Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Mc Cain.

This is coolbert:

Thanks here to the New Duranty Times. A/k/a as the New York Times.

John Mc Cain is not eligible to be President? As a former military dependent, IS NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES! Does not meet constitutional muster!!

[Mc Cain as a military dependent was born in the American Canal Zone, Panama, NOT within the contiguous forty eight states as they existed at the time [1937].]

Could it be so!!?? Seems unbelievable, does it not!!??

Senator Patrick Leahy ONLY TODAY proposed a special law that would clarify this situation and "allow" persons born "overseas" as military dependents to be eligible for the Presidency without qualification even being controversial.

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

The question of birthright eligibility has been raised about other candidates for the Presidency. To include:

* "LOWELL P. WEICKER JR. of Connecticut, born in Paris"

* "GEORGE ROMNEY, born in Mexico"

* "BARRY GOLDWATER was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, before it became a state.

* "CHESTER A. ARTHUR [actually was elected President] was born in Vermont, but rumors suggested it was Canada."

"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."

The U.S. Constitution is quite clear on this matter:

"only a 'natural-born citizen' can hold the nation’s highest office."


“'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.'”

"multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court."

“There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

“But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

Senator Graham of South Carolina also has weighed in on the issue and says it IS a matter of concern [not excessively so??]. Lindsay Graham at one point was a senior JAG [legal] officer in the U.S. Air Force!

NOT a frivolous issue!! NOT a slam-dunk!!




Blogger John S. Bolton said...

The constitutional issue would be whether one could then have acquired American citizenship, simply from being born on Canal Zone land. Panamians and other foreigners who happened to be born within the Canal Zone boundaries did not thereby become American citizens. Unless it were decided that 'natural-born citizen' does not have this territory-specific meaning, McCain would be ineligible. If 'natural-born citizen' includes the naturalized, though, it would not specify a further qualification for the presidency. It would be equivalent to citizen, born within the borders where birthright citizenship always or sometimes obtained, or a cirtizen naturalized by statute or otherwise.

1:06 AM

Blogger Albert said...

Bert says: It IS surprising that the term "natural born citizen" HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY, EVEN AFTER OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS!!

I recall some cases revolving around citizenship and the military. Meir Kahane, the rabbi from Brooklyn. Moved to Israel, was a member of parliament, and SERVED IN SOME CAPACITY IN THE ISRAELI MILITARY!! Normally this would preclude a person from retaining his American citizenship. But he challenged this in the Supreme Court and he won. There IS some clause in the Constitution about persons SERVING AS AN OFFICER OF A FOREIGN POWER losing citizenship. But the rabbi came out smelling like rose.

When I was stationed in the Philippines years ago now, we had a sergeant in our unit who had continual duty with our unit for over five years. HAD NOT RETURNED AND SET FOOT ON WHAT WAS CALLED U.S. SOIL DURING THAT ENTIRE PERIOD! The fear was that he might lose his citizenship. The rumor was that he went to the embassy in Manila where a box was kept with American soil in it. He stepped on the soil and continued his citizenship. Could be just rumor. But gives you and indication OF HOW SERIOUS THIS STUFF IS TAKEN!!


4:14 AM

Blogger Albert said...

Bert says: I think at one time too, birthright citizen was not a given either. YOU HAD TO HAVE SPENT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF YOUR FORMATIVE YEARS [up to age 18], actually living on U.S. soil. Merely being born on U.S. soil was not sufficient. This does make sense. You have spent a certain percentage of your youth WITHIN AMERICAN CULTURE AND UNDERSTAND SAME. Understand and are a part of. I think that is no longer the case!!

If that was so, what about all the American military dependents that perhaps DO NOT SPEND A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THEIR FORMATIVE YEARS LIVING ON U.S. SOIL? I think that is how General Norm Schwartzkopf was raised. Lived and educated mostly overseas!!


4:21 AM

Blogger John S. Bolton said...

Puerto Ricans did not become birthright citizens unil the 1920's on account of some legislation for them. Filipinos were born on U.S. territory but were not automatic U. S. citizens, and we paid no annual sum to Spain for the land there. In the Canal Zone, there was a special treaty which had the U.S. and Panama operating as allies relative to Colombia, where Panama seemed to retain at least some attributes of sovereignty. I recall that the stamps said U.S. Canal Zone at first, then a FDR good neighbor policy had it as Canal Zone with Panamanian and U.S. flags.

4:21 AM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home