The dirty tricks are flying on the eve of Super Tuesday. Now John McCain’s eligibility as a “natural born citizen” is getting questioned by Mitt Romney’s attack machine.
John McCain Born in Panama…
… But Still a Natural Born Citizen.
At issue is the provision in the U.S. Constitution that states only “natural born citizens” are eligible to be elected president. John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal zone, the son of an Admiral.
“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.”
–U.S. Constitution, Section 1, Article II
The issue was clarified in 1790 by the U.S. Congress, which resolved that “… the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Of course, Congress doesn’t rectify constitutional questions. That is up to the Supreme Court, which upheld that definition in the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott was vacated by constitutional amendment, seemingly leaving the question open again. Not so fast. The Supreme Court has deferred the question in case law back to Congress which resolves the question with the 1790 definition.
The hypocrisy is astounding. Mitt Romney’s own father was born in Mexico before running for president. Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement, was born in the territory of Arizona before it was a state. George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were not born in the United States.
And of course, the Panama Canal was built on the blood, sweat, and tears of the U.S. military, led by none other than Teddy Roosevelt. Stop dissing the military, creepy people in suits. Sacrificing your soul to tear down an American military hero is not worth the price.
This sudden “revelation” that John McCain was born in Panama, something we all know, is another kick in the teeth to military men and women serving overseas. The audacity to suggest that their children are not eligible to seek the highest office in the land as they lay their own lives on the line in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I’m a pro-Romney guy, but this does smack of a bit of desperation on behalf of their campaign; are things really that dire, that they have to question his natural born citizenship, so as to try to be competitive?
February 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Hey Will. Things are really flying around out there today. What an ugly primary battle this has turned out to be. Meanwhile the Dems just love both of their choices. Ugh.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Wow. For a while there, I was actually impressed with Romney’s campaign for not stooping to all the mudslinging going on with the other candidates on both sides.
But lately, it seems, there’s been more and more of this. A silly, transparent move on the Romney campaign’s part.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Alex, he was the first to go negative in the campaign. Against Huckabee, Rudy, and McCain. I’ll give him an A+ for fighting, but it seems rather unseemly in the party.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
McCain,
How in the world are you linking this to the Romney campaign? Can you actually back that up or are people supposed to just take you at your word?
Some honesty is required here on your part.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Ok Corey, we’ll just assume that these election eve stories are sent down from Heaven by God Almighty.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
It’s your blog, but it’s pretty sleazy to try to get gullible people to think that the Romney campaign is behind a couple of dumb stories that appear on the vast wasteland that is the internet.
You know as well as anyone, that all sorts of nutjobs like to write things on blogs.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Corey, my good friend, the John McCain Panama story was the most demanded political story on the web today, hardly a product of some nuts in the the vast internet wasteland. (Vast Internet Wasteland — sounds like a Who song!)
This story was pushed and promoted by the same sort of soulless partisans who pushed the Bush DUI story on an election eve in 2000. Don’t you think that Occam’s Razor normally applies in these situations.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:37 am
I always thought that if you were born on a US military base or an embassy, that it was considered US soil? This debate came up one other time with a differenct candidate if I remember right…? I have a friend who was born on a military base in Japan - she has a grogeous US birth certificate.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:26 am
My guess is this might be a McCain leak to make it look like Romney is attacking veterans. This McCain campaign has now become notorious for their late game ambush tactics. That’s how they won in Florida.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:32 am
It’s a nonissue, really. It depends on the country in question, but I can tell you that my son was born while I was stationed in Panama. At least at the time he was born, kids born there were considered dual citizens. Panama recognizes them as citizens, as does the US.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Chris - interesting - thanks for stopping by with that first-hand information! Actually, I’ll have to ask my friend who was born in Panama when his dad was in the service. He always talks about all the times they got in trouble playing in forbidden areas of the jungle - like the time they almost got attacked by a sloth…
February 5th, 2008 at 7:19 am
This is crap.
I love the attachment to the Romney campaign. If this could have been linked to his campaign it would be all over the news.
McCain is a liar, and has proven to be so. As one poster said I wouldn’t be surprised if this is from McCain’s camp.
Did you see him trying to play the “war card” again today. Telling Romney he needed to apologize to Dole. The guy is borderline crazy. McCain backers are like the ham being led to the slaughter.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Don’t you think that Occam’s Razor normally applies in these situations.
Occam’s a methodological rule for choosing between theories, not an inference rule. Saying that the justification of a claim depends on Occam’s Razor is nearly the same as admitting that the claim is a lie.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
My question to Corey is, do you think McCain was behind all of the Robo-calls that everyone has been talking about? You can’t have it both ways. Either assume that mid-guided people on both sides put out these attacks or the candidates on BOTH sides put them out.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
This is not an issue now but it will be a huge issue if McCain tries to take office. He will be challenged, and so far all the evidence points to the GOP and McCain losing this argument, and the election.
The Constitution doesn’t say that you have to be a citizen, it says you have to be a natural-born citizen, and that means your citizenship in this country must be derived purely from your birth, and not from any legislation or naturalization. Citizens born in territories get their citizenship from legislation. Citizens born in military hospitals in foreign bases are not, repeat, _not_ natural born citizens. Children born in foreign countries can claim citizenship through legislation. It is not automatic.
From the State Dept web site:
a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth - Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316, 9th Cir., 1928.
b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.
c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are __not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment__. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and __does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth__.
Children born in foreign countries on land currently being used by the US government or military are not natural-born citizens. The argument bears plenty of weight and you can rest assured it will be brought up in the courts. The Panama Canal Zone was never a territory of the US — it was leased land. That you rent something does not make it yours, you should know that by now. The exact text of the treaty:
“The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, __if it were the sovereign of the territory__ within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.”
Not only does the treat explicitly say that the US is not the sovereign of the land in which the Zone is located, it explicitly says that it only grants the rights as “if it were the sovereign”.
In 1906, Pres. Theodore Roosevelt explicitly declared that there was never any intent of creating a sovereign territory of the United States in the Canal Zone, only a tract of the land owned by Panama and managed by the United States __as if it were a territory__.
You can’t even use as an argument the 1790 law that declares children born of US citizens overseas as natural-born citizens, because the Supreme Court decision that validated that, Dred Scott, was struck down. The law of the land as it stands now is the 14th Amendment, which specifically makes a distinction between people born in the United States, and everyone else, considered citizens by naturalization, automatic or otherwise.
Do republicans want to continue to support a candidate who has a 99.999% chance of being prohibited from taking the oath and becoming president because he is not a natural-born citizen? This is no different than Arnold’s case. He is not a natural-born citizen, and neither is McCain. It is _that_ simple. Proceed at your own peril, republicans. You already stand a pisspoor chance of winning the election — this won’t help you one bit.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
We need a US Supreme court decision on this topic. A law cannot define definitions in the Constitution. If McCain gets in without clarification, will we see a President Schwarzenegger?
February 10th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Actually it can. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the congressional definition is fine. Please read the post again and stop all this nonsense.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:03 am
“Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement, was born in the territory of Arizona before it was a state.” But Arizona was still US territory. The consistitution doesn’t sya you have to be born in a “state,” just US territory.
“George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were not born in the United States.” There was an exception written into the contsitution that allowed colonists to be born outside the US, otherwise nobody could have been president..
It appears that the state dept. site has it spelled out fairly clearly. It looks like our boy John might be in some trouble.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:09 am
The crux of this argument lies in the word “beyond” as in “beyond sea”. It is old English so we need an expert in old English to clarify. Does it mean “yonder sea” (a sea at a specific far away place), overseas (on land on the other side of the ocean), or at sea (in a boat or the water outside of the US waters).
February 14th, 2008 at 6:30 am
The base is considered to be US soil. The same thing holds true when you go through customs in Canada. While you are standing in line waiting for an agent, you are technically on US soil. Once you leave that area, you are in Canada.
John McCain was born a US citizen on US soil.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:00 am
MBT - Interesting to note that one reason Hamilton never ran for President is because he was not eligible. He was born in the Carribean (some speculate he was the illegitmate child of G. Washington).
Actually, under the original understanding John might have been in some trouble. Military bases and such were not considered soil or US territory. Also note that just because Congress says something, that doesn’t necessary mean that they have the correct view on it. The 1790 could be entirely unconstitutional. The SC has not ruled specifically on this type of issue (although they have touched on the 1790 Naturalization act in different areas), so we may never know.
There are several huge hurdles to disqualfying McCain though. First, is it justicable? In otherwords, would the court even hear the case? Who has standing to bring the suit? Maybe any citizen, maybe only his opponent, tough question. Would the SC punt based on the Political Question doctrine. My guess is they might.
I think a strict constructionalist could read the plain language of the Constitution and reasonably interpret that unless the person is born in the actual United States, they are not eligible for the office. There are 2 or 3 very fascinating law review artcicles written about this very subject (if you want references let me know) and specifically mention John McCain. I think the consensus is that John is okay, but who can ever tell with the SC.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:33 am
BTM - I personally think the John is OK - I would have thought that it would have come up long before now, or at the very least be taken up recently. I always thought that if you were born on a US base to US parents stationed there, then you are a natural-born US citizen. If however, you are on vacation and you have the kid overseas, they become naturalized when you return.
Yes, SCOTUS does not always get it right - they usually create more questions than they answer…
February 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Naturalization Act of 1790, “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”
He is considered a natural born citizen so yes he can run for president.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
BTM, your explanation about Hamilton is false. Hamilton did not run for president because he was shot. All of the first presidents were born outside of the US states. they were either born on foreign soil directly or British territory before the US declared independence.
“I think a strict constructionalist could read the plain language of the Constitution and reasonably interpret that unless the person is born in the actual United States, they are not eligible for the office.”
Okay why? What does “naturally born citizen” means that is different than how it has been interpreted for 200 years? How is it that the first four presidents were born outside of the US, and Goldwater was born outside of the US?