Stop me if you've heard this before: McCain, theoretically, might be ineligible for the presidency due to his being born on a naval installation in what was then the Panama Canal Zone.
Oh, that's right, we have heard this. Back in February, as a matter of fact.
No matter to the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who recycled the story a full 64 days later in the May 2 paper.
Dobbs breathed new life into the story by citing the April 30 action by the U.S. Senate in passing a nonbinding resolution declaring McCain eligible, in its opinion, for the presidency.
But to Dobbs, well, that's just one opinion, and one which "has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate." Of course, something tells me federal courts are not going to so casually disregard the opinion of the United States Senate on what essentially is a "political question."
And so Dobbs launched into 22 paragraphs of coverage about how, though the chances are slim, McCain could, just could be disqualified. Of course, Dobbs also saw fit to bury in paragraph 21 the fact that it would be very difficult for any litigant to gain standing in federal court to even try this case (emphasis mine):
[Catholic University law professor Sarah] Duggin believes that [Fred] Hollander and the other plaintiffs are likely to have a hard time establishing their own eligibility, or legal standing, to challenge McCain. She said it will be difficult for them to demonstrate that they have been "disenfranchised" because of the mere presence on the ballot of a candidate with debatable constitutional qualifications.
That was followed by the closing paragraph in which Duggin gave a nightmare scenario that is equally unlikely to happen:
But she said the matter should be sorted out before the election, rather than afterward: "Imagine what would happen if the courts were to overturn an election simply based on eligibility. It would be a disaster. After what happened in 2000, people would completely lose faith in the electoral process."
*As TimesWatch.org editor Clay Waters noted in his February 28 NewsBusters post, the Washington Post dealt with the McCain natural-born citizenship issue back in 1998, when McCain was gearing up for his 2000 presidential election run.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yawn
May 2, 2008 - 16:51 ET by ksimm81I'm guessing if Obama wasn't born in the continental U.S. to American parent(s), and the media brought it up (which they wouldn't!), there would be a racism charge to it.
But since it's only John McCain......
PLEASE DEMS, PLEASE TRY TO MAKE THIS AN ISSUE
May 2, 2008 - 19:44 ET by SgthulkaIn the name of all that is holy, please Democrats, please try to make this an issue.
Try to justify to the American voting public that a Navy flier who was left rotting in a prison in North Viet Nam for 5 years is some how not qualified to be an American citizen.
Go ahead. Do it. Just try.
I actually wish it were
May 2, 2008 - 17:18 ET by NewsbusterbrownI actually wish it were true and McCain had never ran at all because of it.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Totally Fabricated Issue
May 2, 2008 - 18:52 ET by KhyrisThe laws are very clear: If EITHER of McCain's parents were U.S. Citizens, then he is a legitimate "Natural Born Citizen" at birth. Not "NaturalIZED." Therefore it wouldn't matter if he'd been born in a Soviet Embassy in China, he'd still be eligible. DUH!
I agree, it's a non-issue
May 2, 2008 - 18:59 ET by sarcasmo(I have other issues with McCain, of course.) But proponents of the IMO-losing argument would be right to point out the fact that a US Embassy in the former USSR is far different from the Colon hospital, which was just off the base, and the Embassy is far more certain "natural born" ground in terms of their very esoteric Constitutional argument. Looking at the Founders' intent in drafting the provision, I don't think they were concerned about the potentially conflicted loyalties of US Admirals' kids. Just MHO, IANAL, etc. etc.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Doesn't matter. My twins
May 2, 2008 - 21:42 ET by motherbeltDoesn't matter. My twins were born on a Spanish military base. We had to file a form with the US embassy, but that's it. Their certificates say "Record of the birth abroad of a US citizen." Meaning a US citizen was born abroad. If they were born on the street in Madrid it wouldn't have mattered.
Oh really? Just what "laws" might those be? Links please.
May 3, 2008 - 08:06 ET by BritcomNo one seems to be able find them.
If you think the 1790 law applies, that law was repealed in 1795, because congress felt that it was unconstitutional, which it was.
Additionally, The People repudiated any notion of the legality of bloodline citizenship with the passage of the 14th amendment because the confederates denied the natural born citizenship of children born on US soil of African born slave parents. The 14th established that birth on US soil is the source of citizenship, NOT bloodline.
The confusion often arises because bloodline citizenship is a long established legal doctrine in many EUROPEAN states (but not Britain). Many people descended from European immigrants were falsely taught that such European ideas are valid under US law, they are not.
Only those born on US soil (natural) are automatically citizens (regardless of bloodline). All others enjoy US citizenship by act of congress (naturalization).
But lets not get off track with respect to John McCain. John McCain's Citizenship is NOT in question. He is a US Citizen just like Arnold Schwartzenegger is a US Citizen. Both were born on foreign soil. Arnold in Austria, John in the Republic of Panama (not in the US administered Canal Zone).
(Colon (where the local hospital was) was never part of the Canal Zone and McCain's claim of having been born in the Coco Solo US Military Hospital is impossible since he was born 5 years before the Coco Solo Hospital was built!)
But I digress, McCain's ineligibility for the Presidency lies NOT in his citizenship, but in his NON-US birthplace. The US Constitution clearly states that eligible candidates for the Presidency must be born IN the US (i.e. not on foreign soil). The author of this clause (John Jay) states clearly that it is meant to restrict those not born here from holding the office of the President. The only such restriction of birth place, but not the only restriction for such candidates. The clause applies only to the office of the President and establishes that not all US Citizens are equal, but are of two types, "Natural" and all others.
Even though many would wish this restriction away, it is as if written in stone on our nation's founding document. The Amendment process is there for such people, if they can muster the necessary support to get an Amendment passed. Otherwise, it stands as an active and established precept of law that binds us even today. Such is the nature of a Constitutional Republic like ours.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Did this come up the last
May 3, 2008 - 08:44 ET by general companyDid this come up the last time McCain ran for President? If anything concerning this suddenly disqualifies him, what does that say about our judicial system. I can not believe that this BS is still being discussed in earnest.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The issue is still being discussed because the law matters
May 3, 2008 - 09:04 ET by BritcomYou just can't ignore the Constitution and expect to get away with it. Even if McCain thought he could ignore the law, everything he did as "President" would run the risk of being voided at any moment that a ruling was handed down on a case against him in the courts. What a legacy that would be for him.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
The issue is still being
May 3, 2008 - 09:39 ET by general companyThe issue is still being discussed because the law matters
Really, too who does it matter, the left, or those that are chapped that he is the Repubs nomination? I am not exactly thrilled with him either, (especially since the issue was decided before they ever got to Louisiana) but the simple fact is he was voted in by a clear majority, and it should be respected.
You just can't ignore the Constitution and expect to get away with it. Even if McCain thought he could ignore the law,
It isn't up to McCain to decide witch laws he can ignore, their is a vetting process that makes those decisions. If this is reversed now after 9-10yrs of suggesting he was qualified, what does this suggest? How could we ever have faith that these people are ever qualified.
everything he did as "President" would run the risk of being voided at any moment that a ruling was handed down on a case against him in the courts.
Fact is he could had very well been our President for the last 7yrs.
This should/hopefully had/was settled long before his name ever made it to a Presidential ballet.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
McCain is eligible for presidency
May 3, 2008 - 10:19 ET by CobraMan"McCain's ineligibility for the Presidency lies NOT in his citizenship, but in his NON-US birthplace."
That's a bogus argument as McCain is a natural born American citizen regardless of his place of birth as per the Naturalization Act on 1795.
"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. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not
descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United
States."
Of course, that last section leads to the question of Obama's actual citizenship, as his father wasn't a resident of the US now, was he? I wonder how that affect's Obama's eligibility?
"The US Constitution clearly states that eligible candidates for the Presidency must be born IN the US"
No, that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says "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."
McCain IS a "natural born" citizen (he just needs a passport to prove his citizenship); therefore he's full eligible. A good argument could be made that naturalized citizens, a non-US citizen who becomes a citizen here through the naturalization process, could actually run for President, as long as they have been a resident for at least 14 years as per the Constitution. Why else have the 14 year residency period requirement if not to allow naturalized citizens to become President?
Since the Obama-Wright
May 2, 2008 - 19:12 ET by stratmanSince the Obama-Wright debacle, the media and Obama supporters have kicked into gear their anti-McCain reports and commercials. The early appearance of these tactics, before a Democrat challenger is selected, is evidence, IMO, of attempted redirection of interest away from Obama.
I am almost ready to believe that the recent revelation by Barbara Walters of her adulterous affair with a married Senator in the 60's/70's was also her attempt to change the subject away from Obama-Wright by falling on her on sword a little bit. (What possible reason is there to reveal her ugly history at this time, especially since the Senator is still alive and re-married? Or was it simply the "Oprah" effect as seen with Tom Cruise jumping around like a Meth junkie?)
On a similar note, there are a couple of 527 financed commercials on Ohio TV, one which claims McCain did not want to fund children's medical care, SCHIP, like Bush. This is certainly an attempt to change the negative Obama press. Why else release these commercials so early and so juxtaposed to the "Obamanation" story. (Obamanation = Obama + Abomination)
Unless McCain is a complete idiot, he needs to respond to certain allegations now before they become ingrained in public conscience.
RRAM Tough!
My dad was born there too
May 2, 2008 - 20:17 ET by niner-four-whiskeyMy father was born in the Canal Zone in 1933. His father and grandfather were of course, US citizens working there, in the US controlled PCZ.
There is absolutely zero question of citizenship. None whatsoever. When I produced all the papers to county medical examiner to provide his death certificate, clearly and without question, his birth certificate clearly stated my father's US citizenship.
It is really disgusting the pits the so-called media will go to stir FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in the quest of their pet liberal-left causes.
94W
May 2, 2008 - 20:22 ET by BlondeThey're just thrashing around....it shows the level of their desperation, I think. Which may be, on the whole, rather good news.
Cool family history. Thank you for sharing that.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
n-f-whiskey... The issue
May 2, 2008 - 20:45 ET by Jern-f-whiskey...
The issue is one of presidential 'eligibility' and has been most relentlessly and vehemently argued by Britcom--one of the more conservative members of NewsBusters.
While I personally side with McCain, the constitutional question is certainly not as well-settled as you and others presume.
Jer
That's why this was
May 2, 2008 - 21:06 ET by bigtimerThat's why this was introduced by the dems, which should tell ya' something right there about them wanting McCain to run against...don't know what ever became of this...haven't bothered to check....Britcom may know, just thought something I remembered, thought I would throw it out here.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Morning, bt...I don't know
May 3, 2008 - 06:52 ET by motherbeltMorning, bt...I don't know what happened to McCaskill's legislative proposea, but this was passed a couple of days ago.
But I'm sure opponents will point out that it's "non-binding."
I don't know that it's just because they want to run against him. I have to believe that Democrats can do the right thing sometimes.
Jer -- Mark Levin (not a
May 3, 2008 - 08:36 ET by Jack BauerJer -- Mark Levin (not a McCain supporter but a HUGE critic) effectively blew this out of the water yesterday.
He just destroyed the arguments of those claiming a "constitutional" problem, and predicted that even if someone managed to get it referred to SCOTUS, they would not take on the case. Sounded convincing to me.
You remember the kerfuffle about passport records a month or so back. I said at the time that the only person this was aimed at was McCain, and that someone wanted access to his records in regard to this "natural" born issue.
I still think that.
Jack.... Maybe "The Great
May 3, 2008 - 12:29 ET by JerJack....
Maybe "The Great One" blew it out of the water, but around the time Britcom first raised the issue--and I thought the eligibility challenge patently absurd--I read an analysis by a constitutional scholar who had extensively studied the question for over twenty years. She indicated that the issue is indeed a very complex one that does not lend itself to an easy resolution, and that there are very sound arguments for both positions.
She said if she were on the Supreme Court and forced to render an opinion, she would probably decide in favor of McCain--barely. Levin is smart, but I doubt he has a better grasp of the issue than does this constitutional law professor.
Jer
Hi Jer,
May 3, 2008 - 12:40 ET by BlondeThat's really an interesting post you just made.
Do you have a link? I think I'd like to check it out for myself....thanks!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde...I'm not sure
May 3, 2008 - 12:54 ET by JerBlonde...I'm not sure whether I bookmarked it or not. I'll check. I think I printed a copy of her remarks...said copy being somewhere within a stack of printouts about a foot high on a shelf near my computer. I wish you would come help me sort through them. :>)
Anyway, I'll see if I can come up with the link...but no promises.
Jer
Thanks, Jer
May 3, 2008 - 12:59 ET by BlondeJust a name would suffice...I'd like to be as clued in on this issue as you are. Just because I always expect dirty tricks in an election....and I see this one on the horizon.
A hint.....don't print stuff....buy a really nice big flat screen. Then, open a document with a name like "stuff to read"....or better yet, make a nice little database. I have enough "stuff" to contend with, at home, without paper. I try to never print stuff at work either, unless I need to scribble on it as I work.
Color me green! Not. I just function that way because it's more convenient, plus, who has a secretary to file anymore? Hmmm?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde...I've been
May 3, 2008 - 13:34 ET by JerBlonde...I've been searching in vain for the past half hour. Here is the post where I first alluded to the issue [on Britcom's thread] on March 2, but I didn't link it then either.
You are right about my inefficient system for retaining "stuff". I need to change it.
Jer
Jer,
May 3, 2008 - 13:41 ET by BlondeNo worries....send it, if and when (I love that construct...if and only iff...sorry) you find it.
And yes....go directly to Office Depot and buy a really big flat screen. You owe it to yourself. You're a nice guy...and you deserve it!
Thanks for taking the time to look.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde...Well, my birthday
May 3, 2008 - 13:50 ET by JerBlonde...Well, my birthday is in a couple of weeks, and I am a nice guy, soooo...
I do wish I had saved the article. I just happened to run across it, and, at the time, I really wasn't all that interested in the debate.
Jer
Blonde...I've done some
May 3, 2008 - 14:49 ET by JerBlonde...I've done some additional checking. While I still haven't found the referenced article, I am fairly certain it was an interview with Jill Pryor, who has been frequently quoted and cited in various discussions and essays on the topic.
She is not a constitutional law professor, however, and I am sorry for stating so earlier [although that was my impression when I read the interview]. Ironically, she is a lawyer here in Atlanta, and had written a detailed note in the Yale Law Journal twenty years ago about the citizenship/eligibility issue...and does seem to be somewhat of an authority on the subject.
In any event, the issue is of academic and constitutional interest, but I can't imagine it really being a serious electoral impediment for McCain.
Jer
Jer, I think these are the links you are looking for...
May 3, 2008 - 18:29 ET by BritcomFrom my forum topic at the link below:
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Thanks, Britcom...I had
May 3, 2008 - 19:29 ET by JerThanks, Britcom...I had located the Yale Law Journal article earlier today [not realizing you had linked it a few weeks ago]. I wish I could track down the interview with Ms. Pryor which I read a couple of months ago in which she summarized the issue, commented on her 20+ year interest in this "unsettled" constitutional anomaly and its implications regarding McCain.
I'll try to wade through more Google links when I have some spare time.
Jer
From your link to
May 3, 2008 - 20:00 ET by stratmanFrom your link to Ms.Pryor's paper:
RRAM Tough!
The Issue is NOT McCain's Citizenship, its His Non-US Birthplace
May 3, 2008 - 09:08 ET by Britcom---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Disagree
May 3, 2008 - 17:03 ET by stratmanBritcom:
I have posted a comment in your thread.
See here.
RRAM Tough!