McCain, and Perhaps Obama, Not Eligible for President

On top of the ongoing doubts about the authenticity of Barak Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69126), now a thorough look at John McCain's eligibility status indicates that that he is not Constitutionally qualified to serve as President.

Adam Liptak, reporter for the International Tribune, cites Arizona State professor Gabriel Chin, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/11/america/11mccain.php) who has done the most comprehensive study known to date on the matter.

"The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over McCain's eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make McCain a natural-born citizen.

"It's preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy," Professor Chin said. "But this is the constitutional text that we have.""

It appears that a straightforward reading of the law is that John McCain is not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Our Founders never intended for us to have an overseas empire, therefore they made no provision for children born to our occupation forces in those protectorates to be "natural born" citizens.

Congress did not "fix" the law allowing for the children of empire to be eligible for President until 1937, McCain was born a year later (and it was not even clear that Congress could really do this until a court ruling in 1971). A voter has launched a suit claiming that McCain is not eligible to serve. Notice from the link (page 2) that not even John McCain's people are telling the judge he is eligible under the points of the law, only that the person suing does not have sufficient standing to do so.

McCain's lawyer claims that this 1937 "fix" was what Congress meant all along, but it's not the same thing. Saying that citizens who work in your embassy (or are on vacation or business to another county) can bear children there who are citizens is different from saying foreign born children from colonies you control are citizens. One is a rule for Republics, the other for Empire.

But of course if we are now an Empire, the rule of law no longer matters. If that is the case, the power brokers will foist McCain on us regardless of the niceties of the law, which seem to matter only as they constrain the common citizens, but are brushed aside when they run afoul of the plans of the powerful. A case in point is chilling quote from Liptak's article...."Several legal experts said that Professor Chin's analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

"No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there's a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside," said Peter Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University."

There you have it, even "experts" in the law acknowledge that the law does not matter if "everyone else is on board". By "everyone else" of course, he does not mean you and me, but rather our ruling class- the people who matter because they control the armed men who will be sicced on you should you dissent with their lawlessness. Further, he may claim there is a "constitutional consensus" in the same breath in which he declares that "no court will touch it", but in truth there can be no "constitutional consensus" UNTIL the courts "touch it", at the least.

Some may argue that even if the letter of the law is against McCain, it would be wrong to bar him on "a technicality". To that I would reply that all laws are technicalities, and except for arguments from original intent, anyone who respects the rule of law should insist that the strong be submitted to its provisions, and not just the weak or unpopular.

I also remind the reader that it is quite right that the Founders never anticipated an American Global Empire. By their own writings they would be opposed to it. One can easily see them supporting use of the "Natural Born" provision of the Constitution against the offspring of our military garrison's in other nations, not only as a part of discouraging empire-seeking, but also because they were students of history. There is little historical support for the idea that children of military officers born and raised on foreign soil have the same connection with the homeland as those born and raised in the homeland.

If you look at John McCain's policy you will see an example of that. The Founders banned making non-natural born citizens into Presidents because they feared such men would have divided loyalties. John McCain seems to be exactly that kind of man which the Founders enacted this provision to stop. McCain, who spent the fourth of July in Mexico, shows every indication of being an open-borders globalist whose ties to Central America, the land of his birth, are so strong that he advocates polices that are favorable to them at the expense of the citizens of the United States.

If anyone took the original intent of the Constitution seriously anymore then John McCain would have an eligibility problem becoming President of the United States.

There is also doubt as to whether Obama was really born in Hawaii, and if not this would make him ineligible as well. As astounding as it seems, the two major parties may both have candidates who are constitutionally ineligible to serve.