The Inevitable “Natural Born Citizen” Debate
February 28th, 2008 at 12:51pm Matt Margolis
The New York Times, which already declared its intent to thwart John McCain’s candidacy, is now following up its previous smear with another ridiculous story questioning whether John McCain is even eligible to be President of the United States, because of his place of birth.
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.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
Obviously since this has been vetted before, the New York Times really has no reason to try to inject new life to the claim. This seems quite typical of the Left smear tactics. When Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, his Democrat opponents called his residency into question because he had been temporarily living in Utah to manage the Olympics. When Tom DeLay has retired from the House and moved to Virginia, Democrats challenged his residency (by saying he was still a resident of Texas) in order to keep him on the ballot.
It’ll be interesting to see how the Democrats pursue this. If they make any attempt to challenge McCain’s eligibility, then they will do so out of fear.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Media, Republicans
27 Comments
1. Obama2008 | February 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
There are far more substantive reasons not to put McCain in the White House.
Principal among them is this country cannot afford a Bush third term.
McCain will continue the failures and incompetence in handling foreign affairs and the undermining of our safety we have witnesses in the past eight years
2. Lyn | February 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
That he was born on a US military installation does not disqualify Senator McCain from being President.
The article is right. If this does become a point it will only be out of Democratic desperation.
Senator McCain is a good candidate and an honorable man. He has the experience and the integrity to help America face the challenges ahead.
3. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
It’s a news story. There are lots and lots of news stories that are written because the publisher thinks people might find the subject of interest. The question is obviously one of general interest because the founders didn’t anticipate a presidential candidate being born in something called the Panama Canal Zone. However, imagining this as some kind of attempt to derail McCain’s primary campaign, given that the New York Times endorsed him in the primary, is pretty paranoid, I’d say. But, hey, if being paranoid gets you through the night…
4. Michael | February 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Anyone who has served in the US military knows that any children they have are “natural-born” citizens no matter where they are actually born. Just think if that wasn’t so. The military would consist of nothing but single men and women. Since much of our military are married we’d lose all of them.
This IS a desperate move on the part of the liberal MSM and another in a long list of planned smears by they NY Times of John McCain. In one sense it is heartening; this is all they have? How stupid do they think we are?
5. plainjane | February 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Another reason the Huckster must be waiting in the wings. If Rhenquest was the chief justice this would be a McCain slam dunk. The Robert’s court should rule on this if for only future candidates, because McCain is never going to be President anyways.
6. Obama2008 | February 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
plainjane:
McCain is never going to president?
Let’s not get too confident about this election and work to elect progressive/liberal democrats to office across this nation and to the White House.
No one ever thought that idiot Texas governor would get elected in 2000…..well he wasn’t really but the lack of fight on the Democratic side allowed that tragedy to occur.
Once the Right Wing Noise and Smear Machine target Obama in the general election, like they did to McCain in the 2000 primaries we will have our work cut out for us.
You know they may even spread rumors around that Obama has black children or something……
Being that Republicans are cornered and wounded animals, they will resort to anything to maintain their ever diminishing hold on power
7. OhioOrrin | February 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
ok Johnny Mac’s DQ’ed, so now it’s…
…Ron Paul time!
He aint no GD fer-in-er like that ceegar smokin gropenfurher w a kennedy 4 a wife.
8. Darva Conger | February 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Yawn. This is a non-issue.
9. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
It is actually a pretty dumb issue. But hey Matt, go ahead and make it sound like the big bad meanie liberal Democrats are behind this!
That MSM bringing up all this smear articles and all.
Nobody cares. This doesn’t matter to anyone but you obviously.
Of course, you cry in your milk over a smear article about McCain, yet you continue to bring up “corruption” pieces on Obama and treating them as fact when all you have is circumstantial evidence and innuendo. You are also one that links the picture of Obama in the garb and don’t say anything except that “pictures are worth a thousand words” and hope people link him to some muslim.
So keep up your crying Matt.
10. Matt Margolis | February 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
wow, it is like you lefties are quoting Dean’s nonsensical talking points verbatim… How original.
11. JamesG | February 28th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Joe says, “Nobody cares. This doesn’t matter to anyone but you obviously.”
Uhh, Joe.. apparently the New York Times cares enough to call it news. I think that was his point…
You idiot.
12. Bigfoot | February 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Another Senator from Arizona who ran for president, Barry Goldwater, was born when Arizona was still a territory, which like the Panama Canal Zone, was part of the country, but not a state.
13. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Matt,
Why did you add a link to my post #9 that links to “noagenda.org”? I know for a fact that wasn’t in my post since I know how to add links, but I don’t know how to add a link to a word.
Please remove that. Or maybe you like to manipulate other people’s posts?
James,
So if the NYT posts it, then everyone should care about it? This has no bearing on anything and if you can find anyone who cares outside of outraged republicans, I’d be shocked.
14. congressive | February 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“If they make any attempt to challenge McCain’s eligibility, then they will do so out of fear.”
Very dramatic, but silly. Dems will do so because it’s the rules. And it’s always imperative that those who play by the rules, insist that everyone else does, too. Otherwise, the good guys lose.
15. congressive | February 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Oh, baby, that’s a new low!
If true, it is an unbelievable lapse of ethics to alter a blog post to change the effect and intent of a blogger’s opinion.
Man, that’s dirty pool.
Oh, and BTW, your book of “Corruption” is already on the torrents, so good luck selling any more copies. YOU need someone like Obama to champion your intellectual property rights, not McCain who said, and I quote:
“I am a free trader. I will do everything in my power as president of the United States to protect intellectual property, but, far more important, to open every market in the world through free trade.” He, ridiculously, thinks free trade is far more important than intellectual property.
Your book profits are toast, dude.
16. Magnum Serpentine | February 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
A Natural Born Citizen is one who’s Parents were born in the United States.
Now, I think we can amend this to say that natural Born will not apply to first generation Immigrants unless they get full citizenship. In other words if people who are legally able to work in the US have kids they are citizens of the parents nation of origin. Now if the parents got full citizenship then the children would become Naturally born Citizens.
Does this sound ok?
On another note, there was an Explosion in Chicago area. Lets pray for those who were hurt and the people of the area.
17. Sara | February 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Section 1401, Title 8 US Code:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(…)
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Section 1403:
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
18. js | February 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I dont think the USC intended to cover illegal immigrants whose intent it is, is to circumvent the USC, nor does the USC specifically identify individuals of foreign nations seeking to have children in this country with the intent of circumventing the citizenship requirements set out for immigration and naturalization.
It needs to be amended.
19. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
If you liberals don’t think it’s an issue. Then just let the New York Times know.
20. GOP4ME | February 28th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
A blog post about McCain and yet another NYT hatchet job. Two sentences into the first comment and Bush gets brought up in a fit of BDS?
Oh please bring this election on!!!!
McCain is going to wipe the floor clean with the demoncrat that
swindles his/her way inis nominated (even with the blatant cheerleading of the MSM for jug ears)21. NeoClown | February 28th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
So do we call him Juan McCain now?
22. Doug | February 28th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
It’s not a legal issue, it’s a constitutional issue. If the Supreme Court ever had to decide on the issue, the Scalia, Thomas, Alito wing would vote AGAINST McCain (Rehnquist would’ve as well), while the others will vote FOR McCain. It’s perfectly clear in the constitution and from supporting letters from when it was written that McCain is not eligible based on the original meaning of the Constitution.
That said, there will be no successful challenge. First off, if any person that is not a natural born person should be allowed to qualify, McCain fits the bill. Second, any challenge would have to come after the actual election took place and not prior to it. If McCain is the winner, that would be a sure fire way to make the voters mad, plus if he picks a conservative running mate, then if the challenge is successful the dems would have put into the Presidency someone they like even less.
My point is that Thomas and Scalia would say that McCain does not qualify to be President.
23. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Thanks Doug. Who’s going to win the fifth at the Meadowlands tomorrow?
24. bagni | February 28th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
mattnatural
is this even an issue w/mccain?
instead
the green goofballs were wondering?
how can obama be the muslim manchurian candidate?
wouldn’t mccain be a more credible candidate for manchurian candidate?
prison camp, brainwash, asia…yknow
somebody must be talking about this right?
sorry for our bewilderment
25. Freedom1 | February 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am
LOL! First the New York Times endorsed John McCain to be President of the United States. Now, the New York Times questions whether their endorsed candidate, McCain, is even eligible to be President of the United States. LOL!
The NYT has taken parody of itself to new lowes! Heh. Heh.
26. Doug | February 29th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Kahn, go with the Varty horses - double on them 1-2, but box it in.
27. kipling | February 29th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Here is the thing :
(1) I don’t care where he was born - in fact I wouldn’t even care if he wasn’t born a US citizen.
So its obviously a non-issue
(2) However - its not a non-story. Its a story just like any other - so I have no problem with the NYT presenting it
(3) Its really hard to take Matt seriously (well in general really) when he starts ranting about some wide ranging liberal conspiracy. Since first of all the NYT *endorsed* the man in the primaries. Its also pretty funny to see Matt get all in a huff about the supposed ‘mindless repetition of talking points’ - when indeed Matt himself has never posted anything even vaguely original. But then he runs a blog sight called ‘blogs for victory’ so I guess you should have expected it