There they go again
Boy, the NY Times sure knows how to get behind the candidates they endorse, don’t they?
John Sidney McCain III, born 29 August 1936.
According to http://www.answers.com/topic/john-mccain , Senator McCain’s father (John S. McCain, Jr) and grandfather were both Admirals in the United States Navy. Presumably, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. was a United States citizen at the time of Senator McCain’s birth. Without further specific inquiry, I feel it safe to presume both Admirals McCain had lived in the United States for some period of time prior to becoming Naval officers.
Under the “Act of April 14, 1802; sec. 1993, R.S. (1878); sec. 1 and Act of May 24, 1934”, “…any person born abroad before January 13, 1941, to a United State citizen father who previously had resided in the continental United States …” was born a United States citizen.
Therefore, Senator McCain is, and always has been, a United States citizen by right of birth.
From the United States Constitution, Article II:
“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.”One notes the Constitution does not read “No person except one born within the geographic limitations of the United States …” The specification is “…natural born Citizen…”
The location of Senator McCain’s birth does not alter his citizenship. This matter is resolved.
That’s just like the Fox Network to make a story out of something like this with McCain. I consider the Fox network to be more of a comedy network than a reality network when it comes to reporting anyway. Cutting Edge newscasting.
My son was born in England. I went to the American embassy and got a Consular Report of Birth that states since I, his mother, was a US citizen (my then-husband was English), my son was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. I got that piece of paper so that he could get a US passport (he was 6 weeks old) and so that he could one day run for president if he wanted to.
Posted by goddessoftheclassroom
02/28/2008 at 09:44 PM
Of course he was Goddess. And Archie, thanks for pointing out YET ANOTHER piece of law that supports this.
The whole thing is BS. The NYT ran this in the paper this morning and was at least semi-honest to say “maybe, maybe not”, but FoxNews has been on it all day online and on TV going “we just don’t know”, and I saw it on 2 evening NYC network news programs I flipped by. FoxNews TV even had Ari Fleischer on, and that turd couldn’t give them a straight answer. (Not that they were looking for one really). All he said was more misdirection - that it was really improbable that the son of military personnel born on a US military base would not automatically be a citizen. But the truth is ... being in the military or on a military base has EXACTLY NOTHING to do with it. The US military allows foreigners to serve, and many of our bases are in foreign countries. That is not US soil under those tents, like it is in theory under our embassy buildings.
Being the child of American citizens has everything to do with it. Being born within the boundaries of an American Protectorate, Commonwealth, or Territory has a good bit to do with it.
This is a rinky-dink little non-issue of a story. The proper response is “Are you outta yer friggin mind? Duh, Law 1 says xxxx, Law 2 says xxx, Law 3 says xxx. This was decided way back in 1790, then restated in 1795, 1802, 1878, and 1934. Why are you even asking this question - did you flunk Social Studies in high school?”
BUT the media - especially the one little part of the TV media we Conservatives want desperately to, if not call our own, then at least be comfortable in - is running a scare story to cause us worry. For almost a full 24 hours now. They are screwing with us just for the fun of it.
Next time I see Shepard Smith ... wham, right in the nuts. Twice. Bastard.
Drew, one can be a “… natural born citizen of the U. S.” in one of two ways. The first is ‘jus soli’ and the second is ‘jus sanguinis,’.
Jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil” or, somewhat figuratively, “right of the territory"), or birthright citizenship, is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognised to any individual born in the territory of the related state. (There are exceptions, by the way.) By the way, jus soli does not apply to all U. S. territories. Residents of American Somoa for instance are American nationals but not citizens by birth.
Jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood") is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born to a parent who is a national or citizen of that state. Essentially, any person born to U. S. Citizen parents is a U. S. citizen.
Both these tenets are recognized by U. S. statutory law. There are codified in various re-enactments of U. S. from around 1795.
The ‘born here’ law is more commonly known, but the ‘dirived by blood’ is no less official or lawful or ‘natural’.
I’m tempted to ask: Does being born by Cesarean section disqualify one for the Presidency? That’s not ‘natural born’. [rimshot]
And I forgot to add: Both Article Two of the Constitution and the other information is available by a rather simple Google search on the internet. To run a news story about this and not find out what the laws being discussed actually say is irresponsible. Sloppy at best.
It’s easy.
Saying that one of the front runners for the Presidency might be ineligible because of his place of birth is a sexy headline straight from the tabloids. How about this head line: JOHN McCAIN IS AN ALIEN! Not really a lot different from a tabloid headline or what’s being said by the mainstream media. No one in the media cares if there’s any importance or any serious truth. They want ratings.
For your homework assignment this weekend, you will obtain a copy of Network and watch it.
Dr. Jeff, I disagree about the ‘ratings’.
They probably do want ratings, too; but I’m convinced their prime goal is to present enough misinformation to fool some people into voting against Senator McCain to get a Democrat elected.
Just like in the past when they’ve published sensitive information to cripple this nation’s defense and foreign policy efforts. Where does ‘freedom of speech’ end and ‘treason’ begin? Too bad we don’t have enough people in goverment to stand for the Constitution.
The Democrats are too busy trying to lynch Ambassador Bolton to work on intelligence legislation. Which shows just exactly which side they are on.
And I’m not even wearing my tinfoil hat today.
And of course, there’s Barry Goldwater, who was born in the Arizona TERRITORY, three years before it became a state.
Next entry: Downgrade and Delay - the border fence will never be built
Previous entry: Is there a contrapositive race card?