BF2S Forums McCain not born in the USA?

IRONCHEF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's too bad for their (and yours, apparently) that a child born to US citizens abroad is still considered a "natural-born" citizen. The status of the parents is the key factor in those cases, rather than the location of the birth.

Might want to read your own source.

It says:

Legitimate Source wrote:

(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under
which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This
rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in
the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have
changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also
changed.

Yeah, I did read my own source, which says that being born outside the US on military or otherwise sovereign territory doesn't count "as far as the 14th amendment" is concerned.  There's no debate about him being a citizen by blood, but rather about being a potential presidential candidate.

Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2008-02-29 19:05:12)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The Times is just getting warmed up with McCain.  People will rally around McCain in his defense as long they launch these transparent and indirect attacks. His fund raising went up after their first round. And the confusing thing is they know it.

Bad publicity is still publicity.

Kmarion wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The Times is just getting warmed up with McCain.  People will rally around McCain in his defense as long they launch these transparent and indirect attacks. His fund raising went up after their first round. And the confusing thing is they know it.

Bad publicity is still publicity.

Nothing unites a people like a common enemy.

Turquoise wrote:

We need to amend that part of the Constitution anyway.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Well, I saw the headline last night in the news and immediately considered it to be another shameless political salvo in the ongoing saga that is "presidential campaigning as usual."  So naturally I gave it as much attention as I did the affair scandal stirred in me...none.

headline

But then today, there was some interesting links floating around, and by golly, I think they have something!  Could it be?  Is it true?  Is there truly official US law suggesting that being born on US sovereign property at a US Military installation or embassy doesn't qualify as being born as a US Citizen in conjunction with the 14th amendment saying you have to be in order to be Preznit?

I'll report, you decide!

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United
States"
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
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.

Legitimate Source.

Now to be honest, I could care less.  If anything, it would be funny to see that psycho blow his lid being formally told he does not qualify as a presidential candidate.  I doubt he'd win anyway, but if he did, it would be fun to see the circus ensuing if this actual disqualification was debated.  If he does take office, then the 14th amendment has been blocked.  Then Arnold could run on the McCain precedent! lol  Oh the possibilities!  Madeline Albright could run too finally!

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Soory
US CODE can't amend the constitution
Its constitutional law 101
Congress has the power to enlarge those eligble to be called citizens
BUt that does not affect the term "Natural citizen" as found in the constitutional provision concerning who is elgible to be president.
Not all citizens are equal with regards to who can be president

The canal zone/ military base birth might get him there but the US Code doesn't help him

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

*nods* Times change, and occasionally, so must the Constitution.

Changing the constitution to accomodate an immediate need of a single individual seems like a bad idea. Changing the constitution should only be relevant when the aim is to better the future, or when the need is imminently critical to the nation as a whole.