Interesting Constitutional Technicality with McCain

[Pangloss]

According to the Constitution, the President of the United States must be a natural-born US citizen. He or she cannot be "naturalized", i.e. be a citizen of another country that has become a US citizen.

 

This is the clause from the Constitution:

 

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.

 

The question is whether the phrase "natural born citizen" refers to Americans born inside the confines of the country, or whether they are born as citizens (i.e. to two American parents, or via one of the other criteria (there are many)). The framers probably meant the later -- people born as citizens, regardless of location. The framers never really talked about it, and (interestingly) the clause was never debated at the Constitutional Convention.

 

Until this time the question has been moot because there's never been a president who was born outside of the US. There have been candidates who were born outside of the US. Barry Goldwater, who was the Republican nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona before it became a state. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico and ran for president in 1968. There may have been others.

 

Enter John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there. He was born to two American parents and his natual citizenship is not disputed, but he was definitely outside of the boundary of the country. And it is interesting to note that the question has never been legally established. It could, in theory, be challenged in court.

 

I don't know that there's a whole lot of real meat to this, I just thought it was kinda interesting. It seems like something that even the far left wouldn't bother with. But hey, I've been wrong before, and hatred is a powerful motivator.

 

What do you all think? Possible trouble, or just a lark?

[CDarwin]

Barry Goldwater, who was the Republican nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona before it became a state.[/Quote]

 

That doesn't mean you were born outside the U.S., though. It was a Federal Territory then. If you were born in Washington D.C., you're still a natural born US citizen.

 

Enter John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there. He was born to two American parents and his natual citizenship is not disputed, but he was definitely outside of the boundary of the country. And it is interesting to note that the question has never been legally established. It could, in theory, be challenged in court.

 

I don't think so. The Canal Exclusion Zone was legally U.S. territory until 1976 when it fell under joint control, if I'm not terribly mistaken.

[D H]

Possible trouble, or just a lark?

A lark, I think. From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone#Citizenship

In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship. 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.

 

However, just before this, the same article states

On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.

 

The decision belongs to neither the Controller of the Treasury nor Congress. It belongs to the Supreme Court. It will become a real issue if (a) someone decides to press the case and (b) the case makes it all the way up to and through the Supreme Court with McCain as the loser. I do not doubt someone will press the case. I firmly doubt the latter is the case.

 

EDIT: I intentionally left out the possibility that some lower court will decide against McCain and all intermediate courts and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal. The appeal would be inevitable; the Republicans have too many resources and would have too much at stake not to file an appeal. The Supreme Court does not like to let lower courts have the ultimate say on previously untested constitutional issues that have major ramifications.

 

I suspect the Republican Party has fully vetted this issue with their constitutional experts.

[Pangloss]

I don't think so. The Canal Exclusion Zone was legally U.S. territory until 1976 when it fell under joint control' date=' if I'm not terribly mistaken.

[/quote']

 

Sure, but like I said, the constitution isn't very specific here. There is precedent for that -- Puerto Ricans are born with US citizenship, for example. And Article 4 of the Constitution states that US laws apply to any territory under control of the federal government.

 

But the Panama Canal Zone was a very special case -- it didn't operate like a normal US Territory ala Puerto Rico. If you were born to one parent who was a US citizens, you became a citizen, but if not you became a Panamanian citizen. Which is actually like it works everywhere else in the world -- if you're born in London to at least one US citizens, you're a US citizen. (Edit: I cross-posted with D H, and he seems to see the same wiggle room. That's an interesting point about Republicans probably talking this issue over with constitutional lawyers.)

 

On the other hand, there is the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the United States or in areas "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

 

The main thing is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on it.

[iNow]

If it takes a mediocre challenge of this nature for the Dems to take the white house over McCain, then McCain truly deserves the presidency anyway.

[ecoli]

McCain was born of 2 US citizens though, right?

[Pangloss]

Yes, there's no question of his at-birth citizenship status. The only question is whether the framers intended that the president be born inside national territory.

[iNow]

Yes, there's no question of his at-birth citizenship status. The only question is whether the framers intended that the president be born inside national territory.

 

It's really an interesting question, but one would have to imagine that such a literal interpretation is not what the framers had in mind. Okay, maybe "one" doesn't have to imagine that, but I sure do!

[bascule]

I saw this awhile ago and almost thought about posting a thread about it, however after reading more about it I don't see the problem.