NYT, there they go again

**Ironduke** · 02-28-2008, 15:50 PM

Quote:

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.

Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Mr. Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”

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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us.../28mccain.html

Bluesman · 02-28-2008, 16:01 PM

Expect more and sillier (if that's even possible) attacks in the succeeding weeks, until SOMEthing they sling up on the wall sticks.

McCain's honeymoon with the press is definitely over. He's now just another Rethuglican that they're going after.

SteaminDemon · 02-28-2008, 22:19 PM

For a second there I thought you were talking about New York transit.

I thought they were cooking the books again, hiking the fair, and then finally find a surplus but still impose a fair hike anyway.

New York times is really desperate lately. That argument better not hold up in court.

Blademaster · 02-28-2008, 22:36 PM

I keep wondering how the hell did they let the first 5 US Presidents be Presidents in the first place when they weren't natural-born citizens in the first place. Was there an unwritten rule that people alive at the time of American Revolution would not be subject to the natural born citizenship requirement?

dalem · 02-28-2008, 22:45 PM

Ye gods I hate the NYT.

-dale

jame$thegreat · 02-28-2008, 23:20 PM

Is there any serious chance of this being a problem??

**Ironduke** · 02-28-2008, 23:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I keep wondering how the hell did they let the first 5 US Presidents be Presidents in the first place when they weren't natural-born citizens in the first place. Was there an unwritten rule that people alive at the time of American Revolution would not be subject to the natural born citizenship requirement?

Yes.

From Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution:

Quote:

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.

dalem · 02-29-2008, 00:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jame$thegreat

Is there any serious chance of this being a problem??

No. U.S. military bases are considered U.S. territory for the purposes of citizenship.

-dale

**Ironduke** · 02-29-2008, 00:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

No. U.S. military bases are considered U.S. territory for the purposes of citizenship.

-dale

Only if the one or more parents are US citizens. A German child born to German parents on a US military base, for example, is not afforded American citizenship.

By judicial precedence, a natural born citizen of the United States is a person who is born in the US, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, or born to US citizens overseas.

According to Naturalization Act of 1790:

Quote:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Naturalization Act of 1795:

Quote:

And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

Gun Grape · 02-29-2008, 00:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Only if the one or more parents are US citizens. A German child born to German parents on a US military base, for example, is not afforded American citizenship.

A natural born citizen of the United States is a person who is born in the US, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, or born to US citizens overseas.

But they wont be having kids in the base hospital

Just for the hell of it. Say I'm on a liaison tour with the Royal Marines and my son is born at Portsmouth Royal Navy Hospital, no US base in sight. Would my son be eligible to run for President?

For immigration purposes, he is a natural born citizen (2 US parents) but if you are basing it on US territory then?

**Ironduke** · 02-29-2008, 00:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

But they wont be having kids in the base hospital

Just for the hell of it. Say I'm on a liaison tour with the Royal Marines and my son is born at Portsmouth Royal Navy Hospital, no US base in sight. Would my son be eligible to run for President?

For immigration purposes, he is a natural born citizen (2 US parents) but if you are basing it on US territory then?

According to judicial and legal precedence, yes, a child born to American citizens anywhere is a natural-born citizen.

dalem · 02-29-2008, 00:42 AM

I don't know which overrides what when, but I did read that it is not an issue - U.S. momma cracking an egg on a U.S. base is serving up a natural U.S. omelet.

-dale

02-28-2008, 16:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,386 Country:	Expect more and sillier (if that's even possible) attacks in the succeeding weeks, until SOMEthing they sling up on the wall sticks. McCain's honeymoon with the press is definitely over. He's now just another Rethuglican that they're going after. __________________ "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory." - George Orwell

02-28-2008, 23:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
jame$thegreat *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 1,044 Country:	Is there any serious chance of this being a problem?? __________________ Sometimes things dont end up how they should, a son, a brother, a mentor, a teacher, a cousin, a nephew, a grandson and a god in my eyes. Who knows what he more could have been... Christopher Muzykant April 9, 1976-November 4,2005 My Brother, Always and forever

02-29-2008, 00:42 AM	#12 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,313 Country:	I don't know which overrides what when, but I did read that it is not an issue - U.S. momma cracking an egg on a U.S. base is serving up a natural U.S. omelet. -dale Last edited by dalem : 02-29-2008 at 00:45 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NYT: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work	Cactus	The Iranian Question	19	12-04-2007 17:33 PM
stephen colbert invades the NYT	astralis	World Affairs Board Pub	0	10-16-2007 16:27 PM
NYT wiretaps = Prosecutable Espionage?	Anon	Political Discussions	0	02-03-2006 18:47 PM
Should the NYT be prosecuted?	Shek	Political Discussions	2	01-06-2006 15:13 PM
The NYT Employs Some Bright Ones but This Guy is Unbelievable	Leader	Political Discussions	2	08-22-2005 23:16 PM

02-28-2008, 22:19 PM	#3 (permalink)
SteaminDemon Patron Join Date: 01-18-08 Posts: 220 Country:	For a second there I thought you were talking about New York transit. I thought they were cooking the books again, hiking the fair, and then finally find a surplus but still impose a fair hike anyway. New York times is really desperate lately. That argument better not hold up in court.

02-28-2008, 22:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,045	I keep wondering how the hell did they let the first 5 US Presidents be Presidents in the first place when they weren't natural-born citizens in the first place. Was there an unwritten rule that people alive at the time of American Revolution would not be subject to the natural born citizenship requirement?

02-28-2008, 22:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,313 Country:	Ye gods I hate the NYT. -dale

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)