Friday, July 11, 2008

McCain, and Perhaps Obama, Not Eligible for President

On top of the ongoing doubts about the authenticity of Barak Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate (, 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, ( 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.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since both major parties have this problem, neither camp is eager to press the issue.

Yet another wound, this time perhaps mortal, dealt to America by the two-party system.

12:51 PM, July 11, 2008  
Blogger Mark said...

The McCain argument is wrong

McCain was born of U.S. Citizen parents. Every child born of U.S. citizen parents is natural born citizen since 1790.
From the law "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." McCain is old but he was born after 1790.

Further, the Canal Zone was under U.S. sovereignty at the time he was born.

7:18 AM, July 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not so cut and dry. You're quoting early immigration law, but many immigration laws have been passed since 1790, and many of those further limit that definition you quoted.

Also, the 14th amendment has greatly clouded the issue.

"Further, the Canal Zone was under U.S. sovereignty at the time he was born."

Being born in/on a US territory doesn't (currently) make one a "natural born" American citizen, though it can (as in the case of the Panama Canal zone) grant one automatic US citizenship. But, as Moore already pointed out, the law conferring automatic citizenship for people born in the Panama Canal zone wasn't even passed until after McCain was born.

8:27 AM, July 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But, as Moore already pointed out, the law conferring automatic citizenship for people born in the Panama Canal zone wasn't even passed until after McCain was born.

After further thought, this fact is a bit distracting to the discussion at hand, because congress could retroactively grant "natural born" status to someone born in, say, in the Panama Canal zone, just as indeed the 1937 law retroactively granted automatic citizenship in that same circumstance (which is why, even though McCain was born a year before the 1937 law, he is still a US citizen).

My main point is that congress never granted "natural born" status to those born in the Panama Canal zone in the 1937 law, or any other subsequent law.

8:50 AM, July 12, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

There are "Natural Born" citizens and "Naturalized" citizens. Arnold is the latter kind of citizen, and thus ineligible for the Presidency. It appears that McCain is also a "Naturalized" rather than a "Natural Born" citizen.

The Constitution requires the President to be a Natural Born citizen, precisely because a naturalized citizen is a greater risk to divide their loyalties with the USA and to the region of their birth- and we see that John McCain does have such divided loyalty between the USA and those south of our border.

In a nation with 300 million to choose from, can we all agree that it is pathetic that the two major parties cannot produce candidates in which their is no doubt of their being natural born citizens of this country?

8:27 PM, July 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark... He is born to parents who are both U.S. Citizens. Stop being so dense. You are smarter than this. The children of U.S. Citizens ARE U.S. Citizens, even if they were born on the 5th planet from the 3rd star on the right. You know, the one 2 planets up from Kolob.

11:33 PM, July 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one said McCain wasn't a US citizen.

5:46 AM, July 14, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Who is being dense here? I don't doubt that McCain is a U.S. citizen. Nor do I doubt Arnold is a U.S. citizen. There are two kinds of U.S. Citizens, "Naturalized" and "Natural Born". The Constitution specifies that one must be a "Natural Born" citizen to be eligible for President.

It is not my requirement, it is the Constitution's requirement. The study which asserts that John McCain is a Naturalized rather than a Natural Born citizen is not my study- it is from an Arizona State professor and his logic seems impeccable. If you can find a flaw in his reasoning or the laws he quotes, let's hear it.

I am sick of partisans from both sides spitting on the rule of law.

The two major parties should be able to produce for us candidates for which there is no reasonable doubt that they are qualified to serve. Instead, they give us Obama, where we need to verify his birth certificate, and McCain for whom there is actually no reasonable doubt that he is INelegible to serve for those who dare to look at the facts.

5:48 AM, July 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon at 11:33 isn't even correct in his assertion that, no matter where the birth occurs, someone born of two Americans is automatically an American citizen. This is not the case. The fact that congress had to pass the 1937 immigration law giving citizenship to those born in the Panama Canal zone should tell you this.

6:28 AM, July 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My friend and I were recently talking about the ubiquitousness of technology in our daily lives. Reading this post makes me think back to that debate we had, and just how inseparable from electronics we have all become.

I don't mean this in a bad way, of course! Ethical concerns aside... I just hope that as technology further develops, the possibility of transferring our brains onto a digital medium becomes a true reality. It's a fantasy that I dream about almost every day.

(Posted on Nintendo DS running [url=!2602F0E287041CEF!106.entry]r4i ds[/url] DS SysBro)

8:55 PM, February 05, 2010  
Anonymous Viagra Online said...

I think that we choose right because Obama has made many things that any president has done.Buy Viagra Generic Viagra

8:46 AM, September 22, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:34 AM, March 29, 2012  
Anonymous Elliott Broidy said...

And here we are again 4 years later! My, how time passes so quickly!

1:49 PM, September 10, 2012  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home