Times: John McCain not a real American?
posted at 10:16 am on February 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The staff at the New York Times has burned the midnight oil trying to find ways to derail John McCain’s campaign. After endorsing him in the primary, the paper then ran an unsubstantiated smear against him as a philanderer. Now they ask whether he is eligible for the office, given his birth in the Panama Canal zone while his father served the country:
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.”
It’s a slam-dunk to the millions of military families whose service to this country should have left then with no doubts about their children being relegated to second-class citizenry. They sacrificed enough for their country without having to sacrifice the futures of their children. Any other conclusion would amount to a penalty for military service on those who did not volunteer.
The Founding Fathers recognized this. They passed a bill in 1790, three years after the adoption of the Constitution, which made clear that “natural born” applied to children born of American citizens “outside the limits of the United States”. That law remains in effect and has never been challenged. At the least, it speaks to the intent of the founders when they used the term “natural born” in the Constitution.
It’s beyond absurd to argue that John McCain doesn’t qualify to run as an American for the presidency. The candidate or party that files a lawsuit to challenge him on this point runs the risk of alienating a large swath of the public who have served this nation in uniform, in diplomacy, and in government.
Besides, if the Times thinks this to be an issue, then why did they endorse McCain in January? Didn’t they bother to do their research on him then?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
hell I want to vote for John McCain because the paper’s trying to destroy him, must mean he’s a conservative republican
Defector01 on February 28, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Sorry, I’m not versed in all things Obama. How many fathers does Obama have?
AverageJoe on February 28, 2008 at 11:54 AM
The NYT doesn’t even try to hide its stupidity anymore. In fact, dare I say it waves a “stupid pride” flag.
ArtLindsey on February 28, 2008 at 11:55 AM
One biological, then one that he lived with in Indonesia… before he was sent back to Hawaii to live with his Grandparents.
Romeo13 on February 28, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Had the Times committed actual journalism, they would have discovered this to be a total non-story and not even wasted the ink.
However, being that the NYT no longer practices journalism, it isn’t too surprising that they ran with this story.
SouthernRoots on February 28, 2008 at 12:01 PM
NYT just handed the entire Military vote to McCain
thanks guys
windansea on February 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I guess this is the NYT way of getting MCcain elected, they did endore him after all.
TroubledMonkey on February 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Your conclusion is seriously flawed. You assume the braindead readers of the NYT take the time to read the article beneath the slanderous headline.
The NYT plays the game of printing bold headlines that say “Guilty”, then hidden cleverly in the article beneath they say “Not Really”. At the least that’s misleading journalism, but I like to call it outright deception for the purpose of controlling a presidential election.
fogw on February 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM
1903-1979 Panama Canal Zone was a properly designated Territory of the USA where McCain was born to US citizens in a military facility, building and property owned by the USA.
Jimmy Carter be damned. The rest is BS.
maverick muse on February 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM
The Founding Fathers recognized this. They passed a bill in 1790, three years after the adoption of the Constitution, which made clear that “natural born” applied to children born of American citizens “outside the limits of the United States”. That law remains in effect and has never been challenged. At the least, it speaks to the intent of the founders when they used the term “natural born” in the Constitution.
So now on behalf of John McCain, who we can’t stand anyway, conservatives need to become experts at disinformation?
That statute you refer to was repealed. Who makes their case using repealed law?
It’s interesting to note that the guy who initiated the “natural born” clause was also the very same guy whose job it would have been in 1790 to interpret the meaning of the clause. That was the John Jay Court. John Jay was Chief Justice. It was Jay’s job to interpret that clause, not the job of Congress. That is why that statute was repealed a few years later.
I’ll even wager that if we look at the judicial record of the Jay Court, read through all the text, that we would find an opinion therewithin that settles the issue once and for all.
The bottom line is that McCain’s natural born status is made even weaker by the fact that it was once qualified and then overturned than if it had never been qualified in the first place.
Buddahpundit on February 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Those are actually from Ecuador – that’s all I have to say on this one.
emailnuevo on February 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I lied about having nothing else to say – I have no idea what you just said. So, is McCain a non-citizen or not?
At the time, the Panama Canal was U.S. territory. So statute or no statute, McCain’s a citizen. I dislike him immensely, but he’s American.
And I have to disagree with the characterization of McCain’s natural-born status being weaker because there’s a debate over some completely irrelevant clause from two hundred years ago. That makes no sense.
emailnuevo on February 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM
A few questions.
First, is Ed implying that naturalized citizens are not ‘real Americans’? Because that’s how I read his title. It seems to me all Americans are real Americans.
Second, it’s funny to see all those strict constitutionalists disappear for that issue. A law passed three years later isn’t the constitution. So the question could be posed: what does it mean to be natural born? Personally, I would apply the ‘liberal’ interpretation rule, and without doubt McCain would be eligible, but I can see how this question isn’t as obvious as it seems, and could extend to other subject matters (like children of undocumented aliens, or even documented ones).
Finally, this story reminds me of the bogus attack on Obama that he might have been a Muslim because he was born to a Muslim father. Fortunately, Allahpundit went against that crazy idea (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/19/schlussel-is-obama-a-muslim-manchurian-candidate/), I hope you all did as well…
mycowardice on February 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM
What about children born of government employees working overseas? All my sibs but me were born on military bases even though my Dad wasn’t ‘military’. Growing up they told me that I was the only one who could be President.
Bruce Hendrix on February 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I asked this question a few months ago. I was being facietious, the NYT are… well I don’t know what the NYT is doing. I don’t think they do either.
Don Carne on February 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Be fair – that proposal has a lot more merit than this one. Saying someone might be something by lineage is different than denying citizenship because Carter screwed up after he was born. Muslim identity is established by paternity, right? (I ask because I can’t remember). So at least it was a sort-of, logical conclusion to come to.
This NYT story would be similar to the Obama’s-Dad controversy if it said McCain was an American because – gasp – his father was American.
P.S. No, you can’t.
emailnuevo on February 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Who’s Disqualified Again?
This “let’s make sure the candidates qualify under the Constitution” discussion could get really good. Campaign Spot reader David writes in, looking closely at the Fourteenth Amendment:
“Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
“Aid and comfort to enemies.” Well, I guess it come down to whether or not former Weatherman Bill Ayers was an “enemy of the United States” and did Obama give him “aid and comfort”. To be honest, I don’t take this seriously, but I’d say it’s as legitimate as the NYT’s fantasy regarding McCain. If nothing else, I like the contrast:
McCain – possibly ineligible because his family’s service in the military took them outside th US at the time of his birth.
Obama – possibly ineligible, depending on whether or not the former terrorists he associates with are technically “enemies of the United States”.
Well, Bill Ayers “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.” (This is from the ” ”I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough,” interview with the New York Times that ran September 11, 2001.)
“Aid and comfort…” well, “Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.”
Probably no serious reason to consider Obama constitutionally disqualified. Just an interesting line of inquiry for the fall campaign…
“Barack Obama seems like a nice guy, just like you and me… but how many of your ‘friends’ have planted bombs at the Pentagon?”
al on February 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Does the Times Really Want to Open This Can of Worms?
Some readers note that according to a literal reading of the Kenyan Constitution, Barack Obama is technically a Kenyan citizen. Kenya achieved independence from Britain on December 12, 1963; under the
87*. Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963
Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December. 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963:
Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.
Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. if his father becomes. or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
Some would argue that by virtue of having a Kenyan citizen as his father, Obama “became” a Kenyan citizen back in 1963, even though he was in Hawaii at the time and did not visit the country until much later in his life. Others would argue that that would only apply to those born in the UK or its colonies (and I have no idea whether the United States qualifies as a UK colony under Kenyan law).
Of course, Barack Obama has never claimed to be a Kenyan citizen, nor has he, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, ever claimed dual citizenship.
Having said that, a serious effort to argue that McCain is disqualified from being president will attempt to establish that a child of one American and one foreign-born parent is eligible for the presidency, but a child of two Americans, one a serving member of the U.S. Armed Forces, born in a U.S. territory (Coco Solo Air Base in the then-American-controlled Panama Canal Zone) is not.
Dear Democrats, please go down this road; Team McCain would like to ensure that their candidate’s share of the military and veteran vote goes from 90 percent to 100 percent.
al on February 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Well, you do have a point. I didn’t pay attention to the headline, but it reads,
“McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out”
Now reporters don’t generally write the headlines, but editors approve them, so we can fairly charge the editor(s) with malicious intent.
MrLynn on February 28, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Obviously the Times endorsed McCain to drive conservatives away from him and are now focused on sinking his ship with the rest of America now that he is the inevitable GOP nominee.
I wouldn’t really cry, though, if this issue made McCain a lame duck and Romney would have to take his place.
Seixon on February 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Actually, I think the McCain one has more validity because it would mean reading the constitution and deciding how the words inscribed in there should be interpreted and applying that logic to the situation at hand. But as I said, it seems to me that interpretation you come up with should include McCain’s situation.
The story about Obama being a Muslim is offensive because it’s trying to apply a set of unclear religious rules on someone that doesn’t want to be Muslim. Just because his dad was a Muslim, technically or practically, should have no bearing. Plus, Islam comes in many shapes and interpretations, so whether its the father, the mother, both or none that transmit ‘muslimness’, who cares? At least there is only one US constitution to work from (but yes, many interpretations).
mycowardice on February 28, 2008 at 12:44 PM
astute catch, ed.
as usual, the Times doesn’t let things like facts get in the way of
filling the gray space.
jimmer on February 28, 2008 at 12:49 PM
]
Thats really interesting… Because it flies in the face of British law.
Kenya does not acknowledge dual citizenship, but Britain does.
World Court time… does Kenyas law, override British Law, on American Soil???
Romeo13 on February 28, 2008 at 12:50 PM
LOL…. twistyer and twistyer…
According to one reading of Brit law… as Obama was born to a Brit citizen outside of Brit territory, he is still considered a Brit citizen even though his Father, under Kenyan law, became a Kenyan…
Now, under Kenyan law it looks like he gave up his citizenship at 23.. because he did not give up his US citizenship, and they don’t acknowledge dual citizneship…
However, under Brit law he is still a Brit… and thus a dual citizen of the US and Great Britain…
I maintain my posture….
Let me be the first to welcome our new British Overlord!
Romeo13 on February 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I agree that children born to U.S. servicemebers overseas SHOULD be considered natural born citizens. I also think that based on the 14th Amendment, which usurped the law made in 1790, and the paperwork military parents must file overseas to make their children U.S. citizens in fact means that their children are naturalized citizens. I was a military commander in Germany and served in Panama where I saw many parents file the paperwork in both places.
I think that Democrats have already alienated huge portions of the military and that they will have nothing to lose by filing a lawsuit questioning McCain’s elegibility if he wins the general election. Strangely a Supreme Court that more strictly interprets the Constitution may serve the Democrats this time.
Richard Disney on February 28, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Once again Hot Air takes the side of RINOs. The constitution is quite clear. McCain is not a natural born citizen.
doufree on February 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I say let’s look into Obama’s situation. Is he really American?
Richdellavalle on February 28, 2008 at 1:16 PM
If that’s the case, then I’m a Kenyan also, though I was born and raised in the USA.
Are we following the laws of other countries when convenient? I thought conservatives were against world gov’t and subjection to international law.
To be fair, I think that the McCain story is a stupid hit-back to whisper campaigns stupidly perpetrated about Obama’s citizenship. Please.
Both are natural born citizens and both are bad for the counrty–one moreso than the other, however.
baldilocks on February 28, 2008 at 1:18 PM
If you go down this route you are discriminating against millions of people whose parents served their country militarily at overseas locations. Just so you know.
baldilocks on February 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM
1) I don’t think McCain was “nationalized” with any paperwork. He is a “natural born citizen”
2) Title 8, Section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen.
3) McCain was born in the Canal Zone to United States citizen parents.
4) It is unclear that SCOTUS has juristiction in the matter since the election of the president, as defined in the constitution, is the responsibility of the electorial college
bnelson44 on February 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Can you be more specific?
bnelson44 on February 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM
It is SOP that American children born on a US Military base overseas are considered to be born on US soil.
saiga on February 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I don’t think this has anything to do with the 14th Amendment.
bnelson44 on February 28, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Wow, just think what the NYT would try to make an issue out of they DIDN’T endorse him !!!!
Where was George Washington Born?
billyoblog on February 28, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I’ll leave it to the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
That said, in my opinion:
1) Any discussion of the meaning of the Constitution is good for this country.
2) Any discussion of the beliefs of the founding fathers is good for this country.
The more people know about what makes this country great, the better.
Red Pill on February 28, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I give you this, then…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56859
Califemme on February 28, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Red Pill on February 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM
This is clever a ploy from the McCain camp.
Now, if you question anything about him, it’s because you obviously hate hispanics and are clearly a raaacist.
redzap on February 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM
crazy_legs on February 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM
crazy_legs, baldilocks (twice) and maverick muse have it right. The Captain should consider and Update at the top of this thread, as this is a very important point, and one Mr. McCain and the pundits should argue, in addition to the very good military children one.
You and the NYT are literally uneducated on this matter. The NYT, at least, should know better. As fogw said, they do, and distort on purpose. They have no shame left.
Entelechy on February 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM
So…. (exploring possible conclusions) if a foreign national gives birth to a child inside a US Embassy while applying for a Visa, is that child a “natural born citizen?”
monkslh on February 28, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Doesn’t this seem like something the ACLU is going to stick their nose in?
Fields on February 28, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I do not dispute the right to citizenship for children of military members overseas, I am simply saying that anytime one must file paperwork to make his children citizens of the U.S. it means that the child is not natural born.
If you don’t think the 14th Amendment applies then you haven’t read it. The 14th Amendment defines what citizenship is.
The Supreme Court would have jurisdiction because it is the highest court in the land and would have to interpret what the definition of “natural born” is in reference to eligibility for the Office of President.
Richard Disney on February 28, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Having been born in Germany of US parents, the military (US Army Europe, or USAREUR) issues a form, AE 360, Report of Child Born Abroad of American Parent(s). Surely the military contingent in Panama issued something similar to McCain’s parents, which should put this whole thing to rest.
As a future politician, I hope this does not set an unpleasant precedent that would make thousands of US Citizens born abroad ineligible for the nation’s highest office.
Spc Steve on February 28, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Natural born (IMO) means that if your parent(s) is/are American citizen(s) and the child is born outside the U.S., then they are “naturalized”. My Dad was in the Army, I was born in Thailand, and so by default, I am an American citizen, naturalized.
Your question starts with “foreign national” so no, their child would still be a citizen of the country of birth, or perhaps even have dual citizenship, one to the host country the child was born in, and one for the home country of the foreign national, depending on the laws governing their homeland.
(But I could be wrong) :)
Califemme on February 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM
“Naturalized” means that you went through some kind of paperwork to become a citizen. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_citizenship#Naturalization
bnelson44 on February 28, 2008 at 2:09 PM
It will sure be interesting to see how this all plays out…
Jim C
JimC99 on February 28, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Has anyone address the part of the Constitution the references “he” with regard to picking a cabinet…no mention of “she” I guess Hillary would be out!
Big Bill on February 28, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Well, yeah, how else would America know I was born? ;)
Califemme on February 28, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Juan is my kind de America del Norte that is for sure. That’s all that matters Gringos.
BTW, you would all be well advised to spend less time on this blog and more time on
http://www.mahalo.com/Spanish
Time is running out.
VinyFoxy on February 28, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Holy, J, M and Joseph…Eddy!
I don’t read a lotta CQer’s here?
J_Gocht on February 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM
What delicious irony it would be if mccains asperations were derailed by this and he spent the rest of his life knowing that someone born of illegal aliens in this country could be president but he couldn’t.
peacenprosperity on February 28, 2008 at 2:26 PM
What is an unnaturally born child? Does it involve test tubes and a man-made womb?
David in ATL on February 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Ed,
Hillary may be “outta here”, thus leaving us to depend upon the “Old, Old Grey Lady” (with a cane) for our entertainment during the campaign. The nice thing is the NYT has only two classes of readers…..a) those who will be Liberal NYT supporters no matter what they print, and b) those of us who will see them as antique media providing a show of how NOT to be journalists.
Duke
DukeofDeLand on February 28, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Wait, I thought the NY Times endorsed our candidate. Why are they beating up on him now? I thought we were all friends.
There was a joke from Bill Cosby many years ago. It went that there was a coin toss before the wars, and the winner of the toss was able to pick the way the enemy fought the war. Team Captain Sitting Bull told Custer to wait at the bottom of the hill and all the Indians in the world were going to ride right down on him.
We’re really no different. We let our enemies, and the Liberals are our idealistic enemies, pick our candidate and now we’re surprised that the candidate sucks? We let the Liberals pick our candidate. How stupid can we get? If we got to pick the Democratic Nominee, Zell Miller would be the nominee.
Snake307 on February 28, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Wow. Even if you meant this tongue-in-cheek, you raise a valid Constitutional question. The Constitution explicitly says “he” in reference to the House, the Senate, and the President (although not about the judiciary).
It took a Constitutional Amendment (#19) to give women the right to vote, but that amendment did nothing to change the language regarding Representatives, Senators, and Presidents:
Red Pill on February 28, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Good luck on the new site Captain.
msyb on February 28, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Ed–the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1975 and does not remain in effect. See http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization.
jim m on February 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Thinking that all courts have the same set of values as those who pat their salaries is a time worn mistake
EricPWJohnson on February 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Umm Thats “pay their salaries”
EricPWJohnson on February 28, 2008 at 2:43 PM
American Embassys are considered American Soil this is the same I believe for our Military Post many of which have hospitials for service members and dependents. My husband is an American Born Abroad he was born in an Air Force Hospital in Madrid, my daughter was born in an Army hospital in Frankfurt Germany…both Americans.
Below example of American Soil, outside the 50 states.
http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/11/14/we-still-owe-you-one-mahmoud/
Dr Evil on February 28, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Let me see if I understand this, McCain is not a true born in the USA citizen but an slut from Mexico who runs across the border illegally to drop her load, that load is a true born USA citizen?…..yes please push this McCain is not a true born in the USA citizen, I want the light of day more shown more on our border, citizens problem
jed58 on February 28, 2008 at 2:48 PM
There is a difference between being born as a citizen and being born as a “natural born citizen”. Kids born to US citizens are clearly US citizens, but they may not be ‘natural born’ citizens if they are born outside of the US. The Canal Zone may have been a US Territory, but its land was leased to the US and owned by another country.
jim m on February 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Interesting analysis here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/conlawguru/2008/feb/27/john_mccain_is_a_natural_born_citizen
bnelson44 on February 28, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Just a test comment to verify that my registration worked.
Jamie Irons
Jamie Irons on February 28, 2008 at 2:53 PM
jed58 and anyone else who cares about border security:
If you want John McCain to actually listen to you, I suggest you help the only candidate who has pledged to secure the border. Even if you hate Huckabee, helping him win Texas will be a slap in the face to McCain, and may be the only way to get McCain to pay attention.
Red Pill on February 28, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I do not like Mccain and did not want to vote for him.
BUT THIS changes my mind, if the NY
timeslie has to go this far to smear him he has my vote.allrsn on February 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Jamie Irons…
You’re back…!
Try to post a link [URL] …huh?
J_Gocht on February 28, 2008 at 3:13 PM
So the New York Times does not think John McCain qualifies as an American. Why am I not surprised? This is a newspaper whose reporters frequently refer to Israel as Palestine.
Larraby on February 28, 2008 at 3:22 PM
The staff at the New York Times has burned the midnight oil trying to find ways to derail John McCain’s campaign.
Seems an awful lot of effort has been expended for two non-stories…the first an outright smear. Not only is the Times liberal slip showing, but they’ve seem to have lost their ability to find stories of importance too.
First post btw. Followed the link from CQ. I hope I get in!
DngrMse
DngrMse on February 28, 2008 at 3:37 PM
This article raises a specious solely theoretical legal argument designed to raise doubt about a candidate.
It is akin to the specious, theoretical BS about Obama’s “real” religion.
But, it gets front page treatment in the former “paper of record”.
vnjagvet on February 28, 2008 at 3:37 PM
If the child of U.S. citizens, born in a U.S. military hospital, that just happens to be outside the 50 states, is not a “natural born citizen,” but the child of an illegal alien who just happens to be born within the 50 states is, then we truly live in Bizarro World.
I think that 8 USC 1401 pretty clearly defines who is a “citizen at birth,” i.e. natural born citizen. The definition includes “any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S.,” as well as anyone born “inside” the United States, thus equating the two.
JayVee on February 28, 2008 at 3:44 PM
All the things subsequent to the Constitution might be great interpretative aids, but they are no substitute for the real thing.
mycowardice on February 28, 2008 at 3:49 PM
The New York Times never said that and did not even come close to saying that. You can be American while not eligible to become President.
mycowardice on February 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Thanks for the reference to the actual form, “a form, AE 360, Report of Child Born Abroad of American Parent(s).”
There is no question that a naturalized U.S. citizen is a “real American.” The only thing a naturalized citizen cannot do that a natural born can is be President.
Yes, according to current law and Supreme Court interpretation a child born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen (because of the 14th Amendment) and a child born to military members or embassy staff overseas is naturalized.
Richard Disney on February 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I am heartsick! I have neither read nor heard anyone with knowledge of how this very same canard was raised and pushed with regard to Barry Goldwater. Senator Goldwater had been born in the Arizona Territory; therefore, by the reckoning of benighted left not a natural born citizen.
The left has not, will not ever come up with a thought of their own. Obama is doing exactly what Hillary and others of their ilk have done, ignore the issues and speak of nothing. It is the press that changes the meaning of the words to tell everyone he said he would help you and you alone. Do not be suckered into the fight. Confront them with facts and question they Who, What, Where, When and how of their ill formulated socialist cures for ridding the US of the ills of men.
Barry Goldwater was a true American. John McCain is a true American, fourther more he has won the right to be who he is and damn what anyone thinks about it.
Dennis227 on February 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Both natural born and naturalized U.S. citizens are “true Americans” its just that naturalized citizens cannot be President according to the Constitution. Whether McCain is a natural born or naturalized citizen will be decided in court if a candidate or party files a law suit.
Richard Disney on February 28, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Thanks litigant. Could you go share that over at freerepublic.com as well? There’s quite a few nuts over there who can’t understand it.
funky chicken on February 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Would be nice. They banned me over there months ago because of just that form of response. No bad words, no caustic language, no inflammatory rhetoric, no spam, nothing… just for posting a logical evaluation that was waaaay in the minority. The ‘free’ is not really applicable past the name. And being a conservative does not mean you have to be an emotionally controlled Hukey. In fact, its my impression few real conservatives can be controlled by emotions.
ilitigant on February 28, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Defector01 is right…NYTimes is making the case for why I want to vote for him (now).
spacekicker on February 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM
What a waste of newsprint. It can’t be that slow a news week.
Embassies, military bases yes, even the old Canal Zone is the same as American Soil itself. It doesn’t matter if it is leased or owned. That is international law. Of course, it depends on the definition of “is” is and who tries to define.
I have a friend that is a US representative (won’t mention his name) who was born prematurely on a cruise ship while sailing the Caribbean. Both parents are born U.S. citizens and he would have been born in Miami had his parents not taken a vacation. I can imagine what the NY Times will write should he eventually run for President .
gstrickler on February 28, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Richard Disney is not correct. Americans born to American citizens in overseas embassies, military bases, or other U.S. territory have no need to be naturalized. They are citizens at birth.
The law code states that there are at least 8 ways to be born a citizen, with no need for naturalization. McCain fits at least three of the different categories for not requiring naturalization.
Trouble-maker wrote, “All the things subsequent to the Constitution might be great interpretative aids, but they are no substitute for the real thing.” No. The U.S. Law is not merely “an interpretive aid”, it is the LAW and remains the law until such a time as the supreme court overturns it or congress otherwise repeals it. McCain is a natural born citizen under current law unless the Supreme Court says “wrong” to the current law code. As for the repealed 1790 law, that was not repealed for an erroneous definition of “natural born” but because congress wanted MORE cases to be “natural” and fewer to require “naturalization”–and thus the 1790 code remains a very good interpretive aid.
G. Charles on February 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Here’s something else to muddy the waters surrounding Obama’s eligibility.
Wingo on February 28, 2008 at 5:13 PM
The Old Gray Bag Lady of Walter Duranty and Jayson Blair heritage can’t help it.
They’re still not over Uncle Joe Stalin’s departure at the Pravda on the Hudson and given the vapors over dear Fidel’s retirement they’re still calibrating Pinch’s medication.
It is sad that the Times has sunk so low that they can’t fathom that those who serve their country (and their spouses) have not renounced their citizenship simply because they choose the foreign service or duty requires that they serve outside our borders.
viking01 on February 28, 2008 at 5:13 PM
The law sets forth two categories: natural and naturalized. the jerks are trying to say there’s a third category: “automatic citenship that doesn’t require naturalization, but that should be considered naturalization anyways and not natural; where even though such a citizenship classification contradicts US law, it should still control the definition of “natural born” because it would destroy any Republican chance at the White House this election.
G. Charles on February 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I’ll be glad when Rupert Murdoch buys the NYT…at a discount price.
Seaberry on February 28, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Here’s an angle for NYT’s next hit job on McCain:
McCain’s Loyalty questioned after it is found he lived in a communist country for more than 5 years.
Candy Slice on February 28, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Come on like when he filed his declaration to campaign for President of the U.S., that isn’t one of the question he had to fill out on how many forms?…come on, I am the only one that is aware of the pile high amount of beureacratic B.S. we have to go through in this country, in triplet.
Dr Evil on February 28, 2008 at 5:35 PM
That is how the article started. Hey, American parents of Americans out there:
Has this question been nagging at you? For how long? Did you contact the NYT? When? For how many generations?
Why was it only now that the NYT chose to publish this article?
vnjagvet on February 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Oh yeah, I sit up nights sweating about it. One of my kids was born on a USAF base, and gosh, what if she is ineligible to be POTUS? snort
vnjagvet on February 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM
funky chicken on February 28, 2008 at 5:50 PM
It occurs to me that the two articles the NY Times published to try to smear McCain actually highlight two areas where, yet again, Obama has more serious problems.
First, hey, even if McCain was getting intimate with a lobbyist/fundraiser type, at least he didn’t purchase his family’s primary residence with her.
And it appears that Obama could face more significant eligibility problems than McCain.
If Obama wants to have a shot at this thing, maybe he’d better ring his friends at the NY Times and tell them to quit trying to help him.
funky chicken on February 28, 2008 at 5:58 PM
So if Obama is Kenyan, would that make him an American-African or an African African-American? Actually, I guess he would be an African Halfrican-American, since he is only half African-American… Dammit, now my head hurts.
cannonball on February 28, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Since this election is all about identity politics, can we claim McCain is the first latino-american running for president?
hkenshin on February 28, 2008 at 6:03 PM
The rhetorical structure of this story is also indicative of the bankruptcy of the legacy media. Note:
and then read the rest of the piece and try to find a single person arguing that McCain (and Goldwater, and Romney the elder, and Weicker) were ineligible.
Doesn’t a debate imply people both for and against the proposition, and not just furrowed brows amongst the scribblers at the Times and law professors who are paid to argue hypotheticals in journal articles nobody reads?
(Comment posted to complete registration for an immigrant from Captain’s Quarters.)
John Walker on February 28, 2008 at 6:18 PM
I suppose this qualifies as the world-famous Hot Air Exit Question™. The answer is so they could try to fire this particular torpedo at him in the event he becomes the Republican nominee.
I’m rather surprised they didn’t wait until after the November election to fire it and try to really create a Constitutional crisis, either with the Electoral College or with the House of Representatives that certifies the Electoral College vote.
steveegg on February 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM
So the Times thinks that anchor babies are Americans but question the heritage of McCain? It seems to me that everytime they try to smear McCain, they’re actually helping him. I mean, who in the hell are they talking to? The lunatics on the left already hate him. The moderates and conservatives are sick of that kind of tactic. So, I say let them continue throwing “Pitches in the dirt”. The way I see it, they’re helping him.
orlandocajun on February 28, 2008 at 6:25 PM
The guy spent time in a POW camp on our behalf. He’s eligible.
davidk on February 28, 2008 at 6:44 PM
This is ludacrisp! That’s a phrase from my oldest boy when he was 4. Never was a word more appropriate for such a ridiculous assertion.
Mormon Doc on February 28, 2008 at 6:52 PM
I don’t disagree with most of what you said. My point is that, when attempting to resolve a conflict, if there is a discrepancy between what the Constitution says and what the law says, the former will trump the latter. Current or past laws, practices, customs, etc can help when deciphering unclear provisions (for example, what it really means to be “natural born”).
mycowardice on February 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM
This is just about as stupid as the posts on Obama’s middle name. People here seem to be caught up in peripheral. Mccain’s not getting my vote because I don’t appreciate the attitude he’s expressed toward “true conservatives” and I don’t identify with the man. Does anyone honestly believe that either candidate will be eliminated because of citizenship rules? Please, the best republican for democrats is Mccain.
jeffNWV on February 28, 2008 at 8:09 PM
I always thought “natural-born” referred to the automatic American citzen status of a child born to American parents even while overseas. It’s not like McCain is a “naturalized” citizen. He was born to it.
It seems fairly simple to me.
Redhead Infidel on February 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »