Via the NYT: McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
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.
While I will allow that I am not a conlaw scholar, this strikes me as a non-issue. The child of US citizens is a citizen, regardless of where he or she was born. As such, someone like McCain was a citizen by virtue of birth, not via naturalization, and hence he is a “natural born citizen.” Any other interpretation seems ludicrous on its face, to me.
Indeed, the First Congress seemed to understand this:
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.
Further:
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.
However
Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively [says] “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
And, former Representative Don Nickles notes:
“There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”
The text in question from Article II, section 1 is as follows:
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
And, of course, the purpose of the provision was to stop a foreigner from becoming president and subverting the new republic. Somehow, I don’t think that that is McCain’s goal. Although, maybe he is a Manchurian candidate secretly programmed by birth by the Panamanians who will, once in power, get back at the US for forcing Panamanian independence from Colombia in the early days of the 20th Century and for stereotyping their people with that ridiculous Panama Jack line of products…
Regardless, I can’t imagine that this is anything more than the basis for an interesting story, not something that could possibly be a real issue.
By the same token, I would favor amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to become president after a set period of time as a citizen.
Sphere: Related Content
February 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
While I will allow that I am not a conlaw scholar, this strikes me as a non-issue.
After the disaster of Chester Arthur’s administration, I think it pays for us to maintain at least a little bit of scrutiny on this issue.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
February 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
[...] I don’t think the writer of this article, Carl Hulse, could be more melodramatic (”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?” — really, Carl? That’s what’s been nagging them?). But then again, there’s not much “there” there, as noted by Dr. Steven Taylor, so I suppose he had to make it at least somewhat suspenseful: While I will allow that I am not a conlaw scholar, this strikes me as a non-issue. The child of US citizens is a citizen, regardless of where he or she was born. As such, someone like McCain was a citizen by virtue of birth, not via naturalization, and hence he is a “natural born citizen.” Any other interpretation seems ludicrous on its face, to me. [...]
February 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Um, yeah.
The reason that the Supreme Court has never made a definitive pronoucement is that no one has been dumb enough to challenge the law that states pretty clearly who “counts” as a citizen since 1790.
For much the same reason, there has also not been a definitive Supreme Court pronoucement on whether a block of Yarlsberg chees may run for Senate.
I guess, according to the “reasoning” on display in the article, that issue has also been a nagging question for many years.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
whether a block of Yarlsberg chees may run for Senate.
Since Yarlsberg is Norwegian, I think it would be ineligible to run for President.
But as long as it was aged for 30-years and had been a citizen of the US for 9 years, a block of Yarsberg should have the right to run.
Of course a 30-year old block of cheese would probably be pretty crusty and moldy, turning voters off on the campaign trail.
But on second thought, those traits seemed to have served Senator Byrd well for several decades!
El queso para el gran queso!
February 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
If you want info on what it means to be born in the US, check out this .gov website. I think the “he’s ineligible” people have a much stronger leg to stand on than do the “Yarlsberg cheese for Senate” people. I certainly haven’t studied the issue in depth, and I think it would be “wrong” to bar the children of military people born overseas from serving as president, but it seems like some laws need to change or else the Constitution needs some amending to make it right.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I am wondering, however, if we might not be better off if Yarlsburg Cheese could be elected to the Senate, to be honest…
February 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
In looking at the document, and some other information, btw, I don’t think that the “he’s ineligible” people have much of a leg to stand on at all, actually.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
[...] Earlier today I noted an NYT story about the whether McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone was a problem for the Constitutional provision that the President be a “natural born citizen.” The more I think about it, the more absurd the notion is that a person such as McCain would be anything other than a “natural born citizen” of the United States. [...]
February 28th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Let’s just make a horse a Senator like Caligula and get it over with.