The Supremes say John McCain isn´t natural.

On December 20, 2008. two days after the Electoral College has elected John McCain President, the Supreme Court rules that he is ineligible to serve. The decision is based on the fact that the Arizona Senator was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Sine all the treaties ceded the Canal Zone to the U.S said control as if sovereign ¨ The zone was always legally sovereign territory of Panama, the court ruled he was not born on U.S. soil and therefore not an natural born American. One month later President Sarah Palin was sworn in and official nominated Bobby Jindal as Vice President.
 
Its pushing it. Technically, as the canal was under US dominion when he was born, he has US citizenship regardless of whether the territory was ceded or retroactively declared this or that. And I believe that since his parents were American citizens, he would be counted as a natural American in whatever case no matter where he was born.
 
that would require a complete bastardization of the Citizenship rules. The natural Born Citizen status extends to the children of any U.S. citizen no matter where they are born
 
but in ur situation the dems would easily swear in Jindal because when Palin fails, Jindal is attached to her name and then both the future stars of the GOP go down in 2012 and have no real future in national office
 
I came into this thread expecting something about Motown-era girl group the Supremes. I was sorely disappointed.
 
SRT: Reminds me of the Onion article that did just that, although it was about their ruling on something else.

:D For some reason I love Supreme Court jokes. My favorite comes from America: The Book. It's got a list of "landmark Supreme Court cases" including the old favorites like "Brown vs. Board of Education" and "Roe vs. Wade" but then it goes on to "Godzilla vs. Megalon." :D
 
Its pushing it. Technically, as the canal was under US dominion when he was born, he has US citizenship regardless of whether the territory was ceded or retroactively declared this or that. And I believe that since his parents were American citizens, he would be counted as a natural American in whatever case no matter where he was born.


I don't think citizenship is the issue. I believe there is a claus in the constitution that requires the President to be born on American soil.
 
I don't think citizenship is the issue. I believe there is a claus in the constitution that requires the President to be born on American soil.

Article 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the united states:


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.

Under the terms of the fourteenth ammendment, the naturalization act of 1790, and a few others, a natural born citizen does not require birth in an american state; simply birth to American parents or on american soil. There is some grey area, but it really only pertains to children born with two non-citizen parents or parents otherwise not subject to american law. Not the best wording in the world, but the constitution is fairly clear.
 
Actually there is a clause in the constitution which maybe can be interpreted that way. It seems to be a contested issue, but there is a strong tendency to a probable eligibility (which I think is correct).

See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

The clause in the constitution:
Constitution of the USA Art. 2 Sec (1):
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 wording implies a difference between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen". Since both variants are mentioned alternatively this would imply that a not natural born Citizen actually can become president as long as he is a Citizen of the USA. Therefore I really do not understand why this issue is contested between US lawyers. The arguements of the contesters (given on wikipedia) do not meet my standards on logical legal discussion. Then again the contesters seem to be a minority. Perhaps a US lawyer present here can enlighten me.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Actually there is a clause in the constitution which maybe can be interpreted that way. It seems to be a contested issue, but there is a strong tendency to a probable eligibility (which I think is correct).

See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

The clause in the constitution: The wording implies a difference between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen". Since both variants are mentioned alternatively this would imply that a not natural born Citizen actually can become president as long as he is a Citizen of the USA.

This is a specious argument. What the quoted section of the Constitution says is that natural born citizens, or citizens of the United States at the time of adoption of the Constitution, can be elected President. The comma in between the words "States" and "at" does not change that.

When the Constitution of the United States was adopted, there were no "natural born citizens" old enough to be elected President of the United States. George Washington et al would all have been ineligible, because, when they were born, the United States did not exist. They were "natural born citizens" of the British Empire, or of their individual States, but not of the United States. So they had to include that portion of the quoted passage so that somebody could actually be elected to the office of President in 1789!
 
Last edited:
Now that explains something. Thank you. I really am not very good with English rules on commata.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Top