John McCain's Citizenship Status & Eligibility for the Presidency Called into Question
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone on a U.S. military base to two United States citizens. Because of the location of his birth, McCain's eligibility for the presidency is now in question.
The U.S. Constitution states that "No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of President." While no one is disputing that McCain is a citizen of the United States, the issue of whether he can be considered a "natural born citizen" is being called into question. A natural born citizen "is where only the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status."
Although McCain was born on a U.S. military base, it is now being argued that he is not a natural born citizen, but rather, should be considered a "naturalized" citizen. Panama, is not a U.S. territory - it is a sovereign nation.
To date, no law or court ruling has ever actually established the official or precise definition of what is a "natural born citizen". However, it is typically agreed that a natural born citizen is one who is born in any of the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia.
But now that the issue has come up, will it come down to a court ruling to settle the issue? As Mitt Romney has made the accusations in his campaign, it's not likely an issue to go away soon.
Comments
McCain
Until Hanoi releases McCain's interrogation file, he will NEVER, EVER, get my vote.
I do not want the Communist Viet Cong to be in a position to blackmail my President who they broke under torture, which is the position they would be in.
The Maverick is hardly a maverick at all. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he graduated 5th from the BOTTOM of his class and crashed 5 jets along the way.He and his Select Committee lied to the American public about last known alive POWs who were never repatriated.
I hope he gets the swift boating he so deserves. Just like he swiftboated Ms Alfond and family members at his select committee hearings in the 90's who were simply seeking answers from their ELECTED officials regarding their loved ones obviously abandoned.
Isn't it curious that he was NEVER promoted while in captivity or afterward?
McCain
Get-A-Life (and find something both constructive and realistic to comment upon or complain about).
The circumstances and surroundings under which McCain was born do not, by any means or for any reason, disqualify him for office.
McCain
I certainly would like to know the name and background of the person who wrote the above statement regarding McCain. I am a 20% disabled vet who served in Korea as an enlisted man.
Come out of the shadows and let everyone know who you are. My initial reaction is that you have a sub-100 IQ.
C.M. Fainsbert, MBA/CPA
john mccain
natural born citizens are 14th amendment persons.the nationally act of 1940 and 1952 cleared up what the united states is, it includes puerto rico, u s virgin islands guam northern mariana islands. if you are born anyplace else you have two citizenships.the place whare born and that of your parents.when you reach 18 you must deside what you want.in the case of panama canal zone john mccain had to depend on his parents to be decleared a us citizen. he is not a citien at birth .see us code tittle 8 ch 12 sec 1402.to get a certificate of citienzship ,you must take oath to the united states.natural born citizen do not have to do that.
John McCain's Citizenship Status
As regards the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, Chief Justice Melville Fuller (with Justice John Marshall Harlan concurring), dissenting in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898), said:
“Thus the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.
“If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.”
So, to Chief Justice Fuller, under Wong Kim Ark, children of U.S. citizens born abroad since 1868 “WERE AND ARE ALIENS.”
Sadly, he adds, these foreign-born could only be “naturalized in the United States”--and could NOT possibly be “naturalized,” if they happen to be somewhere else--with the rather grim caveat that “no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect,” including, of course, “all [naturalization] acts from 1790 down.”
In the same Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Horace Gray in his majority opinion added a more disturbing note:
“In 1802, all former acts [naturalization acts of 1790 and of 1795] were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were re-enacted in this form ‘… the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.' Act April 14, 1802, c. 28, 4 (2 Stat. 155) …
“But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent, Comm. 52, 53; Binney, Alienigenae, 20, 25; 2 Am. Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that congress might supply this defect in our law.
“In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that 'persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.' 10 Stat. 604; Rev. St. 1993.
‘It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802; and that the act of 1855, like every other act of congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States.”
So, to Justice Gray, “during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad”; thus, during this 50-year period, foreign-born children of American parents--who had not become U.S. citizens before the naturalization act of 1802--were ALIENS.
In view of all this, can Senator John McCain still claim to be “natural-born,” or does he belong to the category of statutory citizens of the United States whose right to citizenship may be restricted by a mere act of congress?
McCain was born in a US Territory
The whole thrust of this article doesn't really apply to McCain's case. There is also a subtle error in logic in the original article that creates this controversy. The article claims "Panama, is not a U.S. territory - it is a sovereign nation". The whole controversy is predicated on this statment of fact however, this fact is a red herring. John McCain was not born in the sovereign nation of Panama but in the then US Territory of the Canal Zone. The Canal Zone operated under US federal law within US Court jurisdiction. It had it's own US police force and US military bases within it.
Foreign born to US citizens
I read the same U.S. Supreme Court cases and some others. This is not a slam dunk issue. The U.S. Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be President. Does that include foreign born children of U.S. citizens? Apparently, the U.S. Congress in 1790 did not think so; they enacted that year a law to confer citizenship status to such children. When our Constitution was written we did not have any foreign military bases or embassies. We had just won a war with England to claim the 13 colonies. There is a very good argument that the Constitution, when written, did not conceive of a need to confer any form of citizenship status on foreign born (even to US citizens). A mere act of Congress does not change the U.S. Constitution. People seem to think that because Congress eventually gave citizenship status to certain foreign born persons, that McCain has nothing to worry about. They forget that Congress has no power to change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It takes a Constitutional Amendment. I agree that it would be a travesty for McCain not to be eligible. However, it was a travesty that Blacks were not treated as full persons and that women could not vote. The U.S. Supreme Court could not save the day because it was constrained by the Constitution. It took the 14th, 15th and 22nd Amendment to right those wrongs. Will it take a similar amendment to allow foreign born persons of US citizens to be U.S. President? (It is noteworthy that even the U.S. State Department acknowledges that children born to US diplomats abroad and at foreign US military bases are not considered natural born U.S. citizens; they are considered citizens at birth, not citizens due to place of birth. Place of birth, rightly or wrongly, as always mattered to the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress.)
We need a US Supreme court
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?
Kali-förnia Über Alles 21st Century
I am Governor Schwarzenneger
Pretty Soon I'll be dictator
When 'they' make me president
Democracy is going away
Hasta la vista, bay-bay
I will command all of you
Kindegarten cop in every school
Or I will terminate you
California Ubber Alles
California Ubber Alles
Ubber Alles California
Ubber Alles California
Enron will control you
Like they staged the recall coup
Steroids for the master race
So you all can haff my face
Close your eyes, can't happen here
Bush and Cheney are already here
Third reich won't come back, you say
Not if Fox news has their way
Can i grope your titties today?
California Ubber Alles
California Ubber Alles
Ubber Alles California
Ubber Alles California
Mandate: two thousand und four
Knock knock at your bedroom door
It's the homelands security police
You're a terrorist and so is your niece
Drag you secretly to a camp
Where we keep all da girly men
Don't you worry it's a for a cause
Feeding halliburton's claws
Die on your feet of uranium gas
North korea or Iran
Run you over with my Hummer® baby
If you mess with Schwarzenneger
And all the money that's making him bigger
California Ubber Alles
California Ubber Alles
Ubber Alles California
Ubber Alles California
14th amendment
Because the 14th amendment says " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." some people mistakenly interpret that to mean that the only way to be a US citizen is to either be born in the US or to be naturalized in the US. They then go on to surmise that since McCain was not born in the US, he must therefore be a naturalized citizen. That is an incorrect use of phraseology.
What it's saying is that if a person is born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then they have a Constitutional right to US citizenship. Congress cannot unilaterally decide to take their citizenship away, without first amending the Constitution. The amendment does not prevent Congress from enacting laws that confer US citizenship upon other people, also. It's just that those other people would not have constitutional protection of that citizenship.
In order for citizenship to be restricted just to people born or naturalized in the US, the clause in the amendment would have to say "ONLY persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Then, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to grant citizenship to someone who did not meet those requirements.
Here's an analogy:
Take the statement "All hammers are tools." Nobody would disagree with that statement. But it doesn't mean that screwdrivers or saws aren't also tools. It just means that hammers definitely ARE tools, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Similarly, the statement that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" does not exclude other people from also being citizens of the United States, it just means that the ones who are born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof definitely are citizens.
McCain is a citizen through parentage and he has held that citizenship from the moment of his birth.
Article II and the 14th Amendment
If the only argument here were the phrasing of the 14th Amendment, then you would be correct Charlie. Of course the 14th amendment is not the only argument. We actually have two different Constitutional issues here. the First is your argument already provided. The second tho is quite different. Article II Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution states:
"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."
This in conjuction with the 14th amendments rather unfortunate phrasing is what leads the Supreme Court to rule in favor of jus soli (Citizenship by Birth) rather than jus sanguinis (Citizenship by Inheritance). In every test to date The Supreme Court has held that a person who is Born on US Soil is a citizen, if one or both of his parents were us citizens or non us citezen resident aliens not in the diplomatic corps or attached to a foreign military at war with the United states.
John McCain was born of US Citizens in the Panama Canal Zone (Not US Soil not taxed or treatied with as US Soil but sovereign soil of Panama leased to the United States and the Panama Rail Company). If you were born in the smae place at the same time as McCain, upon entry into the US, you would have to become naturalized and therefore would not be a "Natural Born" citizen. Therefore the conclusion is that John McCain is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen." Perhaps he meets the other qualification? Lets see: the alternative requirement is: "...a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution..." again that lets John McCain out. he would have had to been alive at the signing and a citizen. so that puts him out. Now unless Congress amends the Constitution on or before the first Tuesday in November 2008 then John McCain is by Supreme Court Precedent inilligible to be President of the United States.
McCain IS a Natural Born Citizen
See 8USC1403 Titled ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. It states that all persons born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904 are citizens of the US. No naturalization process is required as he is a US citizen by birth in territory declared to be US territory and codified in US code...
Does Not Apply
Tom,
Title 8USC Sec1403 is not applicable here. Yes John McCain is a Citizen. No question. The Question is: is he a "Natural Born Citizen" as is required by the constitution? The answer to that (See United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is an emphatic NO. The Meaning of Article II Section 1 Paragrah 5 is quite clear. No person not a natural born citizen (see the concept of jus soli vs. jus sanguinis in law) or a citizen at the time of the enacting of the constitution are eligible to be president of the united states.
McCain's Citizenship
Congress and states pass many laws that are later found to run afoul of the US Constitution. Congress can pass a law today that says all persons born in Montana are not US citizens. Simply because this may be signed by the President and enacted into law does not mean it is lawful. If it is not consistent with the US Constitution, it will be struck down. It matters not how Congress defines "natural born." It only matters how that term was understood back in 1776.
Post new comment