Roger L. Simon: On the subject of McCain

After having won the "tawdry journalism of the year award" last week for their outing--sans proof-- of John McCain's supposed affair with a lobbyist, the newspaper of record now raises the issue of whether the Arizona senator is qualified to run for President at all because he was born to an American military family in the Canal Zone. Never mind that his father and grandfather were US Navy admirals, the Grey Lady tut-tuts the rules "may be" the rules.

Of course everybody knows this is a non-starter. So why are they raising it now? Well, we all know, don't we? And they claim to be the "newspaper of record." Frankly, I prefer The Onion.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

The really fascinating part is there are, I don't know, a dozen examples and authorities quoted. Not one of them thought it was even a realistic question. (A couple of academics mentioned no explicit precedent.)

On the other hand, I can certainly see Hillary challenging a McCain election on this basis.

There are two statuses of citizen: Natural Born and Naturalized. If McCain is not Natural Born, than I beleive he must be Naturalized...and has a Certificate of Naturalization. If he does not have this Certificate, than he is an illegal alien. I think this should be pushed. And McCain should be (along with all the military brats born in Europe since the 1950s) deported forthwith. Let's see them and raise. Let's reopen the immigration debate on this issue. I think the Democrats will rue the day it was brought up. As the Instapundit might say: "Heh".

This is ridiculous. McCain was in the US Military and the US Senate and no one has ever challenged his legal status.

Where was Obama born? His father was Kenyan, his mother is from Kansas. Obama was a child in a foreign country, went to private school in Hawaii, which is at least a state. But has anyone seriously questioned his status?

No, foreign bases are actually not considered US territory - why do we all think terrorist prisoners are kept at Guantanomo? - but the Canal Zone specifically was. So that's a second strike against this story!

The only way there's any doubt about the situation is if McCain was born off base. Otherwise, there is no doubt!

Bloody stupid idiot reporters... can no one with the NYTimes/IHT get any damn thing straight???

The question is, what level of documentation was required when McCain was born. Again, it's true that military bases are not automatically considered US Territory, and again, it does take at least one US citizen parent, but I already made that argument above. The questions is, how was his birth declared? I do not know what documentation requirements were in force when he was born, but currently, if you're born under the conditions in question (at least 1 US parent, on military base, etc. etc.) you must declare the birth to the nearest US Consulate. Why the Consulate instead of some military authority? Beats the hell out of me; all I know is that this is the rule. Anyway, after requisite paperwork, you can then get your birth certificate.

Bottom line: By today's rules, the proper documentation must be on file for the child to be truly considered a US citizen, otherwise the status is a sort of limbo. But again, what were the documentation requirements when McCain was born? That I admit I don't know.

I guess we will have to disqualify any candidate for President who was born by C-section. :)

I knew they'd turn on McCain. I just never thought that they'd do it so ... incompetently.

If you consider the amendment original intent I don't think there is any question as to what country the senator has pledged his allegiance to, and even if you do, Mac is not a Panamanian!

First McCain was an unethical womanizer, when that didn't work, he's a foreigner.

What's next?.... I know... by golly McCain won't be able to raise his arm to take the oath. He can't take the oath ;)

The only explenation I can muster is that of Craig Karpel.
The NYT wants to be the story.

You got them all wrong Roger. It is not that they are being disingenuous. It is simply that the NY Times has always believed in strict constructionalism.

Richard Nieporent: They say that none of woman born shall defeat Obama. So maybe we need a nominee who was from his mother's womb untimely ripped.

I agree with Charlie, if Clinton somehow wins the nomination she'd sue on this total non-issue. She'd sink to any depth to win. She'd be much easier to beat than Obama, but something about her just cooks my liver.

"Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time."

"And this is the point: No one should be seen as having standing to sue. No one who might conceivably file a lawsuit has a concrete and particularized injury that would be redressed through the disqualification of McCain. So there will not be a Supreme Court case interpreting the clause. If the Electoral College ever selects someone who presents this problem, it will be theoretically possible for Congress to reject the choice on constitutional grounds, but, politically, that too is inconceivable."

As an aside about whether anyone would actually try to use this info in a real attempt at disqualification, she says something I agree with:

"None of his opponents are using disqualification as an argument and no one is concerned about it... 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."

As an aside, I think I'm beginning to see this as being more complicated than I first thought it would be. I'm pretty certain that my previous posts were accurate - they're based on personal knowledge of people in the exact circumstances I described (military base, at least one American parent, etc.) - but the McCain camp isn't coming out and saying what I'm saying. So I wonder what the difference is between McCain and the other people I know. I thought I had this nailed down shut, but I haven't seen anyone in McCain's camp say outright "Canal Zone US Territory, McCain's parents were Americans, question settled". And I wonder why.

Didn't this issue come up with Goldwater being born in a US Territory before AZ achieved statehood?

Not that it really mattered since he was going to get the world blown up if he became elected.

Mondo I suspect Camp McCain is waiting (praying) for his opponents to bring it up.

"Natural born" is a phrase that strikes me as being as ambiguous as "naturally conceived". Out of context these phrases have a stronger connotative linkage with biology than politics. What the hell were the framers thinking? They must have meant people who were eligible for U.S. Citizenzry immediately upon birth, or did they really want their presidents to only have been born on U.S. owned soil? Or, more restrictively, on continental soil?

Natural born??? How can a person even argue what this phrase means, on either side, and not sound like a farcical nitwit, at best, and a global zeophobic at worst?

The "natural born" requirement is very, very outdated, and if it wasn't for the fact that it'd be known as "the Schwarzenegger Amendment," nobody would think twice about amending the Constitution to get rid of it.

The history of the requirement is interesting, and reflects a real concern of that time that truly belongs to a different world than the one we live in.

The worry was that, for instance, the Duke of York would somehow manage to become President of the United States. And then, once elected, he operates as an agent of the King of England. Although one would think this a difficult trick to pull off in a Republic, it happened with Europe's monarchies all the time.

One famous example of the sort of thing they wanted to avoid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bonaparte

Here is Prince Harry, third in line for throne of England, a country whose special relationship to the US has no equal, fighting for 10 weeks in the hills and valleys of Afghanistan and prey tell what has 'the paper of record' been feeding us?

If the NYT lie and say they knew about Harry and didn't tell us fearing his safety, then it means they care more about Harry than they do our own people fighting the WOT.

I think there is some law or other that specifically says if both parents are American, the child is. I saw something about this at Captains Quarters . Ed say the law dated back to 1790.

My grandmother was born in Indian Territory. Oklahoma was not a state until 1907 and she was born in 1903.

Betsy Newmark refers to this page, which discusses "natural born citizenship", 8 USC 1401 and 8 USC 1403 (Canal Zone).

The key criteria is "(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;"

'as i said in my original comment when this item was in "headlines", i was born to U.S. citizens on a U.S. airforce base in spain. i am most definitely and without a shadow of a doubt "natural born" and NOT "naturalized". no "grey area" whatsoever. furthermore, logic should tell us that there is even less "grey area" in mccain's case, since he was born not just on a U.S. base in a foreign country like me, but on a U.S. base in a U.S. territory.

but hey, who said logic has anything to do with bureaucracy, much less with the NYT's editorial process!

February 27, 2008: On the subject of McCain - the NYT can't shut up

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post