McCain's Ineligibility for the US Presidency

For such a powerful nation, the USA has a maddeningly vague constitution, and one of the most serious constitutionial issues that has never been settled is the clause that US presidents must be 'natural born' citizens.

Probably the reason this has never been properly settled yet is that there has really only been one seriously candidate for the US presidency who was not born in the 'natural' USA: John McCain.

McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone. A place which furthermore is no longer US territory, but now part of the Republic of Panama. But because of his skin color, anglo last name and service and political record, the issue of his eligibity was never seriously raised and challenged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/world/americas/28iht-28mccain.10514626.html?pagewanted=all

So, my query is what would have happened if the issue of eligibity had been raised, and seriously challenged? Before or after the election? What if the Supreme Court had indeed ruled McCain ineligible?
 
For such a powerful nation, the USA has a maddeningly vague constitution, and one of the most serious constitutionial issues that has never been settled is the clause that US presidents must be 'natural born' citizens.

Probably the reason this has never been properly settled yet is that there has really only been one seriously candidate for the US presidency who was not born in the 'natural' USA: John McCain.

McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone. A place which furthermore is no longer US territory, but now part of the Republic of Panama. But because of his skin color, anglo last name and service and political record, the issue of his eligibity was never seriously raised and challenged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/world/americas/28iht-28mccain.10514626.html?pagewanted=all

So, my query is what would have happened if the issue of eligibity had been raised, and seriously challenged? Before or after the election? What if the Supreme Court had indeed ruled McCain ineligible?

Obama was born in Kenya. :rolleyes::p
 

Cook

Banned
Wasn't one of the 19th century Presidents born on a ship coming over from Ireland?
 
This actually was raised. A few weeks later, Republicans turned it around and birthed Birtherism. Anyways, McCain was eligible because it was U.S. territory at the time he was born.

Wasn't one of the 19th century Presidents born on a ship coming over from Ireland?
No. Where did you hear that?
 
This actually was raised. A few weeks later, Republicans turned it around and birthed Birtherism. Anyways, McCain was eligible because it was U.S. territory at the time he was born.


No. Where did you hear that?

The issue of whether being born on US Federal ex-territorial land, but not a State, still qualifies you as a 'nautral born' citizen has never been definitively settled. I've heard it argued both ways. See the article I linked.

As the other, that was a slanderous rumor started to try and discredit Andrew Jackson. It was the Birtherism of the early 19th century. Some things never change.
 
For such a powerful nation, the USA has a maddeningly vague constitution

At least we have a constitution, unlike the bloody British :p

More seriously, the Canal Zone was US territory when he was born, he was born to two clearly natural born US citizens, and children born to US citizens in Panama were explicitly granted citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1403. Furthermore, in the cases of George Romney (Born in Mexico) and Lowell Weicker (Born in France), I believe their respective campaigns looked over the legal implications and decided that they were eligible. And especially in an increasingly globalized world, saying that being "Natural born" requires one to have been born on US soil is absurd. Even if the founding fathers meant it that way, it would be as absurd as decreeing that the second amendment only applies to muskets because George Washington never knew the Uzi would exist.
 
The issue of whether being born on US Federal ex-territorial land, but not a State, still qualifies you as a 'nautral born' citizen has never been definitively settled. I've heard it argued both ways. See the article I linked.

As the other, that was a slanderous rumor started to try and discredit Andrew Jackson. It was the Birtherism of the early 19th century. Some things never change.

So being born on a US military base to US military parents in England, Germany or Japan would means you can't be President? What about the children of US diplomats serving overseas? What about people born in DC? It's not a state. Maybe the court should nullifie those people's votes and ability to be President.
 
Maybe the court should nullifie those people's votes and ability to be President.

Already done, regarding their votes.

US citizens in US territory that is not a State (ie Puerto Rico, Guam) can't vote for their president or federal government officials.

The US Consititution is a strange beast.

Anyway back to the OP.

Thoughts? Scenarios?
 

iddt3

Donor
When did that happen? Last time I checked DC got to vote for 3 members of the electoral college to elect the US President.
They don't get anything in the House of representatives though, aside from a non voting member, which is grossly unfair.
 
A child born to US citizens abroad is an American citizen automatically and this includes a child born to a member of the armed forces and his/her spouse while outside the US.

McCain's eligibility was never challenged because there was no legal basis for any such challenge.
 
A child born to US citizens abroad is an American citizen automatically and this includes a child born to a member of the armed forces and his/her spouse while outside the US.

McCain's eligibility was never challenged because there was no legal basis for any such challenge.

Even though that's the exact same situation for Obama, I still hear crying from Birthers. Legality has little importance when people get emotional over something.
 
A child born to US citizens abroad is an American citizen automatically and this includes a child born to a member of the armed forces and his/her spouse while outside the US.

McCain's eligibility was never challenged because there was no legal basis for any such challenge.

Yes, there is. A very strong one, if anyone really wanted to push it.

The framers of the US consitiution never defined what exactly they meant by 'nautral born' citizen.

Anyone born to a US citizen, or born on US territory, automatically becomes a US citizen, true.

But only 'natural born' US citizens are eligible for the office of President or Vice- President.


Edit. oops, forgot. In addition the consitituion also gives the congress the power to grant citizenship by majority vote. (ie Rupert Murdoch after his 'campaign donations' to key congressmen)
 
Last edited:
So the Birthers are fools.

This means that supporters of Obama in 2008 should have embraced their efforts with an equally invalid effort of their own?
 
Even though that's the exact same situation for Obama, I still hear crying from Birthers. Legality has little importance when people get emotional over something.

At the time of his birth, the law said that a US Citizen had to spend a certain amount of time (5yrs?) in the US for citizenship to confer to a child born overseas. His mother did not meet that requirement, and if Obama was actually born overseas, he wouldn't have been a US citizen.
 
Top