That’s how I felt last night after reading the New York Times latest attempt to destroy John McCain’s campaign. Carl Huse spends 1,150 words in an attempt to answer the question on everyone’s mind: Is John McCain a real American?
Huse’s piece as a eye catching title “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out.” The lede of the story captures that seriousness of it all:
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.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
I can see it now: Late one night, Huse was sitting at home scrolling through some left wing blog and he stumbles upon a post that declares that McCain can’t become president because he was born outside of the continental United States. “Aha!” he shouts. “I’ve discovered the smoking gun. McCain will never see what hit.” So, Huse excitedly calls his editor to tell him the wonderful news and is told to type up a piece and get reaction quotes. Only one problem. Everyone he called up said that while the question was slightly ambiguous given that it’s never been tested in court, but even still the law is perfectly clear. John McCain is a “natural born citizen.” Oops.
After about 2 minutes of Googling, I’ve found a number of articles dealing with this such issue. For example, this 1998 Washington Post article:
John McCain has more pressing worries than eligibility on the road to the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. After his lead role in pushing campaign-finance and tobacco legislation, both anathema to the Senate GOP leadership, the Arizona senator may have to spend a lot of time trying to prove his party credentials before he ever gets to Iowa or New Hampshire.
But is he constitutionally qualified to become president? McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that “no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some might define the term “natural-born citizen” as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, “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 of the United States.” That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John’s birth in 1936.
Ok, well, then I turned to Wikipedia which has this to say about the matter:
In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:
- Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth
- At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth.
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized. [more at Macsmind]
Also, not only was John McCain born on a US military installation in Panama, but his father was a prominent officer in the US Navy. The Panama Canal Zone, it should be noted, was under United States sovereignty from 1903 to 1979. It’s amazing to me that the Times could spend over 1,000 words questioning whether a man who was born to two American parents, who were in Panama serving their country, was eligible to be President. If you combine this with the ridiculous sex scandal hit piece from the other day, one wonders what in the world is going on in the NYT newsroom?
Be sure to check out Matthew Franck’s takedown of the NYT article as well.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The issue that the Times addresses is so timely, that Congress just acted to resolve the issue in question…218 years ago.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Mccain getting the nod sure killed the excitement of this blog.
we need something to juice it up. mccain needs to pick his vp mate that hopefully will get some of the conservative base something to be excited about and we need to maybe get some democrat bloggers here as well who we can fight with. I don’t know??
February 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I noticed that too. After Romney got the nod there was a Mass (Mass.?) Mormon Exodus.
Anyway NYT is just shooting themselves in the foot again. Anyone in the campaign who brings this up to seriously try to disqualify McCain is just going to shift the focus back on the family’s service to the country.
And if this ever goes to the Supreme Court (it won’t have to get that far) McCain would win.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
After McCain got the nod*
February 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I agree John. When Mitt pulled out the excitement greatly decreased, and for very good reasons. Its pretty hard for an old cranky gray haired moderate who considered switching parties and running as VP on the democratic ticket to arouse much enthusiasm in a conservative Republican blog site.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Agreed.
There is nothing to get exited about over McCain. At best, he’ll do some conservative things and remain popular – and leave office after four years, allowing a Conservative to get in on his coattails. At worst, he goes full-tilt lib. on everything except Iraq.
What is there to get excited over?
February 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Why is everyone so quick to dismiss this as a relevant issue? To my knowledge, these laws have not faced judicial review, opinions of legal minds – yes, but no court findings or rulings.
The real question in my mind is who would have standing to press this question toward resolution within the courts.
None of this comes into play until McCain is actually POTUS, because up to that point, he isn’t POTUS, and therefore, the natural-born stipulation doesn’t apply.
But once in office, I suppose any citizen would have standing to pursue this argument through the federal courts and perhaps even to the SCOTUS. Why is it so easy to imagine a case coming out of the 9th circuit court of appeals? Who knows what twisted legal arguments could be made to where a court declares McCain ineligible and forces him from power.
I still see a higher likelihood that Duncan Hunter will be elected POTUS than that anything would come of this ‘issue’ for McCain, but it is an intriguing question nonetheless.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I miss the excitement and the flame wars. St. Paul is my hometown and I’ll probably use the convention as an excuse to visit family. Maybe some of us can meet up and reminisce about the good ole days. I’ll have to wear Kevlar.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Adam: The last couple weeks before Florida, Romney had in the national polls approx: 30% Mormon % in America – 2%. A very great number of his supporters in here were not Mormon, but were very enthused. He lined up with LDS and many others in his politics; that’s why he had the following in here. Consider this, Utah is 70% Mormon, many of which are MINOs, but the whole state goes like 80%+ Republican for a guy like Bush in the general election. That’s of all voters, not just Republican, but when Romney gets 90% plus of the Republican primary vote in Utah, the buzz is that its all about Mormons. Its only about Mormons cause they tend to think alike in terms of being socially, economically, and militarily conservative. That’s why there was excitement, because of the issues, and that’s the same reason dozens of other posters on here who were not LDS were just as ‘gung ho’ as those of us that are LDS. The guy was great for the three legged stool conservatives, fantastic credentials, and yes he motivated the heck out of us.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I guess I am a little slow because I still don’t see a clear answer to the question of whether McCain is “natural born.” Anyway . . .
It would not be resolved by the supreme court. Congress makes the final decision whether to seat a president by determining whether to accept the delegates. Congress could decline to accept McCain. I guess then the VP is elevated, but I’m not sure.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
IL Guy – whatever. The reason this site got quieter is because there were a great number of Mormon Rombots. And now they’re gone.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Actually there were a great number of Rombots, many of them not Mormon.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The reason this site got quieter is that we were debating who we felt should be the nominee. When Romney pulled out, there was nothing left to debate.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
eric: I could not have said it better myself.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Axel, do you even know how the Electoral College works? Congress doesn’t decide whether to “seat” the delegates or not. If that was the case, why in the world would Pres Reagan (in either ’80 or ’84), or Pres Clinton (in ’96) have gotten into office? You had a highly partisan opposition Congress in these cases, and a simple way to circumvent the election would be to refuse to “seat” the delegate, thereby assuring your opponent wouldn’t become Pres.
Further, Congress DID act to define “natural born” on March 6, 1790 (see above), and that definition certainly would include Sen McCain. Also, by any reasonable standardI would have a difficult time imagining that the SCOTUS would even take the case, especially after repeated court rulings would declare Sen McCain legit. If they did, however, they’d likely rule 9-0 that he qualifies. No attempt to be cute or hypertechnical with the law is going to stand up to that kind of legal challenge. Face it, if elected, Sen McCain WILL be the next President.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
LJ, the problem here is that you are no more qualified or prepared to discuss this topic than Carl Huse, nor any of the bobbing heads or wagging tongues of the press. The NYT, WAPO, and Race42008 are not defining the intent of the authors of the constitution. The reason this is still an issue is that there isn’t a clear answer and will never be until it is tested in front of SCOTUS. And even then, it will be a split decision, with lots of dissenting opinions.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Rick, think about this for just a minute. We have a vaguely-worded Article written over 200 years ago. We have a clarification of that vaguely-worded Article passed into law shortly thereafter. We have a standard legal definition of embassies in foreign lands being the sovereign territory of the country owning the embassy. We have a treaty that basically gave possession of Panama to the US for awhile (which has since expired, but was in place at the time). While in theory the issue is in doubt, in practice every single court that hears this case will rule unanimously that Sen McCain qualifies. It’s absurd to think there’s even a doubt about which way the courts would rule.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Overall, I think this idiotic attempt to place doubt on whether Sen McCain is technically qualified to be President or not is a net positive for his campaign. Again, the net results of this story are that Sen McCain will be seen as needlessly harassed by the media. People are going to get tired of hearing inane stories such as this, and when/if the time comes when a REAL story is broken, most people just aren’t going to care. It’s exactly the same thing that happened with Pres Clinton, and it well could happen again here.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
“The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations:”
Does this mean any Hawaiian born citizens aren’t qualified to be President?
February 28th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
marK – we can only hope it does exclude HI
February 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Can’t they come up with something better than this story?
February 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Richard, All well and good if we are just talking about english, but we are talking about the constitution that some people think is Gumby’s brother, to be pulled and twisted according to one’s political philosophy. Remember Florida in 2000. Should have been simple, right? I’m still trying to get over Roe v. Wade.
And the fallout from the issue isn’t how the court will hold, but how much anxiety the MSM can gin up for the issue, which of course is the point of the NYT article. For those voters that have just had too much drama, an issue like this may just keep them home.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
#2 John Galt-
I agree that the end of McCain vs. Mitt in particular has lessened the battling in these comments (and the same can be said of Fred vs. Huck, which was also fun). That having been said, I am happy that the nomination has been wrapped up.
There won’t be a VP named anytime soon, though (which I think is a good thing).
The NYT continues to help McCain, as every anti-McCain article they publish only makes those who opposed him among the GOP base come to rally around him as the GOP candidate…
February 28th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Some more thoughts on this issue (not b/c I think that there are any constitutional obstacles to McCain being elected, but due to the lack of suspense in the nomination process that I noted in the previous comment:
1) It is absurd to argue that anyone who is born to two U.S. citizens (civilian or military) living abroad does not have natural-born status. It’s even more absurd to argue that someone who is born to an officer serving in the U.S. Navy isn’t one.
2) Even if I thought that the claim was defensible, I’d have a lot of doubt that the SCOTUS would be willing to invalidate a presidential election on such a flimsy ground, b/c that would be in effect what it would have to do. I doubt that they’d be willing to address it until/unless McCain received electoral votes. In which case, the election would be thrown into the House, since by definition, McCain would have won a majority. The Democratic candidate would be the only one receiving electoral votes, but not enough for a majority. The Constitution says that the House has to pick among the top three, but doesn’t specify what would happen if there was only one or two candidates who received electoral votes. Are they obligated to choose from the two (or in this case, one, since McCain would have been deemed ineligible?)
Also, the Constitution requires that :
a) the House vote by state, not as individuals;
b) each state gets only one vote, regardless of size;
c) if a state’s delegation were deadlocked, that state has no vote until it’s resolved.
W/o checking, I would guess that the GOP still has control over a majority of state delegations, even though it is now in the minority (i.e., the Dems’ massive advantages in the delegations from NY and CA would net them only two votes.) The last time we talked about this, back in 2000, the GOP had a comfortable lead (albeit also holding a majority of the seats, too.)
In that case, I would conclude that McCain’s VP (who would have been elected w/ a majority in the Electoral College), would take over the presidency as long as the House was unable to elect a President. (Which, if their choice was limited to the Dem nominee, they would likely refuse to elect that person – and would prefer to let McCain’s VP take the office rather than the Dem who was defeated in the Electoral College.)
It’s an interesting scenario, at any rate – thoughts?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
All in favor of Illinoisguy letting his excitement die down and being a lot quieter raise your hand.
Motion passes. Unanimous.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
After Romney got the nod there was a Mass (Mass.?) Mormon Exodus.
Oh, brother. We have different religions in this country. Get over it.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The “natural-born” stipulation was purely intended to prevent foreign immigrants from becoming President. If McCain wasn’t born an American, then when did he become one? No one can seriously think we have Senators running around Congress that somehow never became American citizens. Not only McCain, but then Inyoue and Akaka as well (both born in Hawaii before it was a state) and possibly others.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
#24, regarding your scenario, specifically point #2- What happens if McCain is deemed ineligible, and the House has to pick from one of the top three vote getters. Imagine this happening in 1980 for some reason and Reagan being disqualified — the vote would have been between Jimmy Carter and John Anderson. Given the Democratic control of the House at the time the Democrats would still win. But if it looks like there would be a challenge, I would imagine one Republican elector would cast a vote for McCain’s VP pick or the favorite Republican of his/her choice. McCain would get one less vote, but chances are we’ll have more than a 1 vote majority. That would allow the House to select between the Democrat nominee and a Republican, just in case SCOTUS ruled McCain ineligible. A backup plan of sorts.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
The issue isn’t about if McCain ia an american citizen but if he is an american natural born citizen. This stipulation only apply for the presidency of the USA.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
An excellent piece in Volokh (via Instapundit) citing works contemporaneous to the constitution clarifying the meaning of “natural-born”.
“If the drafters of the Constitution had wanted to require that presidents be born in the United States, they could have done so. Instead, they invoked the then-standard idea of natural citizenship as reflecting natural allegiance to the king or the state.”
From Blackstone: “An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now.”
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_24-2008_03_01.shtml#1204265246
February 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
#28 Andrew-
Very good point you raise. My thoughts, having explored your angle further:
The Dems could do the same thing. Instead of unifying their electoral votes behind their nominee (since they would have known for over a month that the nominee did not receive a majority in the Electoral College and thus could not be elected w/o Republican support) -
The Dems could do the same thing you suggested the Republican electors do- i.e.-
agree for their electors to split their electoral votes among two or three candidates, in order to ensure that the top three finishers in the Electoral College were all Dems and trying to force the GOP to select one instead of the Republican VP winner.
I still think that the House GOP would hold all of the cards, though. They could simply refuse to elect any of the Dem candidates and permit the McCain VP to take office…
Thoughts
February 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Good strategy. On a purely legal basis, it could happen, but the outrage all this would provoke (the Democrats using the Electoral College, something most people don’t understand anyway, to cheat the Republicans out of an electoral victory) would be substantial and probably set the Democrats back a generation or two. Even they wouldn’t push it that far.
I agree that the House of Representatives is the key holder of power. That’s the way it was intended, and that’s how it should be.
Now imagine all this if we had a straight popular vote and didn’t have an Electoral College or the House settling disputes. The Founders knew what they were doing when they made all these backups. Although we could probably manage with some sort of popular vote as long as the House had some dispute-breaking powers and the electorate and both parties were smart enough to make sure it wasn’t abused.