Main Menu

Birthers trash McCain

In a disgusting combination of smear, misinformation, and significant omission of relevant facts, thebirthers.org has gone after John McCain. They say McCain is not a natural born citizen of the United States of de Vattel and the Senate lied

Charles Kerchner is pimping the story in mass emails. (Of late Kerchner, aka mountain goat, has been spreading the more outlandish of the anti-Obama Internet rumors.)

, , ,

89 Responses to Birthers trash McCain

  1. avatar
    Lupin September 17, 2009 at 8:56 am #

    Was he born before or after 1868? 🙂

    Seriously, if his father was a US citizen, then he is, as per Vattel.

    Why this strange obsession with Vattel anyway? He might cast a light into the thinking behind some of the wording in the Constitution, but that neither Law not Treaty.

  2. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    Don’t forget, Rove and his coterie circulated a smear campaign that McCain had fathered a black child, when in fact they had adopted a Bangladeshi orphan.

    McCain then sucked up to Bush, after he willingly went along with a character assassination.

    They all crawled from under a rock. Best of all: McCain would have been elected, instead of Obama, if he had chosen Olympia Snowe as his VP. Those vermin get what they deserve.

  3. avatar
    Sally Hill September 17, 2009 at 10:00 am #

    Humm..you want to have it both ways, do you?

    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936”

    If the all knowing Senators (including Obama) felt it necessary to state the plural form of citizens instead of ..born to at least 1 American citizen on an American military base….then surely they said what they meant and meant what they said. Do you dare to question the all mighty Senators of Resolution 511?

    Do we really know exactly where McCain was born? I mean, was it in the PCZ or was it in Colon? If the PCZ – it *might* make the issue more murkey – but in Colon, which is more likely – then obviously it was not on soil even considered to be under US control, making McCain a dual citizen (Panama / US) – therefore ineligible to be POTUS. There’s that pesky dual allegiance thing again….drats!

    As far as trashing McCain – he did that all byhimself and to himself during his campaign – anything said after the fact is just icing on the cake that he mixed, baked, and served to the American People.

    Neither McCain or Obama were eligible to POTUS, McCain knew it, therefore he couldn’t challenge Obama. Obama knew it, therefore, he did the oh so gentlemanly thing and joined other co-conspirators in christening McCain as eligible.

    So – OK, I’ll say 1 nice thing about McCain – at least he won’t stoop so low as to try and CREATE an avenue to legitimize Obama.

  4. avatar
    Sally Hill September 17, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    I couldn’t agree with you more.

    On the Rove front, are you talking about cooking up scandals and underhanded tactics like those Obama and Axelrod used to throw his opponents off the Ballot in Illinois?

    Look – can you not see that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are as crooked as the day is long?

    Corruption is eating its way through our government.

    Since I’m obviously Cotton Mather Crazy, I’m sure I have made no sense whatsoever, so I apologize for the outburst and just ignore me. You surely already FIRMLY have your minds made up anyway.

  5. avatar
    kimba September 17, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    It is fascinating how you folks even turn on your own. You picked McCain as your candidate. If you didn’t think he was eligible, you shouldn’t have voted for him. There was Ron Paul and Alan Keyes available if you no like Obama and McCain. Or would you have found something wrong with their citizenship too? Poor Bobby Jindal. There will be little left of that frail genteel man when you animals are through with him.

  6. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 17, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    I’m still waiting to see Sarah Palin’s Long Form Birth Certificate.

    I’m not convinced she wasn’t born in Canada, to at least one Canadian parent. Or, seeing how Russia (The Soviet Union at the time of her birth) is sooooo close, maybe, just maybe we should be checking into Russian birth records around the time of Sarah’s birth.

    Maybe THAT is why she quit half way through her term as Governor. And why she didn’t pursue President Obama’s eligibility, because she knew she had eligibility issues of her own.

    (See how easy it is to make stuff up? That’s exactly what the birthers do)

  7. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    Just wait and see what this mob does to Jindal. They’ll chew him up, and spit him out. He won’t love conservatives so much, when they are done with him.

    He’ll go back to exorcisms, to get rid of the slime thrown at him.

    What’s so hilarious, is that Michelle Malkin and Jindal inveigh against anchor babies, when they in fact were such.

    Once again, conservative hypocrites.

  8. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    Maybe Sarah Palin/Heath was born in the Yukon Territory, as her parents made their way from Iowa to Anchorage.

    She was once a beauty contest winner. How many judges did she schtup to get to first place?

    Palin went to six schools before she got her degree. Why? Did she fail out of every one, except the last? We’ve never seen any of her records, like demanded of Obama.

    What’s she hiding, and why did she resign? So many unanswered questions.

  9. avatar
    Bob September 17, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    If the all knowing Senators (including Obama) felt it necessary to state the plural form of citizens instead of ..born to at least 1 American citizen on an American military base

    S.R. 511 pertained to McCain, and McCain only. And it is undisputed that both of his parents were both U.S. citizens.

    So why would a nonbinding resolution about exactly one person say that he was “born to at least one citizen parent” when everyone knew he was born to two? (Some people might read “at least one citizen parent” as an implication that one of his parents wasn’t really a citizen at all.)

    This kind of proptor hoc fallacy is very common in birfer “logic.”

  10. avatar
    Greg September 17, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    Why would they say he was born to an American citizen, when, in fact, he was born to American citizens?

    McCain knew there was a question about his eligibility, but that serious constitutional scholars, like Lawrence Tribe (a liberal) and Theodore Olsen (conservative) had looked at the issue and concluded, with legal reasoning lacking from the birthers’ arguments, that he was, in fact, eligible.

    If I have a question about my taxes, and I ask 1,000 tax experts and one of them says I have a problem, while the other 999 say I don’t, do I know I’m doing my taxes wrong?

    What’s really ironic is that that 1 guy who disagrees with McCain’s eligibility, and who did actual research on the issue, Gabriel Chin, concluded that he wasn’t an NBC because the law that would have granted him such status wasn’t written until 11 months after his birth – even though it purported to act retroactively to all children born there after 1904. Professor Chin isn’t much loved by the birthers because his argument relies on Lord Coke and the common-law understanding of natural born – which makes Obama a natural born citizen.

    The University of Michigan held an online symposium on the issue in 2008, and they present some very interesting opinions.

    Interesting factoid I learned from those articles, Bill Richardson’s father was an American citizen living in Mexico City. His mother was a Mexican citizen. Dad sent mom to LA to have him. I guess, according to the ultra-Vattelers, he’s not a citizen because a) his mom was Mexican and b) his parents’ domicile was in Mexico.

    This was a birthers’ paradise of an election. Obama, McCain, Richardson. Romney is the son of George Romney, who ran for President, but was born to Mormon polygamists in Mexico. Rudy Giuliani is Italian-American, so may have been born with a potential Italian dual-citizenship. Mike Gravel’s parents were French Canadian immigrants, and I don’t know their naturalization status. If Lieberman had run this time, he, like Giuliani, would have a potential dual citizenship that arose at birth.

    Interestingly, it wouldn’t have mattered if Chester Arthur’s dad had naturalized before or after his birth, because Ireland doesn’t recognize the voluntary renunciation of its citizenship contained in our oath of allegiance. So, Chester Arthur’s dad always held Irish citizenship. Any other Irish-American Presidents?

  11. avatar
    Loren September 17, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    Why the obsession? Because he can be argued to be a favorable authority. It requires some degree of misinterpretation and historical revisionism, but he’s a pre-Constitution legal scholar who kinda-sorta agrees with them, so obviously it is his view (or rather, their interpretation of his view) that the Founders wholly relied upon.

    This is the perfectly standard thought process of the conspiratorial mind. First you reach your conclusion (Obama is ineligible), and then you gleefully adopt all authorities that support your conclusion no matter how weak (obscure scholars, phony forensic experts, fake documents) and dismiss out of hand all authorities that don’t support your conclusion. The strength of the evidence isn’t what matters, so much as which side it supports.

  12. avatar
    kimba September 17, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    He was so proud in his howdy doody speech that his mom was 4-1/2 months pregnant when they came to Louisiana. He’s not only the child of two legal aliens, he wasn’t even Conceived on US Soil. Disgusting. Plus he’s brown, he’s Catholic with Hindu roots. They’ll eat him alive.

  13. avatar
    kimba September 17, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    So you have Ted Olson, who not only reasoned John McCain is NBC, but Barack Obama, too. And then you have Orly et al, arguing they’re not. Who ya gonna call when you need an expert constitutional opinion?

  14. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 17, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    One little remark: Chester Arthur almost certainly felt Irish American, but there was no Irish state at the time, so that would mean you have to look at UK nationality laws at the time.

    But Chester Arthur is not the only one that may have had dual nationality problems. Eisenhower was entitled to German nationality until he joined the army, and in 1790 France granted French nationality at birth (français naturel status) to descendants of the Huguenots. The “at birth” status was abolished in 1927, all entitlement was rescinded in 1945. According to Wikipedia, Grant, the two Roosevelts, Taft, Truman, LB Johnson and Ford were Huguenots (George Wahington did not have to be an NBC). Seeing Obama was related to Truman (and very distantly to LBJ) he may have some Huguenot blood too, but he was born after 1945.

    The law change in 1927 also meant people “naturalizing” had to be domiciled in France when applying. That may save FDR, Truman, Johnson and Ford if the birfer-dualists do not insist on status at birth. But Grant, Taft and Teddy Roosevelt were definitely potential français naturels when they were president.

  15. avatar
    Black Lion September 17, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Sally Hill says:
    September 17, 2009 at 10:09 am

    I couldn’t agree with you more.

    On the Rove front, are you talking about cooking up scandals and underhanded tactics like those Obama and Axelrod used to throw his opponents off the Ballot in Illinois?
    _____________________________________________
    Which scandals are you talking about? Obama’s opponent for US Senate (Ryan) brought his disgrace upon himself by his own actions. President Obama did not make him try and take his wife to a adult sex club. He quit the race. And Alan Keyes actually ran against Obama. And he was trounced because he is crazy. Unless you believe that Obama made Ryan force his wife to go to one of those clubs. You people that believe in these ridiculous theories will never be satisfied.

  16. avatar
    Greg September 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    Have I mentioned that I’m not a fan of researching British law? Still smarting from the time I told a Partner, correctly, that the leading British treatise on our subject said that the law was “X”, only to have our British co-counsel tell us that, in fact, it was “Not X. And for future reference, decisions out of New South Wales are not binding precedent.”

  17. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 17, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    Paul, but if the Birthers don’t require status at birth, that completely destroys their claim. Obama lost his British Citizenship with the Kenyan Independence Act, when he became a citizen of Kenya. He then lost his Kenyan Citizenship when he turned 23 (apparently), not having renounced his other citizenships. So, Obama has neither Kenyan, nor British Citizenship.

  18. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    Remember how Repugs always spit out “Barack HUSSEIN Obama”?

    Well, they’re going to be spitting out PIYUSH Jindal. He won’t be loving them conservatives no more. Just wait until Rove and his coterie go into overdrive.

    He’s Hindu, and do you want a HINDU as president? This is a CHRISTIAN country. Leiberman? He’s a JEW. Dual loyalty. Cantor? JEW. Birthers will have fun with this factoid: Israel considers everyone in the world who is biologically Jewish, to be an Israeli citizen. THEY ALL HAVE DUAL LOYALTY! Can’t trust ’em. They’ll have Leiberman and Cantor running for cover.

    Factoid: Cantor is the only Jewish Republican in the entire Congress. Wonder why? Everyone else got smart, that’s why.

    Specter had enough of them, and switched. Evangelicals literally say to settlers “Don’t give up one brick.” It’s not because they want to right a historical wrong. It’s because if there is a peace treaty signed, there won’t be Armageddon. And their sick theatre will be shut down without any players.

    I repeat: Jews who lie down with conservatives, only get fleas.

  19. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    The two-parent rule is an urban myth which has found a receptive audience among white citizens who cannot abide a black family in the White House. You will notice that the birthers are all white, with the exception of Alan Keyes, who is still licking his wounds from the Senate race, when he moved from Maryland, established Illinois residency, ran as the Republican candidate against Obama, and was trounced.

    Keyes was picked by the GOP, when it was splashed in the papers that the white GOP candidate had an acrimonious divorce, and demanded his wife go with him to a Parisian sex club, where everyone walked around nude, and copulated with strangers.

    So much for God and Family Values, which is what the Republicans call their core platform, castigate everyone else as morally bankrupt, and inveigh against liberals as libertines lacking a moral compass, every time they get within five feet of a microphone.

    See Ted Haggard.

  20. avatar
    SFJeff September 17, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    Sally, I don’t think you are crazy, but I do question your outlook:

    “So – OK, I’ll say 1 nice thing about McCain – at least he won’t stoop so low as to try and CREATE an avenue to legitimize Obama.”

    That is the only thing that you can say nice about Senator McCain? This is a man who served our country honorably in a war that most politicians from both sides(and pretty much every darling of the right) ran away from. Even if you disagree with every single thing he did while he was in Congress, I don’t know how the first ‘nice’ thing about McCain that comes to mind has to do with Obama.

    There were some legitimate concerns about the technicalities of whether McCain met the standards of NBC. What I find funny though, after hearing the arguments about ‘a NBC must be the child of two citizen parents born in the U.S. in order assure he has allegiance’, is who could doubt that McCain doesn’t have the proper ‘allegiance’? Born to an illustrious military family serving our country overseas, raised with the ideals of serving the United States…but no, of course he isn’t eligible because he doesn’t have the proper ‘allegiance’. But Timothy McVay did- now there is a proper Natural Born Citizen.

  21. avatar
    Dave Muckey September 17, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    What is the status of Kerchner v. Obama? Best I can tell is that a motion from the court is overdue.

  22. avatar
    Bob September 17, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    The motion remains pending; no indication on when a decision will be rendered.

  23. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 3:04 pm #

    One more fly in the ointment: to qualify, a candidate must have resided in the States for 14 years. But it is not specified if the 14 years are consecutive, or cumulative.

    Hoover lived in the States for 14 years, but not consecutive years. Same for Eisenhower.

    So take that, birthers: one more angle for you to tangle with.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 17, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    In the most common usage a “factoid” is a false fact.

  25. avatar
    Black Lion September 17, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Well the birthers and their ilk have finally gone over the edge. You have to read this screed fully to understand how mentally deranged some of these people are…It is truly disturbing….

    http://markepstein.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/armed-revolution-are-you-in-or-out/

    Some quotes…

    “The great danger in historical revisionism is the potential for future generations to make the same mistake. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were no friends to the US Constitution, but few Americans know this fact. Even more egregious is the dearth of Constitutional knowledge in America. However, that is changing, which does not bode well for the Obama Administration.”

    “Conceivably, within the first days of an armed revolt, numerous politicians, Obama hacks, federal judges, and media members would be killed.”

    “After a brief lull in the killing, this period would be remembered as the time of purging. Obama supporters would be summarily executed in their homes and on the streets.”

    “Local law enforcement and the state’s National Guards would be providing humanitarian assistance only, and their orders would include not firing on armed Americans and using their own firearms only to defend women and children, having already experienced losses themselves for interfering with summary executions of male Obama supporters.”

    “University professors would now be targeted for killing”

    Wow…That is just some of the comments this guy made. He even mention’s Beck in his screed regarding the “five questions” that Americans should ask their politicans. So everytime Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, or O’Reilly say that they do not incite violence, read this guy’s comments.

  26. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    “However, the word can sometimes mean, instead, an insignificant but true piece of information.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid

    That’s how I was using it. But you are correct in its original usage. Now I’m at a loss for words…

    Drat.

  27. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    I read it, and sent the link to the SPLC. Do you think DHS has already seen it?

    Some of the commenters mean business.

  28. avatar
    Rickey September 17, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    Sally Hill: Do we really know exactly where McCain was born?I mean, was it in the PCZ or was it in Colon?If the PCZ – it *might* make the issue more murkey – but in Colon, which is more likely – then obviously it was not on soil even considered to be under US control…

    Colon is more likely? How did you come to that conclusion? McCain’s father was stationed at the Naval Aviation Facility at the Coco Solo Submarine Base. The base had its own hospital. So why would the McCains choose to have their child born in a civilian hospital in Colon, when they were entitled to free care by American doctors at the base hospital? Besides, there is a contemporaneous notice in a Canal Zone English newspaper which says that McCain was born at the base hospital.

  29. avatar
    Greg September 17, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    That was disgusting. What sort of sick puppy could conceive of that, much less write it out gleefully reveling in imagining, basically, a genocide of Stalinesque proportions?

  30. avatar
    SFJeff September 17, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    I can never understand how self proclaimed right wing Christians always seem so willing to kill others.

  31. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 17, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    Lord knows those newspaper announcements are easily faked, at least that’s what the birthers tell us about the announcements for President Barack Obama’s birth announcement after he was born in Honolulu.

  32. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 8:37 pm #

    That announcement was planted there by a confederate. C’mon, get with the program.

    You saw how easily Ann Dunham had a confederate plant her son’s birth announcement in both Honolulu papers. It would be even easier for McCain’s father to plant his son’s birth in the Zone’s hospital, while they were resting in Colon.

    Sheesh, you libruls are sooo gullible.

  33. avatar
    Rickey September 17, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    How naive of me!

  34. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    “I can never understand how self proclaimed right wing Christians always seem so willing to kill others.”

    Does “The Final Solution To The Jewish Problem” ring a bell?

    I was raised surrounded by survivors.

  35. avatar
    ballantine September 17, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    I actually think that solely as an academic question, the founders probably would not have thought McCain to be natural born. I can, however, make a reasonable argument to the contary. The problem with most so-called originalists are they seem to pre-suppose that there always is a clear historical answer. The fact is that, with most constituional issues, we have no definitive answer to what the founders thought and claiming one knows the original intent in such situation is nothing but a conservative form of judicial activision. The truth is there is almost no authority from the founders on children of citizens born abroad other than, in both England and America, they were generally deemed to be born aliens in need of naturalization. The fact that such naturalized persons were called “natural born” in England and by the first Congress obviously complicates, but does not resolve, the issue. The real answer should be that, absent overwhelming authority of a clear intent, the court has no business interfering in the electoral process by engaging in speculation and conjecture about the founders’ intent.

  36. avatar
    Mary Brown September 17, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    His father was serving his country. Beware military members with families. Despite your brave service poor little Johnny, born in a foreign hospital is not a natural born citizen. I know people who have had children in German and Dutch hospitals, Sandy. I dare you, I dare you to go to them personally and say, ” Yes, I know, your family member served bravely in Bosnia but you know Johnny was born in a German hospital. He cannot be a Natural Born Citizen. I dare you to do that face to face. Show the courage of your convictions. Please do. Have you no decency? Evidentally not.

  37. avatar
    Nullifidian September 17, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Sally Hill: I couldn’t agree with you more.On the Rove front, are you talking about cooking up scandals and underhanded tactics like those Obama and Axelrod used to throw his opponents off the Ballot in Illinois?

    This is a perfect exemplar of the mangled history that passes for “fact” among the far-right. In fact, it will take a while to unpack.

    First, the whole story of Obama making ballot challenges to his opponents is true, but this occurred when he first ran for state senate. He did not know David Axelrod then and wasn’t advised by him.

    Secondly, he wasn’t manufacturing scandals to get his opponents off the ballot. He is not Francis Urquhart. One of his supporters, Ron Davis, made successful challenges based on the legal issue that his opponents didn’t have enough valid signatures on their petitions to meet the minimum limit. This led the Illinois state senate incumbent to retire when it turned out that over two-thirds of the signatures on her nominating petition were legally invalid. That’s it.

  38. avatar
    Nullifidian September 17, 2009 at 10:46 pm #

    misha,

    I’ve pointed out the implications of Israel’s Law of Return on the dual citizenship argument to birfers and they seemed…well, shall we say “remarkably unfazed”?

    I think that many of them wouldn’t be at all upset if all Jews lost the right to run for president under their schema.

    Come to think of it, I don’t think they were very impressed with Rudolf Giuliani either. All in all, I’d say that the range of “acceptable” Republican candidates seems to be restricted to people with obviously Anglo-Saxon names and faces to match (Thompson, Huckabee, etc.) regardless of how many times they float names like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Bobby Jindal.

  39. avatar
    Larry Byerly September 17, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    I reside in Okinawa and there are seveal thousand America military families on the Island. The majority of the children (about 100 a month) are born at the Naval Hospital. Occasionally a child will be born at a Japanese hosptital because of complications that require expertise beyond the capability of the military treatment facility. Additionally, some foreign born military wives prefer to use off base health care facilities. So the thinking of the birthers is that those not born in the military hospital are not citizens and those born in the military treatment facility may not be citizens. All births of military dependents overseas are submitted to the State Department through the various consulates or embassys and the State Department issues a certificate indicating that the individual is indeed a U. S. citizen born outside of the U.S. borders.

  40. avatar
    Mary Brown September 17, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    Thank you for explaining in a calm manner. I was really angry and let it get the best of me.

  41. avatar
    misha September 17, 2009 at 11:42 pm #

    “I dare you to do that face to face.”

    Like all arm chair warriors, they only know how to pontificate. When faced with real action, they run for cover.

    I’d like to see her patrol the perimeter of a kibbutz at night, with an Uzi. Sally Hill would probably wet her pants.

  42. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 18, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    I happen to disagree with you there. In 1790, the first congress passed a law granting “Natural Born Citizenship” to children of Americans born overseas.

    Furthermore, John Jay, during his time overseas, had sons born there. He would have thought them to be eligible for the Presidency. I see no reason to think why John McCain would not be eligible for the Presidency.

  43. avatar
    misha September 18, 2009 at 1:17 am #

    “I think that many of them wouldn’t be at all upset if all Jews lost the right to run for president under their schema.”

    I have always maintained that Lieberman cost Gore the election. Gore’s choice was a precursor to McCain’s.

  44. avatar
    Lupin September 18, 2009 at 3:26 am #

    I’m inclined to disagree. I’m sure if John and Abigail Adams had had a child while living in France, they would have deemed that child to be American.

    Just my 2 cents of course.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 18, 2009 at 9:21 am #

    It’s useful to think what triggers our anger. I learn about myself that way.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 18, 2009 at 9:24 am #

    Oh no. The birthers say these children born on base or not lack presidential eligibility. If a foreign national wanders on base and gives birth, are they US citizens?

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 18, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    The birthers ase so adamant about ejecting Obama they don’t care who else is excluded. Birtherism is a monomania.

  48. avatar
    ballantine September 18, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    It is a difficult issue. Jay and Adams were probably serving as ambassadors and hence would have been natural born under the common law. If they were oversees vacationing, however, the prevailing view in the early republic would be that they were aliens unless made citizens by naturalization statute. The bottom line is that there is almost no early American authority that foriegn born children of citizens were natural born. There is the 1790 act and maybe one state case which the supreme court said was wrong. There is some support under English law. Clearly such persons were born aliens under the English common law. However, Parliament passed a series of acts throughout the years essentially granting them “natural born” status, though not necessarily all the rights of the natural born under the common law. These were essentially naturalized subjects, but to McCain’s benefit, they were often called natural born. Thus, it may be that the founders included these when they thought of natural born, but that is speculation.

    The 1790 act both hurts and helps. The fact that Congress needed to provide for them in the naturalization act means they thought they were aliens in need of naturalization. The legislative history makes clear they were providing for these persons just like Parliament had done. Hence, since Parliament had conferred natural born status, it seems Congress thought it could as well. Whether they could for constitutional purposes is unclear. What is clear is that most early authorities thought naturalization necessary for these persons to even be citizens. Since the 1802 act was not prospective, there was a period where there was no natualization act for these people. This was remedied in 1855 after Horace Binney made clear that such persons were not citizens under the common law and needed to be included in the naturalization statement. Congress followed Binney’s advice noting in was the “better view” was that these persons were not citizens under the common law.

  49. avatar
    Arliss September 18, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    No, even if only one parent is American it does not matter where the birth occurred, the child will be given Natural Born Status.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen

  50. avatar
    IceTrey September 18, 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    McCain Sr. was stationed at Coco Solo but he and his wife lived in Colon. The base had a medical facility but it was far from a full service hospital. It’s been reported that sailors at the time referred to the Colon Hospital as “the base hospital”. The McCain BC available on the net shows he was born in Colon Hospital. Regardless, the Panama Constitution confers Panamanian citizenship to anyone born in the Canal Zone. The CZ was always considered sovereign Panama territory. It’s also a myth that military bases are sovereign US territory. They aren’t.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11110505/JohnMcCain-Birth-Certificate-long-and-short-form-Colon-Panama-1936

  51. avatar
    kimba September 18, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    It is bizarre that 8 months after the Inauguration of President Obama and more than 10 months after the election, that anyone is talking about McCain’s eligibility. It’s a dead issue and no one cares anymore. Repubs didn’t support him leading up to the election and now they want to trash his citizenship. I’m really glad the guy lost the election to Obama, but McCain lost the use of his shoulders serving our country, show him some respect.

  52. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    That birth certicate is a fake.

  53. avatar
    Rickey September 18, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    IceTrey: McCain Sr. was stationed at Coco Solo but he and his wife lived in Colon.

    Your evidence for this is – what?

    IceTrey: The base had a medical facility but it was far from a full service hospital. It’s been reported that sailors at the time referred to the Colon Hospital as “the base hospital”.

    And your evidence for this is – what?

    IceTrey: The McCain BC available on the net shows he was born in Colon Hospital.

    As Bob has noted, that birth certificate is a fake.

  54. avatar
    IceTrey September 18, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    It doesn’t really matter since even if he was born on the submarine base he still would have been born with Panama citizenship. The Canal Zone and Coco Solo were both sovereign Panama territory.

  55. avatar
    IceTrey September 18, 2009 at 9:55 pm #

    “As Bob has noted, that birth certificate is a fake.”

    And you evidence for that is- what?

  56. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    1. Here’s Doctor Conspiracy’s analysis.

    2. Where’s your proof that it came from where you said it did?

  57. avatar
    IceTrey September 18, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    No one is trashing his citizenship. He was born and always has been a US citizen, just not a “natural born” one. Discussing McCains citizenship is relevant in relation to Obama’s legitimacy as POTUS. Dualers hold that to be a natural born citizen you have to be born in the US and both of your parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth. Therefore to state that Obama is ineligible because his father was a foreigner you must also state that McCain is ineligible because he was born in a foreign country.

  58. avatar
    Larry Byerly September 18, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    The base is not U. S. property but property of the hosting government unlike U. S. Embassys and Consulates which are considered U. S. property. If a foreign national gives birth on base the child would not be a U. S. citizen since the child was born to foreign nationals. Is it that hard to understand?

  59. avatar
    Rickey September 18, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    From Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post:

    As I reported earlier, the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the “family hospital” in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.)

    The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here. I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html

    And here is the birth announcement in The Panama American, published two days after McCains’s birth:

    Lt. and Mrs. John S McCain, Jr., of the Submarine Base, are the parents of a son born Saturday afternoon at the Submarine Base Hospital.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf

    It’s amazing that both McCain’s parents and Obama’s parents had the foresight to post phony birth announcements in their respective local newspapers.

  60. avatar
    Rickey September 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    IceTrey: And you evidence for that is- what?

    Read the other notes in this thread. A reporter for the Washington Post has seen the actual birth certificate and confirmed that it was signed by the medical director of the Colo Solo base family hospital. In addition, a contemporaneous birth notice, published in a English-language newspaper in Panama two days after McCain’s birth, says that he was born at the “Submarine Base Hospital.”

  61. avatar
    Bob September 18, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    Here’s a law review article that (sorta) agrees with you.

  62. avatar
    IceTrey September 18, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    So ONE reporter wrote that he saw McCain’s real BC. God forbid that a candidate for the most powerful job on the planet would post his credentials on the net for EVERYONE to see. In addition his 96 year old mother VIVIDLY remembers the day of his birth. Well thank you sweet Jesus that’s cleared up.

    Anyway, as I wrote above it doesn’t really matter since Coco Solo and the Canal Zone were always sovereign Panama territory and the Panama constitution conferred Panamanian citizenship (jus soli) on him at birth.

    Just to clear things up:
    “According to a State Department manual, U.S. military installations abroad cannot be considered “part of the United States” and “A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” – Washington Post

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 18, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    It doesn’t matter. Anyone whose natural born citizen status is questioned, is ineligible, period.

  64. avatar
    strikefighter September 18, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    IceTrey: It doesn’t really matter since even if he was born on the submarine base he still would have been born with Panama citizenship. The Canal Zone and Coco Solo were both sovereign Panama territory.

    WRONGO!

    Until 1979, the United States had control of the Panama Canal zone, according to the Hay—Bunau-Varilla Treaty. This essentially meant that the Canal Zone was effectively US territory, since the treaty basically barred Panama from control over the zone(from MSN Encarta). Was it a violation of sovereignty? Yeah, it was. But for our purposes here, not really important. And from US Code Title 8 § 1403. “Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
    (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
    (b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

    So, according to US law, Senator McCain is a US citizen according to an act of Congress (a real one, not a non-binding resolution).

  65. avatar
    misha September 18, 2009 at 11:45 pm #

    Of course, guilty until proven innocent.

    The Three Stooges of law have re-written the Constitution, in its entirety. Get with the program.

  66. avatar
    misha September 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm #

    “It’s amazing that both McCain’s parents and Obama’s parents had the foresight to post phony birth announcements in their respective local newspapers.”

    I know. What an amazing coincidence, on both of their parts. That sort of trait in one’s parents – of super-human foresight – should be a requirement to be president.

  67. avatar
    IceTrey September 19, 2009 at 12:49 am #

    Well, if ONE reporter SAYS that he’s seen it that just clears everything right up now doesn’t it? Give me a break. We’re talking about a man seeking the most powerful job on the planet and that’s all you can show to prove he’s eligible? Weak. Of course if you had read my other posts you would have learned the BC isn’t really important since the Canal Zone and Coco Solo were always sovereign Panama territory. Which means McCain was born on foreign soil and is therefore ineligible to be President.

  68. avatar
    IceTrey September 19, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    Thank you for making my point. I quote from your post “is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” CITIZEN!. I don’t see the words “natural born” in there anywhere. Do you? No one is saying McCain isn’t a US citizen. We’re saying he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen. Which of course is one of the requirements to be the POTUS.

  69. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 19, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    Hey Misha,

    The only stooge in this little discussion is you. You do not even know the difference between criminal and civil law.

  70. avatar
    IceTrey September 19, 2009 at 1:06 am #

    Wrong. It’s a myth that embassies enjoy extraterritorial status. It’s the Vienna Conventions that grants embassies with special privileges. But the property always remains sovereign territory of the host nation. Just like the Canal Zone and Coco Solo.

  71. avatar
    strikefighter September 19, 2009 at 2:36 am #

    IceTrey: Thank you for making my point. I quote from your post “is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” CITIZEN!. I don’t see the words “natural born” in there anywhere. Do you? No one is saying McCain isn’t a US citizen. We’re saying he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen. Which of course is one of the requirements to be the POTUS.

    Of course, there are only two classes of citizen. Natural Born and Naturalized. I don’t think that they were declaring children born in the canal zone Naturalized. I think they were declaring them Natural Born. This of course is an argument that has been had over and over and over on this blog and yet it hasn’t been settled yet. Hell, how is being born to two US citizen parents on territory controlled by the US according to treaty not good enough. Damn you people are picky.

  72. avatar
    misha September 19, 2009 at 2:49 am #

    “The only stooge in this little discussion is you.”

    Fine. I only have a lowly paralegal cert. from Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, in addition to two degrees.

    I say watching you, Taitz, and Donofrio is akin to watching any episode of The Three Stooges. And I believe in a raucous democracy.

    So let’s take a poll: All of the attorneys here, state you are a practicing attorney, and if I am out of bounds with my characterization. I’ll let the chips fall where they may.

  73. avatar
    Rickey September 19, 2009 at 3:19 am #

    IceTrey: Well, if ONE reporter SAYS that he’s seen it that just clears everything right up now doesn’t it? Give me a break. We’re talking about a man seeking the most powerful job on the planet and that’s all you can show to prove he’s eligible? Weak. Of course if you had read my other posts you would have learned the BC isn’t really important since the Canal Zone and Coco Solo were always sovereign Panama territory. Which means McCain was born on foreign soil and is therefore ineligible to be President.

    It’s interesting that on the one hand you claim that the birth certificate isn’t important, yet on the other hand you make a big deal about claiming that he wasn’t born at the base hospital. And of course you are free to discount the word of the Washington Post reporter, but how do you explain the contemporaneous birth notice in the Panama newspaper? And apparently you are convinced that McCain’s mother is a liar, but she has said repeatedly that she gave birth on the base.

    As for a U.S. military base in a foreign country being that country’s “sovereign territory,” that’s an interesting interpretation of the word “sovereign.” If the Coco Solo base had truly been sovereign Panama territory, Panamanian officials would have been free to come and go as they pleased and would have had authority over the activities on the base. Have you ever actually served on an overseas military base?

    Finally, has others have pointed out, in the long history of this country the Federal courts have recognized only two types of citizenship – natural born and naturalized. If you are a citizen at birth, you are natural born.

  74. avatar
    reeltime September 19, 2009 at 7:53 am #

    And did the reporter mention the the birth certificate used in Hollander v McCain says that he was born in the Colon Hospital?

    http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/McCain-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf

    So which birth certificate is the fake? But if McCain presented the Colon copy to a court….

  75. avatar
    Nullifidian September 19, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    reeltime: But if McCain presented the Colon copy to a court….

    He didn’t. That was filed with the plaintiff’s surreply. The plaintiff in the case was Fred Hollander, not John McCain.

  76. avatar
    IceTrey September 19, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    My father was a 20 year Marine. I myself was born on the Marine Corps Base Quantico. I grew up in the military. All overseas bases have a rental agreement which states the privileges and circumstances of the existence of the base. Just like when you rent an apartment the landlord can’t come in whenever he feels like so with the bases. The land is theirs, we just rent it.

  77. avatar
    IceTrey September 19, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    Yes, yes we are picky. The President is most importantly the Commander in Chief of the US military. We, like the Framers, want that person to be free of ANY foreign influences. We want them to be solely, wholly and only an American.

  78. avatar
    Greg September 19, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    You’re not a sovereign nation.

  79. avatar
    Greg September 19, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    You really think that McCain has any foreign influences? Specifically, do you really think that McCain has some tie to Panama that would have conflicted with his tie to the United States?

  80. avatar
    Gordon September 19, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    IceTrey says:
    September 19, 2009 at 12:56 am

    Thank you for making my point. I quote from your post “is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” CITIZEN!. I don’t see the words “natural born” in there anywhere. Do you? No one is saying McCain isn’t a US citizen. We’re saying he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen. Which of course is one of the requirements to be the POTUS.

    How many kinds of citizens do you think we have? You are either a “natural born citizen”, or a naturalized citizen. The law as it refers to US citizens born in Panama doesn’t call for children to go through any naturalization process.

  81. avatar
    Rickey September 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    IceTrey: My father was a 20 year Marine. I myself was born on the Marine Corps Base Quantico. I grew up in the military. All overseas bases have a rental agreement which states the privileges and circumstances of the existence of the base. Just like when you rent an apartment the landlord can’t come in whenever he feels like so with the bases. The land is theirs, we just rent it.

    Yes, and those lease agreements give the U.S. military total sovereignty over the bases for the duration of the lease.

    Do you really believe that the child of a sailor or marine who was born on the U.S. Naval Base at Subic Bay somehow owes allegiance to the Philippines? That idea makes no sense whatsoever.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 19, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    But when the Framers got together to express exactly how they would enshrine their views in law, they just said that the President had to be born a citizen and have lived here for 14 years.

    If you don’t like who got elected, engage in the political process, not rewriting the Constitution in your own head.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 19, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    Only one McCain “birth certificate” (the fake one) has been published, and this not by McCain by by Hollander.

  84. avatar
    IceTrey September 20, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    Nope. Those leases do not give sovereignty to the US. They just say the that the host country will not exercise their own sovereignty during the period of the lease. As for your Subic example they might if the Philippines grants citizenship by jus soli. Just like if McCain was born in Coco Solo he is a Panama citizen. Check this out.

    “According to a State Department manual, U.S. military installations abroad cannot be considered “part of the United States” and “A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” – Washington Post

  85. avatar
    Greg September 20, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    The treaty with Panama said:

    The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.

    The US can exercise all the rights of a sovereign, and Panama can exercise none of the rights of a sovereign over these lands.

  86. avatar
    Rickey September 20, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    IceTrey: “According to a State Department manual, U.S. military installations abroad cannot be considered “part of the United States” and “A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” – Washington Post

    The ellipses give away the fact that the quote is not in context. The State Department directive actually says “U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.” But no one has asserted that McCain’s citizenship is governed by the 14th Amendment. The directive merely clarifies that if a foreign national happens to give birth on a U.S. military installation abroad, the child does not gain U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born on that military installation.

    The sovereignty question is significant only insofar as it addresses the issue of whether McCain owes any allegiance to Panama because he was born there. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that he was born at the base hospital, and Panama exercised no soverignty over the base. However, even if he was born outside of the base, he was still a U.S. citizen at birth, and therefore a natural born citizen.

  87. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    YOU LIE! The Framers did not say you have to be “born a citizen” they said you have to be a “natural born citizen”! NOT THE SAME THING! Show me in Article 2 where the words “born a citizen” even exist. You can’t because they aren’t there. This is your blog and you can post whatever you like but to make a comment which is such a bald faced lie is beyond the pale.

  88. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    Have you read Wong Kim Ark, where SCOTUS extensively documents that the genesis of “natural born citizen” is English common law, under which (almost) all born in a country are a citizen thereof?

  89. avatar
    NBC September 23, 2009 at 12:50 pm #

    Natural born == Born a Citizen

    My goodness…. Before you accuse people of lying, perhaps you should become familiar with the arguments and facts.

    IceTrey: your