In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be eligible to hold the office of President.

U.S. Supreme Court
SCHNEIDER v. RUSK, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. [377 U.S. 163, 166]

Consider more details if you doubt the seriousness of this matter:

http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html

The only complication I have ever encountered was when I took my wife to France in 1989, to set her up for a year studying in Paris. We took a ferry over from the U.K. Two laugh riot French border guards thought it was real funny when they read my US passport which clearly shows I was born in occupied Normandy. "I see, you have not done your national service, my friend. Please come with us. You will have the choice of the navy or paratroopers today."

Until this day, I still do not know if they could actually have thrown me in the clink. But we all had a great laugh about it.

The NYT’s Carl Hulse has an interesting article about whether McCain is Constitutionally eligible to be president.

Interesting? It is insulting, politically motivated, and intellectually sloppy. Insulting because Hulse just insinuated that I, and millions of my fellow foreign born US citizens, are second class. (Born in Frankfurt a.m., both parents US citizens, father active duty - I have birth certificates from both the USA and BDR, plus the obligatory US passport when we came home two years later.) Politically motivated because while posed as a quasi-intellectual question, it only serves to throw more tacks on Sen. McCain's road to the Presidency. And intellectually sloppy because it tries to raise an inane and indefensible definition for "natural-born." The implication of Hulse's article/argument is that a US-born child of illegals is somehow, more natural than I.

You are right James, it hasn't been tested in court... because it's too frickin stupid a proposition to even reach court.

I explain why this isn't even that difficult an issue at Stubborn Facts. Here's the short version:

It is well established that when the Framers used a term of legal art in the Constitution, they are presumed to have intended to assign to that term the same definition which the term had in the common law of England. As we learn from Blackstone's Commentaies (relied upon by the Framers as an authoritative summary of the common law), under the English common law, the children of ambassadors were "always" considered "natural subjects" (in context, this meant "natural born" subjects/citizens) of their parents' country. Thus, the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Constitution would include those born in the country as well as those born of ambassadors for that country, even when born abroad. There are also a few other exceptions.

Had our son been born in Syria, the White House could be cleanly scratched from his future career plans. Instead, we made sure he was born in the US. In DC, actually, not one of the 50 states, but close enough for election purposes.

-- Triumph, quit smirking.

What? And let the terrorists win???

No one questioned his citizenship. Did you read the post? The issue is what *kind* of citizen he is, for purposes of an obscure Constitutional clause.

-- Triumph, quit smirking.

Some evangelicals in a singles group were saying how a man should lead the country, and the singles pastor -- a man, no less -- said of McCain, "he's a stud."

WTF??? Anyone else hear that?

The Founding Fathers perhaps took the long view andd thought that a single generation wouldn't sufficiently imbue a President with a solidly American loyalty. Don't forget that quite a lot of colonials were loyal to Britain.

The children of US citizens are also citizens, no matter where they are born. To suggest less is to dishonor millions of military families over the centuries, and for good measure-the American Embassy families with children born overseas.

It is bad enough that leftist Europeans think they should have a say in who the American President is. Wanna let them vote on it? After all, they aren't citizens, either.

What an enlighten approach to our future.

And speaking of defending our country, McCain's father was a top Admiral in WWII, retiring as a 4-star. His grandfather was also a 4-star Admiral. All were graduates of the US Naval Academy at Annapolis.

And John McCain sat in prison for the better part of a decade while in the uniform of our country.

Let's talk about whether he has the skills to do the job, but questioning his citizenship is an insult to his family, to every person who has worn the uniform, and I think to any decent American.

I looked it up, and, it basically boils down to the fact that the law states that anyone born in a US Territory, except to foreign diplomatic staff, is considered a natural born citizen. The Panama Canal Zone, where McCain was born, was one till 1979, when Carter so brilliantly gave it away.

Interestingly, if Obama was born 2 years earlier, we would have the same discussion about him. But, Hawaii was a Territory, too.