Topic: Ron Paul
John McCain Born in Panama, can he even be President? The Constitution clearly states only those born in the United States may be Presidentby Robert Werden
(Libertarian)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
This is not open to interpretation or overturned by the 14th Amendment as it is very clear in the Constitution that the founders were being very specific on who could be the President.
The 14th Amendment was not written to change the rules of who could be the President, it was to determine citizenship. Citizenship does not allow just anyone to be the President. Only those born in the United States have that privilege.
Although John McCain was born in Panama many would argue that he was born in a US territory and is considered a US citizen. Being a citizen is not the litmus test the founders directed when they wrote the requirements to become the President.
A territory is not the United States. The United States is one of the 50 states. If Panama was a state things would be different. However Panama is a sovereign Country.
If this were the case, then we would have to allow all children born on US territories to be naturalized citizens. For example, if an Iraqi woman has an American service mans baby in a hospital in Iraq that happens to be a US Military base, then the baby would be born in US territory. This is not what the founders would have contemplated as a US naturalized citizen.
While this is probably an issue the courts would most likely rule that McCain is fully eligible to be the President, I my self would not vote for a person who is questionably walking a fine line on the founding fathers rule of Presidential eligibility.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 178 thumbs so far
2008 Robert Werden, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 31, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Robert Werden only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Robert Werden is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I have to disagree with your statement that the Constitution clearly states that only those born in the U.S. may be President. The text of the Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution states, in part, that "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 . . ."
This can obviously be interpreted in various ways - not of which are necessarily clear or obvious. One reading would mean that you must be born a U.S. Citizen (i.e., not naturalized) in order to be eligible for the Presidency. This reading would allow McCain to be President. Another reading (yours) would only allow those born on U.S. soil to be eligible for the Presidency - and you interpret this to be one of the 50 states and not a U.S. territory. This would preclude Barry Goldwater who was born in Arizona before it was admitted as a state. It would also preclude anyone born in Washington D.C. (not a state), and Puerto Rico (not a state). Perhaps you didn't mean to exclude individuals born within U.S. political territories that happen to not be states - which would resolve this particular problem.
In addition, you are incorrect about a U.S. military base being U.S. territory for the purposes of the Constitution. Someone who is born on a military base is not a U.S. citizen simply because they were born on the base. If, using your example, an Iraqi woman had the child of a U.S. Service member on a U.S. base, the child would be a U.S. citizen by virtue of the fathers citizenship (assuming paternity is proven). The location of birth would be irrelevant. If an Iraqi woman had a baby on a U.S. military base and the father was also Iraqi, this child would not be a U.S. Citizen at all.
The real issue is whether or not the individual had to be naturalized in order to be a U.S. citizen. If not, then they must have been born a citizen and are eligible for the Presidency. If they had to be naturalized then they were not "natural born."
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a McCain fan. But I don't think that twisting the meaning of the Constitution or trying to imply that it explicitly bars U.S. citizens who were born overseas due to military matters is an appropriate way to prevent someone from running. It also seems far-fetched that the Founders would have agreed to a rule that would bar someone in McCain's position - burn on a military base because his father was serving the U.S. military and his mother had joined them and kept the family together. Preventing the children of service members who are stationed overseas from being eligible to run for the Presidency could not have been their intention.
What Lazarus Long nicely said. Come on authors, do some fact checking during your final edit; provocative titles with no meat can prove irksome. I read this hoping that you'd point out that while we're stuck listening to McCain, at least we'll never have to ponder Schwarzenegger in a national debate.
"To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say, Don't be economic girlie men!" -- Arnold
United States Code Title 8 Aliens and Nationality CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION Article PART I - NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
It worries me that Robert Werden would write this article, and that it would be posted, with so little in the way of real information or fact checking. The statement that anyone born in the US Canal Zone is NOT an American citizen is an afront to Zonies everywhere. Be careful Mr. Werden because there are tens of thousands of them. Somewhat stateless and confused, James Earl Carter pulled the rug out from under three generations of people who look like, talk like Americans but were born in what is today, the Republic of Panama. Anyone born in the Zone either carries two passports or is eligible to do so. The Panamanian passport became available to them under the Carter-Torrijos Treaty of 1976.
By law as stated in the previous post Mr. McCain and everyone else who was born in the now deteriorating Zone, or the "reverted areas" as the current anti-US Torrijos government calls it, is a US citizen.
Where Werden failed to go with his ill-researched opinion is that McCain, if he so desires,and for a few dollars and some paperwork could actually and legally hold dual citizenship...like every other Zonie.
Could a Zonie run for office here in Panama? Under the Panamanian constitution the answer would be yes. Would a "gringo' stand a gnat's chance of election? The answer would be no. However, as poor as the infrastructure is throughout the country, the thin veneer of democracy being rubbed off by the current ruling party and with corruption at every level of officialdom, I am encouraging my Panamanian friends who will vote in 2009 to write McCain in on their ballots...
A Panamanian president named John McCain would be a vast improvement over the choices the people of Panama have today..and it might be a good place to ride out a Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama presidency.
Perhaps John McCain can hold dual president positions, and run both countries. He's qualified in all respects! Panama is and will most likely will remain be a mirror image of the US. I hope Panamanians do write his name on their ballots.
Posted By: Arthur Lawrance
Date: 2008-02-04 12:05:58
I was born in Christobar Canal Zone, hospital. But, My Birth Certificate says I was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. Coco Solo Naval Base Hospital in the Canal Zone was not built when McCain was born in 1936, it was built during WWII. He was most likely born in the same Hospital that I was. If his parents did not go the the America Consult in Panama and register his birth using Form No.240a when he was born he is not US Citizen. There are a lot of "rules" covering US Citizen whos chrildren were born over seas. Which I will not cover here. Mark my words that if he win the election in 2008 then Democrates will take it to Court.
Statement: John McCain is eligible to become President of the United States.
Proof:
(1) If a child is born to two U.S. citizen parents abroad, and if either U.S. citizen parent has resided in the United States for any length of time prior to the birth of the child, the child acquires U.S. citizenship at the time of birth under the provisions of Section 301 (c) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. Failure to file consular form FS-240 does not constitute a revokation or voluntary reliquishment of U.S. citizenship.
(2) Anyone who aquires U.S. citizenship at the time of birth is a natural born citizen, according to the principle of jus sanguinis.
(3) Amendment 14 states that only "natural borth" U.S. citizens are eligible to become President of the United States.
(4) By (1), (2), and (3), John McCain is eligible to become President of the United States.
As Republican voters and True Conservatives, we oppose any effort to promote, support, or endorse Senator John McCain as the Republican nominee for President in 2008. As Republican voters and True Conservatives, we will only support candidates who promote the philosophy and principles of conservatism in government; who promote smaller government, fiscal discipline, and greater economic and personal freedoms; and whose records of public service are evidence of their principled beliefs.
Senator John McCain has consistently demonstrated a record of public service counter to the philosophy and principles of conservatism and the Republican Party as evidenced by the following facts:
1. He has a consistent pattern of shocking verbal abuse, including screaming profanities, against Senate Republican colleagues who oppose his bills in any way; and
2. He has exercised scandalously poor judgment by intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr. in the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s; and
3. He has worked against the principles of the Republican Party, promoting greatly expanding federal regulatory authority in order to combat global warming in ways that would greatly burden the American economy, contrary to free market forces; and
4. He has fought the Republican Party to create the Patient’s Bill of Rights, which allowed the government to impose a set of burdensome mandates on insurance coverage; and
5. He has undermined the principles of a free market economy by voting for an amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement price controls on prescription drugs under Medicare; and
6. He has worked against the Republican Party to make a mockery of the rule of law, promoting amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants; and
7. He has voted to subvert American Sovereignty by granting consulting rights to Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence; and
8. He has undermined the Constitution and opposed the Constitutional duties of the Vice President to break a tie on judicial nominations; and
9. He has worked against Conservative principles, undermining the First Amendment by abridging the free speech of citizens partaking in the political process; and
10. He has consistently led efforts undermining Second Amendment rights by promoting bills which regulate all sales at gun shows; regulations which force gun-owners to purchase trigger locks, making their firearms useless for self-defense; regulations which restrict the legitimate transfer of firearms over the internet; and regulations which extend the restrictions of the Brady bill to pawn shops and gun repair shops; and
11. He has voted to use taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos; and
12. He has refused to take immediate and direct action to protect the life of the unborn; he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade; and he opposes a constitutional amendment to protect all human life; and
13. He sponsored and voted for a 282% tax increase on cigarettes that would have unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment and increased the size of the federal bureaucracy exponentially by giving the FDA unrestricted control over nicotine; and
14. He supports raising Social Security taxes; and
15. He has broken with the Republican Party in strongly opposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He also joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine the tax cuts.
If you are born from US parents in a US military base, are you a citizen of Panama? . He doesn´t have a Panama passport or ID. He is not listed on Panama´s birth registry.
I am a republican and would vote for McCain except for his statement about the iraq war. I believe we should try to pull out of Iraq for our economy, etc. He seems to want to stay there for 100 years regardless if we can afford it or not. I don't like any of the presidential options.
I just received this email link about this subject and found the arguments to be very interesting. It looks like it is possible that by law, John McCain is a naturalized citizen, but yet he is not a natual citizen because he was not born on American soil. If that were the case he would not be elligable by law to be a President. If it is true... Huck would have to run against Ron Paul. ( no contest )
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-02-28 17:45:21
There is a huge list of reasons not to elect McCain but this one doesn't even make the list.
Is there really anyone who thinks children of active service members on assignment outside our borders are not citizens? I would hope not but if there are this would be a great time for them to learn to pick their battles. This is nonsense.
There is DEFINITELY a constitutional question that needs to be addressed here. By the loose definitions people are putting out there on this topic, the iraqi women who were raped by US soldiers, gave birth to American citizens. Panama is and was in the 930's, a sovereign nation, just like iraq. The question is not is mccain a citizen, it's is he a natural born citizen and eligible to become president.
Google "Panamanchurian Candidate". It's all there.
McCain was never a natural born citizen and he knows it. Hence the actions by hiring Ted Olson, the McCaskill-Obama legislation (see WaPo), the mislabeling of his birthplace on his own bio, and the lack of releasing his own birth certificate for the world to see.
"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; "
Here is the citation at issue from the Naturalization Act of 1790: “… And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:”
Here is the portion of the Naturalization Act of 1795 thatrepealed the Naturalization Act of 1790:… and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.
The State of California is no different than any other state in the republic. Its requirements for a valid candidate for the Democratic Party are the same as the Republican Party.
Information Sheet of Qualifications and Requirements PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES MARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION DEMOCRATIC PARTY
I. QUALIFICATIONS The candidate must: A. Be a natural-born citizen of the United States B. Be at least 35 years of age, and C. Be a resident of the United States at least 14 years.
John Jay in a letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787 wrote the following concerning natural-born citizenship being a requirement for the office of the President and Commander in Chief. “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
Being born to US parents in Puerto Rico or Guam or in any foreign US military base (locations that are not within the fifty states) establishes automatic naturalized citizenship but not natural-born citizenship. Wake Island is not Alabama or Texas.
The root of the natural birth requirement was that the States formed the federal government and they required that a person must be physically born in one of the states. (Note: See the 10th Amendment, for example). Simply being born on US territory or commonwealth property overseas does not qualify you as being natural born. This is also a related source/reason for the Electoral College. The States elect the executive and not the people because we do not have a democracy but a republic. The two are not the same but are antithetical.
The STATES elect the President. Does Panama have votes in the electoral college?
Would you have attempted to make this lame argument when Barry Goldwater (also born outside the US) was running?
Does Panama have votes in the electoral college?
Yes, actually. At the time the Canal Zone existed it had votes in the electoral college, just like Guam and Puerto Rico do now. In fact, US citizens living in embassies and on military bases around the world has representation just as if they lived in their home state. So that argument has no merit at all.
Posted By: US Citizen Abroad
Date: 2008-03-04 15:10:18
You are clearly an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about. Babies born to US Citizens abroad have the right to be natural born US Citizens. I don't say it's automatic, because you have to claim that right and do the paperwork before the child turns 18 years old.
McCain's eligibility has nothing to do with Panama being a territory or not, it has to do with his parents being US Citizens.
My son was born in France, and I and his mother are US Citizens. He is a natural born US Citizen, and eligible to be POTUS some day if elected.
Posted By: Rex A. Brocki
Date: 2008-03-05 21:15:33
Dear "U.S. Citizen Abroad," (I'm one too, by the way, I currently live in Canada),
I have read literally hundreds of posts on this subject, and I have been waiting to see if ANYONE besides myself could point to actual, personal experience. Congratulations... you're the first one I've seen.
I hope for your son's sake that you are correct about his natural born citizenship, but my own mother's experience was exactly the opposite. She was born in the Union of South Africa. I'm certainly not going to post her personal papers on the internet, but I have copies of them, and her birth certificate clearly shows the U.S. Citizenship of both her parents, as does her "Report of a U.S. Citizen Born Abroad" her parents filed with the U.S. Consulate in Johannesburg the week of her birth, AND the copies sent for registration to the U.S. State Department when the family returned to the CONUS when she was one and a half years of age. Until she was in her fifties, she thought she was "native born."
Imagine her surprise when the state of California cancelled her teacher's credential, AND the State Department cancelled her passport because she was actually naturalized. I have personal knowledge of the ensuing legal fight, because I'm the one who had to do most of it, driving her to Sacramento for the hearings and eventual re-issuance of her credential (the State of California, for reasons best known to the Prince of Darkness-- pardon me, my contempt for bureaucracy is showing-- has two seperate paths to a teacher's credential, depending on whether the applicant is native-born or naturalized).
Your son ABSOLUTELY has the right to be a U.S. Citizen-- but if his case is similar to that of my mother (or daughter, as well, proving that the rules functioned the same way in both 1927 and 1978), you will eventually find that the U.S. Government considers him naturalized. Remember that my mother lived over 50 years in the U.S. before she found out.
A) If a person must be born "in one of the 50 states" to be eligible for President, then anyone born in Washington, DC would not be so eligible.
B) The Constitution does not say one must be born "in the United States"; it says one must be a natural-born citizen - meaning only that one must be born a citizen to be eligible. It doesn't matter where, or why - only that the person be a citizen at birth. John McCain was.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Robert Werden, all rights reserved.![""]("http://wyom.state.wy.us/Images/Applications/search/WDFolderOpen.gif")
![""]("http://wyom.state.wy.us/Images/Applications/search/WDDocument.gif")
Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904