Citizen McCain
MichaelW on Feb 28 2008 at 1:15 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Law, Media, MichaelW's Page
THE LATEST non-issue hyped by (who else?) the New York Times is that “some” people are questioning whether or not John McCain is eligible to be a sitting President:
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.
[…]
“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.”
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.
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.
Dr. Taylor points to where Congress previously considered the issue, and quotes the Hulse article:
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.
Curiously, despite penning the paragraphs above, Hulse still seems to think McCain’s ability to be President is an issue. Ann Althouse disagrees (emphasis in original):
The real constitutional interpretation is taking place right now, as we decide whether to accept a man with this problem as the nominee, and later, as the candidate. I think we as a people have already answered the question as to McCain. None of his opponents are using disqualification as an argument and no one is concerned about it. Think of how different it would be if Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President. The issue would be debated and argued, and I think we’d see him as disqualified and, because of that, he’d never reach the point of nomination. Can you picture Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton trying to defeat McCain by making the argument that his birth in the Canal Zone disqualifies him? They’d only make themselves look bad. The argument is so unattractive that no one serious will make it, and therefore the question, for all realistic purposes, has already been answered.
For those keeping score, the NYT has in consecutive weeks (a) smeared the likely Republican candidate for Election 2008 with a story based on mere innuendo, rumor, and decades old news, and (b) raised the non-issue of McCain’s status as a natural-born citizen of the United States. But never fear, for this is all the news that’s fit to print. [/eyeroll]
UPDATE: April Gavaza manages to write what I was thinking but somehow forgot to jot down:
I may not like McCain, but these attacks on him are ludicrous and forcing me into the uncomfortable position of defending him. First the NYT article about nothing and now this, a parsing of the phrase “natural born”. It smacks of desperation.
UPDATE II: Jim Lindgren weighs in with the legal history behind “natural-born citizens,” and concludes:
According to even the most technical meaning of “natural born” citizen in the 1780s, John McCain is a natural born citizen of the United States, but George Washington and Thomas Jefferson may not have been (since they were born before 1776), though they would have been generally treated as such at the time.
Of course, when slinging mud as the NYT is doing the arguments don’t need to be sound, some of the mud just has to stick.
UPDATE III: Via the comments below, Roland Dodds notes the right-wing genesis for this dubious knock on John McCain:
Sphere: Related ContentUpon trolling through far right websites today, I found one of the more interesting arguments made against McCain’s candidacy from the right: he apparently isn’t a natural born citizen. From the American Voice, a right wing radio network associated with Bo Gritz (the right wing survivalist associated with the Christian Identity movement, and worked fervently to stop Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube from being removed in 2005) …
And should I found it the least bit surprising that the American Voice is advocating Ron Paul?
5 Responses to “Citizen McCain”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
My son was born in the Philippines.
It’s hard to express just how… ugh. Parents worry about this? Hell, no they don’t. Never have, never do. My son is a US citizen by birth. Born overseas while I was serving in the US fricking military.
The NYTimes can go give themselves an enema, or something. Since that seems to be what they’re good at.
Carl Hulse, and I suppose his editors, were really straining to make this an issue.
It’s the kind of legal question that law professors tend to love, because there is no settled case law on it and because a really clever argument might be made that runs counter to the established interpretation. In the real world, however, clever arguments usually make for losing cases.
I wrote about this non issue last week, and it was brought to my attention through a far right wing radio network called the American Voice (which has plenty of connections to conspiracy theorists like Bo Gritz).
As for McCain, I am sure he is pretty happy to have an issue like this as his “scandal” rather than some of the other things I am sure NYTimes has planned.
Thanks, Roland. You’re now quoted and linked above.
A new and detailed presentation of the evidence regarding John McCain and natural born Citizen was just published here: http://JohnMcCain.dominates.us
I don’t think the Panama birth issue will just go away.
The great significance to me is this:
* I don’t think John McCain meets the criteria of natural born Citizen.
* We really don’t need the next president to be weakened by such things that seem on the surface to be trivial.
* The integrity of the Constitution is more important than any one presidency.
* It is tragic that we can’t do anything about it until it is too late.
This is a very big issue that much of the press has dismissed. It is not generally a popular issue today, but if John McCain gets elected, a year from now, this issue will be bigger than ever. Those who would protest McCain’s presidency could use this. It is important to settle the matter before the election.
It would be an embarrassment for McCain to be sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and later for the court to need to objectively deal with the issue. It makes the 2000 election and the vote recount look like so much of nothing.
See more discussion at http://PanamaJohn.dominates.us/forum and take part.