The candidiate born in Paris was Lowell Weicker, a senator from Connecticut. Also mentioned in the article was George Romney, who was born in Mexico.slam wrote:There was an article in the NY Times this morning about McCain's eligibility. It said that his team had researched it before his previous presidential run and again before this one. They had come to the conclusion that he was very safe on this issue. He was born to American parents on a US military base.
The article also mentioned some other historical situations. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona, but 3 years prior to it becoming a state. The consensus was that he was eligibile. Chester Arthur was born in VT, but there were a number of rumors around that he had actually been born just over the border in Canada. Obviously, he became president. There was one other person who ran unsuccessfully for president (memory fails me right now) who was born in Paris but to US citizen parents. It was generally agreed at the time that he was eligible also.
John McCain--is he eligible?
-
nitrah55
- Posts: 1613
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:46 am
- Location: Section 239, Yankee Stadium
I am about 25% sure of this.
-
slam
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:10 pm
Ah, thanks. My memory seems to get worse and worse as I get older.nitrah55 wrote:The candidiate born in Paris was Lowell Weicker, a senator from Connecticut. Also mentioned in the article was George Romney, who was born in Mexico.slam wrote:There was an article in the NY Times this morning about McCain's eligibility. It said that his team had researched it before his previous presidential run and again before this one. They had come to the conclusion that he was very safe on this issue. He was born to American parents on a US military base.
The article also mentioned some other historical situations. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona, but 3 years prior to it becoming a state. The consensus was that he was eligibile. Chester Arthur was born in VT, but there were a number of rumors around that he had actually been born just over the border in Canada. Obviously, he became president. There was one other person who ran unsuccessfully for president (memory fails me right now) who was born in Paris but to US citizen parents. It was generally agreed at the time that he was eligible also.
-
themanintheseersuckersuit
- Posts: 7631
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Stolen from the web
Good thing McCain wasn’t born on February 29th, they’d be debating whether or not he is over 35.
Suitguy is not bitter.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.
-
silverscreenselect
- Posts: 24200
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Considering that none of our early presidents were born in the United States for the simple fact that the United States did not exist until 1776, it's silly to argue that McCain is not eligible to be President.
The purpose for the natural born citizen rule was a fear that someone who had only been in this country a short time before becoming a citizen might owe a primarily allegiance to another country, specifically England.
This is one of the provisions of the Constitution that is most frequently suggested, with good reason, for amendment, since people such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all disqualified as a result.
The purpose for the natural born citizen rule was a fear that someone who had only been in this country a short time before becoming a citizen might owe a primarily allegiance to another country, specifically England.
This is one of the provisions of the Constitution that is most frequently suggested, with good reason, for amendment, since people such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all disqualified as a result.
-
ne1410s
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
- Location: The Friendly Confines
-
BackInTex
- Posts: 13494
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
- Location: In Texas of course!
All my kids are c-section. Wow, they will be disappointed.TheCalvinator24 wrote:Non-issue. He is a Natural Born Citizen, not a Naturalized Citizen. The Constitution does not say that to be eligible one must have been born within the Geographical Boundaries of the several states. It says that one must be a Natural Born Citizen.
I think that mean clones can't be President.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson
War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
~~ Thomas Jefferson
War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
-
Appa23
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm
I wonder why so many people quake at the prospect of Arnold S having the option of running for President?ne1410s wrote:Thank God for small favors!since people such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all disqualified as a result.
Funny thing, if someone I do not like is running for President, I will not vote for him/her. I might even take that extra step of actually trying to convinced others not to vote for him/her. Seems like a good way to stop someone from being President, not a rule that made sense at the time that the new country was formed, not so much when it is an established superpower.
Everyone is making a big deal about this election seeing, perhaps, the first black President or female President. There was the prospect of the first Latino President. We have had a Catholic President, and a Jewish VP candidate.
So, it is wrong to exclude a person based on their race, sex, or creed. But, if you want to discriminate based on national origin, well, that is 100% OK.
Just seems a bit Un-American to me.
-
15QuestionsAway
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:43 pm
I thought the definitive response to this assertion was that the Panama Canal Zone was considered US soil until the agreement with Panama was signed in 1976.
Then the Canal Zone became a jointly administered US-Panama territory until full sovereignty was given to Panama in 1996.
McCain was born before 1976, qed.
And, no, I don't think he was born before the Panama Canal was built.
Then the Canal Zone became a jointly administered US-Panama territory until full sovereignty was given to Panama in 1996.
McCain was born before 1976, qed.
And, no, I don't think he was born before the Panama Canal was built.
-
Appa23
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
(a) Anyone born inside the United States;
(b) Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe;
(c) Any one born outside the United States and its outlying possessions, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. prior to person's birth;
(d) Any one born outside the United States and outlying possessions, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year prior to person's birth and the other parent is a U.S. national;
(e) Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year prior to person's birth;
(f) Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21;
(g) Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (2 years must be after the age of 14) (with military and diplomatic service included in this time);
(h) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
(a) Anyone born inside the United States;
(b) Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe;
(c) Any one born outside the United States and its outlying possessions, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. prior to person's birth;
(d) Any one born outside the United States and outlying possessions, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year prior to person's birth and the other parent is a U.S. national;
(e) Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year prior to person's birth;
(f) Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21;
(g) Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (2 years must be after the age of 14) (with military and diplomatic service included in this time);
(h) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
-
Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 22002
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Actually, that issue is addressed by the text of the Constitution. Anyone who was a citizen when the Constitution was ratified is eligible to be President. I know McCain is old, but . . . . --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote:Considering that none of our early presidents were born in the United States for the simple fact that the United States did not exist until 1776, it's silly to argue that McCain is not eligible to be President.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
-
TheCalvinator24
- Posts: 4884
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
- Location: Wyoming
- Contact:
I'm not trying to trap you in a consistency test or anything, but I am curious as to whether you have always felt this way, or if it is a more recent development of thought.Appa23 wrote:I wonder why so many people quake at the prospect of Arnold S having the option of running for President?ne1410s wrote:Thank God for small favors!since people such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all disqualified as a result.
Funny thing, if someone I do not like is running for President, I will not vote for him/her. I might even take that extra step of actually trying to convinced others not to vote for him/her. Seems like a good way to stop someone from being President, not a rule that made sense at the time that the new country was formed, not so much when it is an established superpower.
Everyone is making a big deal about this election seeing, perhaps, the first black President or female President. There was the prospect of the first Latino President. We have had a Catholic President, and a Jewish VP candidate.
So, it is wrong to exclude a person based on their race, sex, or creed. But, if you want to discriminate based on national origin, well, that is 100% OK.
Just seems a bit Un-American to me.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore
-
Appa23
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm
I would feel the same regardless.TheCalvinator24 wrote:I'm not trying to trap you in a consistency test or anything, but I am curious as to whether you have always felt this way, or if it is a more recent development of thought.Appa23 wrote:I wonder why so many people quake at the prospect of Arnold S having the option of running for President?ne1410s wrote: Thank God for small favors!
Funny thing, if someone I do not like is running for President, I will not vote for him/her. I might even take that extra step of actually trying to convinced others not to vote for him/her. Seems like a good way to stop someone from being President, not a rule that made sense at the time that the new country was formed, not so much when it is an established superpower.
Everyone is making a big deal about this election seeing, perhaps, the first black President or female President. There was the prospect of the first Latino President. We have had a Catholic President, and a Jewish VP candidate.
So, it is wrong to exclude a person based on their race, sex, or creed. But, if you want to discriminate based on national origin, well, that is 100% OK.
Just seems a bit Un-American to me.
Always been a fan of equality and opponent of discrimination.
