's purposes.

Of course, as Franck points out, the decision reflected in the 1790 law is not necessarily binding for all time as an interpretation (if that's what it is). It's possible that a later Congress could issue another interpretation. But apart from its possible status as an interpretation, the 1790 law is also good evidence of what the phrase "natural born citizen" in general meant at the time. There's evidence that what the framers were concerned about was preventing a naturalized foreigner from becoming head of the armed forces. When you think of the framers' possible purposes in including this language, it's inconceivable that it was meant to prevent children of U.S. citizens who were serving their country overseas from becoming President. And here, the framers' purposes are a good guide to meaning.

Great link! I followed from it through the link to US v Wong Kim Ark, which I could barely skim through in 90 minutes.

That decision explains the reasoning behind granting US citizenship to the children born to aliens while they're in the US, and also just what "under the jurisdiction" implies.

When the decision wanders into the territory of children of US citizens born abroad, it becomes somewhat opaque, but it doesn't touch on the question of "natural born," anyway. It states instead

"Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."

This seems to imply that the law recognizing the citizenship of American children born abroad somehow strips them of the designation "natural born." Yet, has "natural born" been defined anyplace where it matters? The relevant clause of the Constitution refers to eligibility for the Presidency:

"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;"

I would argue that this clearly implies that the requirement now is to be a "citizen at birth," regardless of whether made so by being born on US territory (Guam? Puerto Rico? I think so), or by virtue of a definition of citizenship written into law by Congress and enforced by the Executive Branch. To argue otherwise is nonsensical, and clearly adds additional requirements for the Presidency that don't support the purposes of those already enumerated in the Constitution. That is, it implies an intention on the part of the Founding Fathers which is not apparent in their words.

Strangely, the decision also refers to the importance of English Common Law in the matter, without reference to jus sanguinis (as the original post notes).

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

i think your posting is clear and one of the best on here.

We will have to see if a statute would be constitutional or whether a constitutional ammendment is needed to give McCain natural born citizen rights, or cancel this limitation out completely somehow

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

unfortunately the point is made there in that article that it was brought up in 1790 by statute which couldnt change anything.

Obviously the concern was there just after the constitution was created. What better group of people to question and ammend the constitution on such matters. So one should research if this was attempted or not on this matter. Then this 1790 wording was removed from statutes. Since no constitutional changes occurred no effective natural born citizen rights to run for presidency can be confirmed. It would be oh so impossible to allow common law definitions to be rewrote by statute and surely be unconstitutional since the definitions of the laws are clear at the time of the authors creation. This early congress proved this by trying to write legislation because they realized that the definitions prevented this class of people natural born status. The question i wonder if someone can research is why this was legislation changed a couple of times and dropped. Was it a constitutional issue that the congress could only naturalize a citizen and not make them natural born for instance? This is very important to the arguement. If they decided or were challenged on this point there would be precedence that we have been operating under this understanding for more than 200 years. This is similar to the questions of going after judicial judges as with the samual chase impeachment. This action by the congress to not go after so one for political judgements holds a long standing precidence. A similar such activity and decision from the early founding fathers would make an unsermountable action to overcome and make things go very badly has to be the assumption.

I think you overstate Blackstone a bit. For instance, referring unambiguously to "natural born,"

Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.

Their rights are also distinguishable by the fame criterions of time and locality; natural-born subjects having a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born within the king's ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour

Indeed, it seems to be concerned with those born "within the king's allegiance," as in, the king's territorial possessions. Other passages of Blackstone, as you indicate, qualifies the common law and distinguishes it from the statutory law. Yet later, he even calls those born jus sanguini "natural born":

But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception.

In this way, Blackstone emphasizes that, yes, although the common law had defined "natural born" to include only jus soli, English statutory law now incorporated jus sanguini into the definition of "natural born." It was from this definition that the Framers wrote our Constitution.

But that language is in a paragraph in which he discusses the necessity of "naturalization" statutes. As he suggests, no such statute was ever necessary for those born under his dominion, and no such statute was necessary for the children born of ambassadors--as these too were "natural" subjects.

As has been noted similar language appeared in the "naturalization" act of 1790, which Congress passed apparently pursuant to its "naturalization" power.

The critical question is this, do these "naturalization" statutes not truly naturalize, but only declare or define the term "natural-born." And for constitutional purposes, does "for all intents and purposes" mean for all constitutional intents and purposes?

I don't think so

1. The very title of the American statute (and perhaps also the English statue) suggest that such statutes naturalize--make natural. 2. I know of no authority at the time of the Founding defining "natural-born" as including a jus sanguinis. 3. Congress did not have authority to add to or subtract from the category "natural born" citizenship--but the law itself circumscribes the right to citizenship--it requires that the citizen-father of the children have resided in the United States.

So what does "for all intents and purposes" mean--it means that by this statute, any federal law (other than the higher-law of the Constitution) or perhaps state law, that conditioned a burden or benefit on "natural-born" citizenship, would have to recognize such persons as "natural-born" citizens. From my past research, I recollect some laws (other than the Constitution) that did make such distinctions between natural-born and naturalized citizens.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Is that, at the time of the Founding, "natural born," as understood in England and by Blackstone, meant jus soli and jus sanguini. That definition was derived from a combination of English common law and English statutory law. When you point out that you "know of no authority at the time of the Founding defining "natural-born" as including jus sanguinis," but I'm curious whether you can find any authority defining it some other way. As indicated, the Blackstone definition above seems to incorporate both, even if it is merely by a (400-year-old) naturalization statute.

As for points 1 and 3, I don't understand how it affects our interpretation of Article II. Congress certainly wasn't defining "citizen" for Article II purposes. And if it wasn't, then I have difficulty seeing what import that has on our discussion.

Guess we'll agree to disagree unless a third party jumps in.

When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.h...

Does this suggest that for Blackstone, the term "natural-born subject" included those made citizens by statute, including SOME of the persons born abroad to natural-born subjects?

He distinguishes "natural" subjects at common law from those persons born abroad made citizens by "naturalization" statutes--which were necessary precisely because such persons were NOT "natural" citizens. The Founders too, believed that a "naturalization" statute was necessary for (some) children of citizens born abroad to enjoy citizenship.

As for other authorities, if I have the time to dig through that Founding stuff, I will post a blog here sometime.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

you state mccain was born on soil fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US govt. But neither panama or a base their would fall under this situation by the lease agreements made by Teddy R. The sovereignty of the land was panama's we were just leasing the use of the land, no transfer for territorial rights every happened.

I agree if that were the case it would be a strong arguement for sure. He definitely was a citizen(naturalized as per legislation of all parties born in the canal during that time).

But the declared statement that rules over mccains situation makes him naturalized as saw in. The US congress saw it clearly in the early 1900-1950 that they were naturalized on those bases and not naturally born.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001403----...

a leased property is just as much yours as if you owned it in fee simple as an individual or even as a sovereign. You are entitled to use, possession, and quiet enjoyment for the term of the lease so long as you act in satisfaction of the terms of the lease. The only distinction absent some specific codicil in the lease is that your possession is for a fixed term and under specified conditions. I think it highly unlikely that the Founders ever contemplated American presence abroad as other than a diplomat or a tourist, and they certainly would not have contemplated decades-long military occupations and leased basing arrangements on foreign soil. Frankly, I believe that the "natural-born" piece was just to make sure that Alexander Hamilton, something of a centralizer if not an out-and-out royalist, could never be President. This is a hard-sought, even sophistic, argument against McCain.
In Vino Veritas

Good point. I'd forgotten about the Hamilton business. It may be that the Founders just got lazy, or they didn't spell out the definition because the meaning of "natural born citizen" was common knowledge among them.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Article II states: "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."

Although Hamilton was born in the West Indies of parents who were not U.S. citizens, he was a citizen of New York in 1789 and thus also a citizen of the United States.

I'm not sure how the myth got started that the "natural born citizen" phrase was meant to exclude Hamilton, but it is a myth. It's also interesting to note that Hamilton himself introduced an earlier version of the presidential citizenship clause, which was very close to the eventual language of the Constitution. His early version provided:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be
now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the
United States."

It's my view that the phrase "natural born citizen" in article II doesn't provide any substantive change from Hamilton's phrase, "born a Citizen of the United States." The contrast the framers were likely trying to draw was between individuals who were born as citizens and foreigners who were naturalized at some point after birth. At a time when there were no clearly established, specific criteria for U.S. citizenship, it would have been very odd for the framers to attempt to introduce nuanced distinctions regarding place of birth through the word "natural." Because there was no clearly established criteria for U.S. citizenship in the original Constitution, it was expected that Congress would specify the criteria. It began to do so with the 1790 law that has been discussed above. And as soon as it began to do so, Congress specified that a "natural born citizen" includes someone born to U.S. citizens, without regard to location. That same idea survives in 8 U.S.C. 1401(c), which provides:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...
(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"

McCain was a U.S. citizen at birth. In my view, that makes him a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to be President.

The only alternative to this conclusion is to think (1) that the framers meant the term "natural" to distinguish between U.S. soil, territory under the jurisdiction of the U.S., leased territory, etc.; and (2) that they would have intended to exclude from the Presidency the children of diplomats who were born overseas. Such an intention seems to fly in the face of the concept of "natural born citizen" adopted immediately after the Constitution was ratified in the 1790 law. And the only way to even reach this conclusion would be to adopt an originalist methodology and highly strained historical analysis that the NYT is usually content to scorn in constitutional interpretation.

So I agree with your conclusion, Achance. I wanted to add that Hamilton's role in the clause actually bolsters your conclusion.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Great catch! And excellent explanation. Thanks.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

It says Republic of Panama is sovereign, but Panama promises to allow the United States, in perpetuity, to govern the territory as if the US and NOT Panama were sovereign.

Panama retained only a nominal sovereignty. On balance, I think the practice of American sovereignty, as well as the text of the very treaty itself, indicate that McCain was born under the dominion of the United States.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

But it may also not be fair to require the President and Vice-President to be residents of different states. (Remember 2000, when Cheney had to insist that he still lived in Wyoming?)

Whatever may be the framer's intent, it is to be gleaned from the law they wrote. And if "natural-born" requires birth on US soil--or perhaps to ambassadors abroad, then it is altogether consistent with the Framers' Constitution that children born abroad to US citizens in the non-diplomatic service of the U.S. are not "natural-born" citizens, and thus not constitutionally eligible to the presidency.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

The President and Vice President can be from the same state. Re-read the twelfth amendment. The electors may not vote for a President AND Vice President from the same state as themselves. In the case of Bush-Cheney, they have had to split the electors from Texas.

Think of the bipartisan cover when Lieberman backed Bush on the war, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Texas electors could have voted for someone other than Cheney or Lieberman and the election would have gone to Senate.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

That was my first question.

We need to get back to the 1790 debate on why the natural born citizen legislation was wrote then let go.

Obviously in todays war fare women fight.

In that era the men were the military not the women.

So a lot of legacy ideas have changed and its very possible a constitutional ammendment is needed.

Unfortunately this wont happen fast enough to let John not be contested as ineligible

Birth citizenship under the 14th is narrower than "natural-born" citizenship.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

It declares, on the one hand, that Panama is sovereign, but at the same time, Panama promises to allow the US to exercise sovereignty over the zone to the exclusion of any Panamanian sovereignty.

That makes it a closer issue whether it was truly a "dominion" of the United States. I think it was in all but name, but it's not the obvious answer.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

you mention wilson v shaw.

But in reading the opinion the term of acquisition of territory is a generic statement of the actions and powers of the congress it doesnt appear to be applied that this is an actual Territorial state seeking admission into the US.

No transfer of title of being US under natural born citizen thus would apply.

Also in the most bizarre treaty probably ever, after columbia split and millions in payment, Sovereignty still appears to be under Panama. But rights to use and control is under the US.

Also since 8 U.S.C. §1403(a)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1403.html

a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

It appears in part a)Canal Zone, no mention of being part of the US to allow for natural born citizen applying.

The congress thus appeared to infer their appropriate powers of the congress to naturalize these citizens.

In part b) the Republic of Panama is clearly stated, which of course is not part of the US. Here we see government citizens of the US spelled out. This is where his family would have fallen under not the canal zone. They are "declared" citizens. Using the word declared leans itself strongly again to naturalization of the groups.

It does appear that once again on the issue of citizenship john mccain is dead center in the arguement...

I dont think its so easily swayed one way or another on jus soli.

But if a good case is brought forward it should have far reaching effects to all citizenship claims.

Congress can't define what the Constitution means by "natural born Citizen." It may be indicative of what the Constitution means, but Congress can't define it.

But doesn't Congress amplify and extend the broad principles of the Constitution by writing laws to provide specific guidance for implementing the Constitution? And doesn't the Judicial Branch review those laws (when challenged) to ensure they remain within the bounds of the Constitution?

So if this statute of US Code has neither been challenged nor ruled unconstitutional by the courts, is it not constitutional until the judicial branch says otherwise?

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

Congress is not given an indiscriminate "implementation" power under the Constitution. Under some of the amendments (13th, 14th, 15th, etc.), Congress has power to "enforce" the discrete amendments.

On the other hand, in the exercise of its powers, it must follow the "supreme law of the land"--the Constitution, but that duty does not give it a general authority to "implement" the Constitution.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

the problem is the constitution defines who can or can not be president.

It alone defines the natural born citizen term uniquely.

all other legislation falls with the naturalization power of the congress.

This almost reminds me of the old arguements of going to civil rights rather than unalienable.

This maybe another case that will require a constitutional ammendement since the congress and supreme court can not change the constitution terms of natural born citizen.

Except the Constitution doesn't define the term "natural born citizen." It merely uses the term.

Disregarding everything else that's been written here, that would tell me that the intended meaning was whatever was commonly accepted at the time, and that seems to include John McCain's situation. That, or the intention was to leave it vague, allowing the Congress to define it through statute. At the time the Constitution was written, it probably wasn't contemplated that the Supreme Court would put itself into the Constitutional Definition business.

Or, as is written below, the whole thing was just to make sure that Alex Hamilton would never become President.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Correction. It's above, not below. Comment was by Achance.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

They're both from Texas.

Maybe we should have a Congressional Committee look into this and hold a "do over".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

They are wrong if they think that the Constitution does not discriminate between natural born and naturalized citizens. And they are wrong in thinking that children born to US citizens is ipso facto a naturalized citizen under our Constitution.

But McCain was a natural-born citizen, I think, but the answer is not obvious.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Folks, I'm sure that some people here think that this is merely an interesting intellectual/legal question, and some people here think that it's a last, desperate shot at keeping Senator McCain from being the GOP nominee, but what it is not is anything that will get any sort of traction from the American populace.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"UNLESS THEY WERE BORN ON AN ARMY BASE ELSEWHERE!"

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Sorry if I didn't make that clear, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

court doesn't impose itself on "political questions." You see, the underlying "point" of the questioners is the culture of reliance on court decisions as "THE LAW." And since there is no case on point, these people react against a law passed by Congress.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I would hope that the American people, as well as the nonjudicial branches of government, would understand it to be their duty to uphold the law, including the law of the Constitution--including withholding their vote from someone ineligible to the presidency.

For good (I believe) or for bad, it is this enduring respect for the law which allowed the "loser" of the popular vote, but the winner of the electoral college, to become President in 2000. Why? Because it's what the Constitution says--which thankfully still means something.

In case it's not clear, I think McCain is a natural-born citizen. I also think he's over 35, and that he's lived in the United States (Warshington, most of the time) for more than fourteen years.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson