NYSlimes: McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

[Come Back to NY]

gotta love it...can the Slimes do anything more to help McCain and show how completely illegitimate they are???

[QUOTE][B]McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
By CARL HULSE[/B]

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

[B]Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.[/B]

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.

Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Mr. Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin[/url]

[intelligentjetsfan]

Its the 'silly season'. This story means about as much to me as the meaning of the book reports taken from Obama's middle school.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE]But given mounting interest, [B][SIZE="6"]the campaign recently asked [/SIZE][/B]Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research. [/QUOTE]

:zzz::zzz::zzz:

[Sourceworx]

CBNY, I'm actually with you on this one. This story is absurd.

[MnJetFan]

NY Times out of touch with reality more and more everyday!

[nuu faaola]

McCain obviously is eligible to be president. Anyone who denies that is a goof.

The story is worth reporting, however, because McCain's own campaign says it is looking into the issue. There's an on-the-record acknowledgement from Olson.

This is much better reporting than the affair nonsense, overreaching that ruined an otherwise decent story, in my opinion.

[PlumberKhan]

I don't understand how this reflects on the Times badly.

Did the article say McCain shouldn't be president because he was born in the Canal zone?

Or is the article merely reporting on the insignificant controversy surrounding the silly debate?

The McCain campaign hired a lawyer to present a legal analysis on it. Did they do so because of other stories the Times ran? Is the Times solely responsible for anybody anywhere taking about this?

The so-called controversy IS ridiculous. But the Times isn't at fault for merely reporting on it. That's what newspapers do.

[JetsCrazey]

run with it....anything to prevent McKeynes from getting the nomination.

[Darth Vader]

thats actually funny.

[bigalbarracuda]

Left-wing Conspiracy!

[URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/28/does-john-mccain-have-a-birthplace-problem/?mod=googlenews_wsj"]http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/28/does-john-mccain-have-a-birthplace-problem/?mod=googlenews_wsj[/URL]

[quote=Wall Street Journal 2/28/2008] [B][SIZE="3"]

Does John McCain Have a Birthplace Problem?[/SIZE][/B]Posted by Dan Slater
Here’s some LB Thursday morning triva: What do the following Republican presidential candidates have in common?

A) John McCain (2008)
B) George P. Weicker Jr. (1980)
C) George Romney (1968)
D) Barry Goldwater (1964)

OK, so our headline sort of gives it away. Yes, they were all born on foreign soil, and therefore their basic constitutional qualifications for the presidency — a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence — have been called into question. And now it’s McCain’s turn. (Here’s the NYT story.)

In 1936, McCain was born at the Coco Solo Air Base, in the then-American controlled Panama Canal Zone (pictured), to Jack McCain, a Navy officer, and Roberta McCain. If McCain wins the 2008 election, he’d be the first American to take the presidential oath who has an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

According to the Times story, McCain’s campaign recently asked Gibson Dunn’s Ted Olson to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” Olson told the Times, adding that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, was a bit more definitive, “He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Graham said of McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.” [/quote]

P.S. It's interesting... but it will not and should not have any effect on either his candidacy or his legal right to run for president.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=bigalbarracuda;2394020]Left-wing Conspiracy!

[URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/28/does-john-mccain-have-a-birthplace-problem/?mod=googlenews_wsj"]http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/28/does-john-mccain-have-a-birthplace-problem/?mod=googlenews_wsj[/URL]



P.S. It's interesting... but it will not and should not have any effect on either his candidacy or his legal right to run for president.[/QUOTE]

which part of this article that refers to the Times did you miss??? or was it willful ignorance on your part in dismissing the direct link to the Slimes story posted in this blog???

of course a law blog on the WSJ is comparable to an article in the Slimes....makes lotsa sense....:rolleyes:

[DeanPatsFan]

The New York Crimes throwing sh*t against the wall hoping something will stick.

How the commies can give this bird cage liner an ounce of credibility is beyond me.

[intelligentjetsfan]

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2394064][B]The New York Crimes throwing sh*t against the wall hoping something will stick.[/B]

How the commies can give this bird cage liner an ounce of credibility is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

You are funny. [B]ALL[/B] you do around here is throw sh*t aganist the wall hoping something will stick. One day its a thought-provoking thread about Obama's clothing or his lapel pin. On other days you captivate us with important election issues such as middle names and essay papers.

[RIJetFan]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2393358]gotta love it...can the Slimes do anything more to help McCain and show how completely illegitimate they are???



[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin[/url][/QUOTE]

This issue, if raised, would ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, and there is absolutely no way that this right wing court would rule against McCain on this grey issue and hand the presidency to the dems.

A bit of trivia: Olson, the lawyer referred to in the article, is an extremely well-connected republican whose wife perished on one of the 9/11 planes.

[DeanPatsFan]

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2394067]You are funny. [B]ALL[/B] you do around here is throw sh*t aganist the wall hoping something will stick. One day its a thought-provoking thread about Obama's clothing or his lapel pin. On other days you captivate us with important election issues such as middle names and essay papers.[/QUOTE]

Stop stalking me and put me on ignore. Your obsession with me is getting creepy.

[intelligentjetsfan]

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2394075]Stop stalking me and put me on ignore. Your obsession with me is getting creepy.[/QUOTE]

You give yourself FAR too much credit. But since we are in a public forum, and you are publicly acting like a moron, I have the right to call you on it.....publicly

[bigalbarracuda]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2394050]which part of this article that refers to the Times did you miss??? or was it willful ignorance on your part in dismissing the direct link to the Slimes story posted in this blog???

of course a law blog on the WSJ is comparable to an article in the Slimes....makes lotsa sense....:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

:chimp: Which part of the article in the WSJ is a dismissal of the Times story as being slanted, ridiculous, conspiratory, or created to attack McCain as you insinuate?

When the campaign of Presidential contender speaks about an issue and hires someone to look into it I guess it's not news at all. If Hillary hired someone to look into her constitutionally legitimacy you'd just brush it aside right?


How about this post from freerepublic... one of your favorite sites I'm sure.

[URL="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971696/posts"]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971696/posts[/URL]

It's a story... the WSJ thinks so, this conservative site things so. It'll be forgotten about in a news cycle if it even gets that far and will do zero damage to McCain.

Get over yourself.

[DeanPatsFan]

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2394078]You give yourself FAR too much credit. But since we are in a public forum, and you are publicly acting like a moron, I have the right to call you on it.....publicly[/QUOTE]

You're right Skippy, you have every right to stalk me and respond to my posts.

I'm just suggesting that you put me on ignore to help you avoid an ulcer..

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2393963]I don't understand how this reflects on the Times badly.

Did the article say McCain shouldn't be president because he was born in the Canal zone?

Or is the article merely reporting on the insignificant controversy surrounding the silly debate?

The McCain campaign hired a lawyer to present a legal analysis on it. Did they do so because of other stories the Times ran? Is the Times solely responsible for anybody anywhere taking about this?

The so-called controversy IS ridiculous. But the Times isn't at fault for merely reporting on it. That's what newspapers do.[/QUOTE]

Nobody?

[bigalbarracuda]

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2394084]You're right Skippy, you have every right to stalk me and respond to my posts.

I'm just suggesting that you put me on ignore to help you avoid an ulcer..[/QUOTE]

I had you on ignore for a little while... but then I thought to myself...

[I]"Why let this hateful POS, who compares Jet fans to Terrorists and Bill Belichick to George Bush on Sept. 11, who openly pines for the death of other Americans he doesn't agree with, who has never engaged in a policy discussion of what he believes and instead only offers ad hominem attacks and veiled fear-mongering, get away with it. Why let him spew his venom and distorted false reality?"[/I]

I wonder if you're like this in real life or if you simply feel empowered online with the reality that their are no personal discussions or repercussions for your tripe. Anonymity must be sweet when you're a know-nothing blowhard troll.

Pathetic... do you even live in Massachusetts or are you one of those frontrunners who live in the South but have adopted the Pats as your team because they were dominant?