McCain not born in the USA?

2008-02-29 16:24:31

#26

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|7048|Northern California

Grrrr...Feos, this is not a debate about him being born a US Citizen. He was in fact born a US Citizen. BUT, because the 14th amendment definition of citizenship does NOT consider him as being "born as a US Citizen" in regards to the presidential candidacy, he then is not eligable.

Does that make better sense.

US Citizen, yes.

Potential Candidate, no - according to the cited law above and the 14th amendment.

2008-02-29 17:02:20

#27

madmurre: I suspect something is amiss; +117|7268|Sweden

Well i have always found it retarded when people scream but it´s in the constitution! so.. change it. It´s just a piece of paper, as someone said above times change so does people.

2008-02-29 17:47:03

#28

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7158|132 and Bush

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.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-02-29 17:50:01

#29

Deadmonkiefart: Floccinaucinihilipilificator; +177|7264

He was born a legal US citizen. Both of his parents were US citizens. So, it doesn't matter where he was born.

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

2008-02-29 17:57:37

#30

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6710|what

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.

2008-02-29 18:01:40

#31

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7158|132 and Bush

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.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-02-29 19:01:51

#32

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6968|'Murka

IRONCHEF wrote:
Grrrr...Feos, this is not a debate about him being born a US Citizen. He was in fact born a US Citizen. BUT, because the 14th amendment definition of citizenship does NOT consider him as being "born as a US Citizen" in regards to the presidential candidacy, he then is not eligable.

Does that make better sense.

US Citizen, yes.

Potential Candidate, no - according to the cited law above and the 14th amendment.

I fully realize what the debate is about. If he was born a US citizen (regardless of location) then he is, in fact, a "natural born" US citizen.

According to the laws passed since the 14th Amendment, he DOES meet the criteria for being a presidential candidate. The law only requires the person to be a "natural born" citizen. He is--by law--since he was born abroad to US citizens.

The article is attempting to cloud the issue without actually researching the definition of a "natural born" citizen, stopping at the 14th Amendment, rather than looking into all the relevant laws in US Code dealing with the topic.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-02-29 19:05:38

#33

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6881|New Haven, CT

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.

This is truth.

2008-02-29 19:19:41

#34

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6552|Truthistan

McCain probably can't be president
there is a difference between location and blood citizensship. the US has both, if you are born within the borders of the US then you are natural born citizen or citizenship through the constitution which is citizenship through the state you were born in. A derivative citizen is not the same and it is a citizenship through statute. There are no constitutional provisions for a federal citizenship.

McCain was born in Panama but Pamama is not US soil, a US territory or possession. It might be that he was born on a US military base, I don;t know....

What I think might happen is that Jeb Bush might be McCains running mate and after the election if McCain won he would step down or be forced out, Jeb Bush would become president and we would get an even more stupid Bush that we have now.... that would be a nightmare scenerio. McCain is the front man for Jeb Bush and that is why Bush senior, Baker and the rest of the cronies are backing McCain.

2008-02-29 19:42:46

#35

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|7242|United States of America

I agree with the FEOS sources/finding. He'd be an awesome president, too; but from my point of view there isn't anyone in the Republican party (only way he can go without being extra awesomely kickass and crossing the aisle for a VP) who can be on his ticket.

2008-02-29 20:35:27

#36

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6552|Truthistan

I still think that natural born would mean natural born in the terms of the orginal consitutional provisions.
Where natural born refers to people who gained citizenship through their citizenship in the states that joined the republic.
What that means that you have to be born in a state, you have state citizenship, that state is a member of the republic and therefore you have citizenship in the Republic
The 14th Amendment did not change this and no congressional law can change this. All the 14th Amendment did was clarify that all people born in the states are citizens - including ex-slaves- and prevented the states from stripping their state citizenship which would in effect strip them of their citizenship in the republic.
Until a court decides the issue and says that natural born citizenship includes citizenship through blood it is an open question.

2008-02-29 21:08:54

#37

AAFCptKabbom: Member; +127|7216|WPB, FL. USA

Sry to disappoint the Dems who want to get rid McCain. McCain was born in the Canal Zone (in more ways than one) to U.S. citizens under U.S. control with the permission of a foreign government. Got it - hold on. Here's where people were kidnapped by this cheap April fools ploy - the 14th amendment applies to those who have children born in the U.S. automatically becoming a U.S. Citizen - such as a child born in the U.S. by an illegal alien - the child is considered a U.S. citizen but not the parents - the amendment is applied so people of foreign origin don't flock to U.S. installations and start dropping babies all over the place just for them to be classified as U.S. citizens. McCain's was born to parents who were U.S. citizens while out of the country - sry Arnie.

2008-02-29 21:11:24

#38

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6968|'Murka

Diesel_dyk wrote:
I still think that natural born would mean natural born in the terms of the orginal consitutional provisions.
Where natural born refers to people who gained citizenship through their citizenship in the states that joined the republic.
What that means that you have to be born in a state, you have state citizenship, that state is a member of the republic and therefore you have citizenship in the Republic
The 14th Amendment did not change this and no congressional law can change this. All the 14th Amendment did was clarify that all people born in the states are citizens - including ex-slaves- and prevented the states from stripping their state citizenship which would in effect strip them of their citizenship in the republic.
Until a court decides the issue and says that natural born citizenship includes citizenship through blood it is an open question.

Read the sources. US Code fills in the gaps left by the 14th Amendment in what a "natural born" US citizen is.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-02-29 21:19:44

#39

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6552|Truthistan

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

2008-02-29 22:05:34

#40

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6552|Truthistan

Here is source
Article II section 1 of the US 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."

Now the term natural born means born on US soil. The 14 th Amendment doesn't affect it and the US code certainly doesn't change it.

Do I like the rule NO I think anyone, natural born, derivative citizen or naturalized citizen should be eligible. All citizens should be EQUAL. I think the rule is dumb and may be had its place in history or in the xenophobic past.

BUT there it is so technically I think McCain is inelgible.... but that would be up to a court to decide and it doesn't mean he can't run. He could run, win the election, but be inelgible to take the oath of office

Which is why I commented earlier about Jeb Bush being his VP running mate and end up being president. That is something to watch for and IF Jeb Bush becomes the VP nominee for McCain WATCH OUT because the fix is in.

2008-02-29 22:39:21

#41

Nappy: Apprentice; +151|6787|NSW, Australia

In the US can the president be fired? or can the people make a vote to get rid of him?

in AUS the prime minister can be fired by the Governer General (i think - if not the queen, or maybe he needs permission from the queen, or something)

i think it happened in the 70's to someone

2008-02-29 22:43:01

#42

Smithereener: Member; +138|6873|California

Nappy wrote:
In the US can the president be fired? or can the people make a vote to get rid of him?

in AUS the prime minister can be fired by the Governer General (i think - if not the queen, or maybe he needs permission from the queen, or something)

i think it happened in the 70's to someone

There is impeachment - the House of Representatives proposes impeachment for the president, and the Senate carries out the trial for "firing" the president. But it's only happened... twice I believe - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. _{Just a side note, impeachment refers to the process - no president has been actually kicked out by the Senate as of yet (Although I bet Nixon was pretty close), but Clinton and Johnson, having already been put on trial means they were impeached.}

2008-03-01 01:03:20

#43

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|7239|Disaster Free Zone

Turquoise wrote:
We need to amend that part of the Constitution anyway.

Yep, it just doesn't make sense to me at all. The same with the whole minimum age thing.

2008-03-01 03:23:46

#44

mikkel: Member; +383|7159

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.

2008-03-01 03:52:51

#45

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7209|USA

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!

It might be, but I think his service to his country, the honor he maintained while a POW, more than makes up for this technicality

2008-03-01 04:00:27

#46

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,093|7329|PNW

Better keep that in mind the next time you write-in Santa Claus, people.

2008-03-01 04:00:31

#47

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6968|'Murka

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

Did I say USC amends the Constitution? No.

What I DID say was that USC fills in the details from the Constitution. In your next post, you correctly cite the section of the Constitution that states a person must be a "natural born" citizen. Since the Constitution itself doesn't adequately describe what that is (similar to other parts of the Constitution), Congress (the Constitutional law-making body) passed laws that clarified what "natural born citizen" meant.

Since the Supreme Court did not overturn that law, it means it is within the intent of the Constitution.

So, yes...the USC does "help him" in that it clarifies exactly what the vague term "natural born citizen" from the Constitution means.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-01 09:11:40

#48

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6963|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
We need to amend that part of the Constitution anyway.
Yep, it just doesn't make sense to me at all. The same with the whole minimum age thing.

Agreed on that as well...

2008-03-01 09:13:20

#49

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6963|North Carolina

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.

I've always felt this way. Just because someone is foreign born, it shouldn't mean they can't run for an office. I don't even really like McCain and won't be voting for him, but I still would prefer this law changed.

2008-03-01 10:14:52

#50

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7315|Argentina

That's because the guy was born before 1776.

BF2S Forums McCain not born in the USA?

Kmarion wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Nappy wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer