Main Menu

The Venus

Portrait of John MarshallThe Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) was an early American lawsuit decided by the US Supreme Court with an opinion written by Justice Washington. Chief Justice John Marshall (right) and Justice Livingston dissented in part and concurred in part, and that minority opinion is the subject of this article. I don’t think I’ve written about the case before, although the birthers mention it. It’s on Apuzzo’s list and I get emails including it. Birthers get excited because Marshall quotes from Vattel’s Law of Nations at the exact spot where the birthers find their “definition” of “natural born citizen.”

Just this morning Larry Klayman referenced it briefly in the Voeltz v. Obama hearing in Florida. Here’s what Klayman said (31:14 in the video):

[inaudible] the Venus case where Justice John Marshall repeats the definition of natural born citizen and cites Vattel

However, Klayman is not quite being honest here1. I’ll reveal his dirty little secret later on.

The Venus case is question about whether someone who left the United States and took up residence in a foreign country for commercial purposes is rightfully considered domiciled in that country. Marshall sets the context by saying:

The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel “domicile,” which he defines to be, “a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there.” Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word “domicile,” but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates “strangers” and the latter “subjects,” and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.

To expand Vattel’s view. Marshall repeats at length from The Law of Nations, as follows:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”

“The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile.”

I had the opportunity to serve as a proofreader of a four-volume biography e-text edition (not yet published) of  The Life of John Marshall by Albert Jeremiah Beveridge. Prior to Marshall’s mission to France,

The “Aurora,” the leading Republican newspaper, was mildly sarcastic over Marshall’s ignorance of the French language and general lack of equipment for his diplomatic task.

After his mission to France, The Aurora reported:

he has acquired some knowledge of the French language

Marshall read Vattel’s Law of Nations in English translation, and the translation he used here is the version that was available in the US at the time the Constitution was ratified, writing “indigenes” rather than the later emendation “natural born citizen.” It would seem unlikely that Marshall would have taken note of a citation from Vattel that did not contain the Constitutional phrase, nor had any relevance to the instant case. He simply could not be said to be quoting Vattel approvingly as a definition of “natural born citizen” (nor does Klayman make that claim).

But even if a latter English translation of Vattel had been repeated in the minority opinion that uses “natural born citizen,” the purpose of the quotation from Vattel was not for defining citizenship in any form as evidenced by what immediately follows the it:

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but “an intention of always staying there.” Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than “simple habitation.”

The Venus says nothing about the definition of a “natural born citizen.” It doesn’t even contain the term. Klayman is correct to say that the “definition” is “repeated” and not “cited,” but he is at best disingenuous when he says it is a definition of “natural born citizen.”

For an in-depth treatment of The Venus including an analysis of Marshall’s dissent, see The Law and Practice of Marine Insurance by John Duer (starting around page 500).


1In one sense, what Klayman literally says is 100% accurate, but designed to mislead the reader.

  1. Klayman says that Marshall is the author of the opinion, which he is, but what he said is not the majority opinion of the court.
  2. Klayman says that Marshall cites Vattel, which he does, but Klayman does not say that he cites the definition because the purpose of the citation goes to domicile, not citizenship.
  3. Klayman correctly states that the definition is “repeated” although the reader might not catch the distinction between “cite” and “repeat.”
  4. Finally, Klayman correctly states that the “definition” of natural born citizen from Vattel is repeated, but omits the fact that the the words “natural born citizen” are not in the repeated text, and one has to use a different translation of Vattel to find them.

, , , ,

71 Responses to The Venus

  1. avatar
    John Woodman June 18, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    I was actually looking at the Venus case earlier today.

    It occurred to me that one can very well argue that Marshall specifically chose the translation he used, and not the 1797 translation that says “natural born citizens” (which was done by an anonymous Englishman and published in London — and therefore had nothing to do with the United States at all) because he knew that that specific translation misrepresents the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    I believe you’re overthinking this one.

    John Woodman: It occurred to me that one can very well argue that Marshall specifically chose the translation he used

  3. avatar
    GeorgetownJD June 18, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Indeed, the Supreme Court in The Venus would not have needed to address the definition of natural born citizen inasmuch as none of the litigants were natural born citizens and made no claim that they were natural born citizens of the United States. As the Syllabus notes:

    “Maitland, McGregor and Jones were native British subjects, who came to the United States many years prior to the present war, and, after the regular period of residence, were admitted to the rights of naturalization.”

  4. avatar
    da verg June 18, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
    Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
    First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
    Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
    212. Citizens and natives.
    The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
    The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
    Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .
    The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
    In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
    Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).
    Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.
    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
    Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.
    John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
    William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
    Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823
    Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
    Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.
    Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
    Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
    Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
    The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.
    WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
    In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
    In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
    Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
    The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
    UPDATE: May 25, 2012
    In your above article, which is very good, there is one error that you may wish to correct. In the Minor v. Happersett case, you refer to Mrs.Happersett as though she was the plaintiff. This is incorrect. The plaintiff was Virginia Minor. Happersett was the Registrar of Voters. I would appreciate your acknowledgment of my email. Thank you. Bruce O. Mann Attorney at Law 26875 Calle Hermosa, Ste. 1Capistrano Beach, CA 92624

    sort of blows away all the BS flying on this “BLOG” doesn’t it ?????

    another tidbet

    Patrick Leahy , libot from Vermont said in 2008 “I understand NBC requires two parents who are US citizens when born”. Chertoff “That is my understanding also”.

    how does it feel when you bang you head against wall?
    must hurt
    a
    lot
    doesn’t it ?

    I guess you all “can’t fix stupid” can you ?

  5. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    “Patrick Leahy , libot from Vermont said in 2008 “I understand NBC requires two parents who are US citizens when born”. Chertoff “That is my understanding also”.”

    link please

    tia

  6. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    da verg:

    Congratulations, you’ve discovered how to cut and paste, although your formatting skills still need work. Now you just need to learn how to use quotation marks and cite your sources.

  7. avatar
    ASK Esq June 18, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    da verg:

    Nice cut-and-paste job. Too bad it doesn’t address the issues raised in Doc’s article. In fact, it ignored them, no doubt because your piece was written a while ago. Please tell us why it is that none of your cases say that two citizen parents are a requirement? We all know that if you are born here to two citizen parents, you are a natural-born citizen. The Court agreed. But the Court never said that nobody else is a natural-born citizen.

    P.S., Leahy was referring to McCain when he said that. McCain wasn’t born here. Had he been born to just one citizen parent, at the time he was born, I am not sure if he would have been a citizen at birth.

  8. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Hi donna,

    da verg is misquoting the exchange between Leahy and Chertoff. How unusual that a birther would do such a thing!

    First, some context. The conversation between the senator and the Homeland Security chief took place in April of 2008 in the wake of a senate resolution affirming that John McCain, born in Panama while his father was in the Navy, was a natural-born citizen.

    Leahy said that because McCain, “was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

    Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

    Neither man used the phrase “two parents” and the only reason that the use of parentage was brought up was because McCain, unlike Obama, wasn’t born on U.S. soil.

    http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/7469-4049

    donna:
    “Patrick Leahy , libot from Vermont said in 2008 “I understand NBC requires two parents who are US citizens when born”. Chertoff “That is my understanding also”.”

    link please

    tia

  9. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 18, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    It’s folks like you, da verg, that are precisely the type of stupid we’ve been trying to fix, with no success, for several years now. So you have made exactly one correct statement.

  10. avatar
    da verg June 18, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Thought 1#
    That big turd you could smell in the court room came from Obama’s Attorney after Klaymen wanted to introduce proof that Obama WAS NOT born in the USA. He then asked for a Summary Judgement.

    Thought-2#
    The FL SOS was looking really stupid after Klayman chewed him up and spit hime out.

    Thought-3#
    You may not see any legal action until the day AFTER the Democratic Convention (offical nominee stuff). Funky law in FL.

  11. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    ASK Esq: P.S., Leahy was referring to McCain when he said that. McCain wasn’t born here. Had he been born to just one citizen parent, at the time he was born, I am not sure if he would have been a citizen at birth.

    I think this shows the context much better. It has a longer and fuller transcript of the hearing with specific note of what the background and question was. As you noted, it was a specific question about McCain and his birth in the Panama Canal (Zone).

    http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=fd6db55d-33d4-440e-b53d-754f5bb58983

    Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

    Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

  12. avatar
    da verg June 18, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    DR C wrote
    The Venus says nothing about the definition of a “natural born citizen.”

    my paste above says otherwise, learn to read people…..In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    you right it only talks about natives born in country of parents who are citizens…..says nothing about natural born citizens, only natives born of parents who are citizens, yep, nothing there. What a dope I am.

    My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

    Neither man used the phrase “two parents”

    ….how many obots does it take to make a child born to? one, three five, none of the above?
    get a clue…..doh. Talk about parsing donuts.

  13. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Personally I’m not 100% about what Chertoff would have been referring to. It could have been specifically about the citizenship laws as it regards overseas births in general, or it could have been a reference to 8 USC 1403:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    8 USC 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.

  14. avatar
    John Woodman June 18, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I believe you’re overthinking this one.

    Perhaps. But it does not seem a stretch to me to think that Marshall might well have been aware of both translations of Vattel. And given a choice between a translation of Vattel which threw into the mix an erroneous characterization of “natural born citizen” — a key term used in our Constitution — and a translation which did not, which do you think Justice Marshall would have used?

  15. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Arthur: Neither man used the phrase “two parents” and the only reason that the use of parentage was brought up was because McCain, unlike Obama, wasn’t born on U.S. soil.

    McCain was born in a then unincorporated US territory with specific nationality/citizenship requirements. I personally think he was born a natural born citizen as would anyone born in a state or incorporated US territory save some specific cases.

  16. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Interesting . . . someone named “Brian” made the exact same comment at ORYR. More cut and paste da verg?

    da verg: Thought 1#That big turd you could smell in the court room came from Obama’s Attorney after Klaymen wanted to introduce proof that Obama WAS NOT born in the USA. He then asked for a Summary Judgement.Thought-2#The FL SOS was looking really stupid after Klayman chewed him up and spit hime out.Thought-3#You may not see any legal action until the day AFTER the Democratic Convention (offical nominee stuff). Funky law in FL.

  17. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    Isn’t this entire thing a collossal waste of time and resources? Would it not make sense to conduct business as follows:

    1. Let who,ever wants to run run.
    2. Let the people vote.
    3. Let the guy with the most votes hold office.
    4. Rinse and repeat in 4 years.

    No parsing court cases and foreign philosophers, no scuzzy lawyers doing their scuzzy stuff, no tabloids screeching. Can anyone honestly say why simply following 1-4 would not be more efficient and in keeping with common sense? Life is complicated and conflicted enough without looking for complications and conflict.

    Per haps Mr da verg could try to justify why a mess like he posted beats 1-4 above?

  18. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    I agree.

    y_p_w: McCain was born in a then unincorporated US territory with specific nationality/citizenship requirements. I personally think he was born a natural born citizen as would anyone born in the US save some specific cases.

  19. avatar
    da verg June 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    Leahy was referring to McCain when he said that. McCain wasn’t born here

    and hence McCAIN was not a natural born citizen because he didn’t meet the definition as noted above….”born in the country”….completely forgetting the ….AND…in the definition,referring to natives to citizenS, plural. Now McCain is not a NBC , no matter which way you cut it. So Leahy said, well how about his parents being american citizens, well, honky dory, presto chango, that does it. Let’s all change the definition for the elites and RINOs ruining…opps..I mean running our nation. Anyone want to change the definition of is, or how about, marriage,next please.

  20. avatar
    da verg June 18, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    someone named “Brian” made the exact same comment at ORYR. More cut and paste da verg?
    >>>>how do you know Brian isn’t my first name ?

  21. avatar
    da verg June 18, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    McCain was born in a then unincorporated US territory

    word has it McCain was born in a hospital in Panama outside of military base or military zone which I assume is what you are referring to as unincorporated US territory.

    No, I don’t agree with let whoever run , no matter who they are statement above.
    I think that the courts should the decide the definition of natural born citizen once
    and for all, in a clear and concise manner so there is no misunderstanding. Quit
    the BS “no standing” and other games. Just clear it up for current and future
    generations on all sides of the aisle. Is that so much to ask for ? Every court case
    brings up more confusion and more side bars, more twists and spins. Just define
    it and move on. That part I agree with.

  22. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    da verg:
    Leahy was referring to McCain when he said that. McCain wasn’t born here

    and hence McCAIN was not a natural born citizen because he didn’t meet the definition as noted above….”born in the country”….completely forgetting the ….AND…in the definition,referring to natives to citizenS, plural. Now McCain is not a NBC , no matter which way you cut it. So Leahy said, well how about his parents being american citizens, well, honky dory, presto chango, that does it. Let’s all change the definition for the elites and RINOs ruining…opps..I mean running our nation. Anyone want to change the definition of is, or how about, marriage,next please.

    According to de Vattel, or according to the US Constitution? It’s pretty obvious that de Vattel recognized that the English system was very much different than the systems in the rest of Europe.

    McCain is a natural born citizen. Barack Hussein Obama, II is a natural born citizen. Piyush Jindal is a natural born citizen. Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen. Deal with it.

  23. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    da verg:
    McCain was born in a then unincorporated US territory

    word has it McCain was born in a hospital in Panama outside of military baseor military zone which I assume is what you are referring to as unincorporated US territory.

    No, I don’t agree with let whoever run , no matter who they are statement above.
    I think that the courts should the decide the definition of natural born citizen once
    and for all, in a clear and concise manner so there is no misunderstanding. Quit
    the BS “no standing” and other games. Just clear it up for current and future
    generations on all sides of the aisle. Is that so much to ask for ? Every court case
    brings up more confusion and more side bars, more twists and spins. Just define
    it and move on. That part I agree with.

    It’s pretty clear that McCain was born in the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, which was in the Panama Canal Zone – an unincorporated US territory at the time. Panama proper outside the Canal Zone would not have been US territory of any kind, although the US has specific laws that refer to those born with at least one US citizen parent in Panama. As far as I can tell, those laws are still on the book, although the Canal Zone no longer exists.

    I’m not sure exactly how that might apply. The specific law for Panama mentioned children born to US citizen employees of the US government and the (defunct) Panama Railroad Company. I believe the only difference would have been with a parent who didn’t/doesn’t meet the residency requirement to pass on US citizenship to the child.

    If you’re getting at the idea that being born on a US overseas military installation makes it a US territory for citizenship/nationalization purposes, that’s never been the case. It’s a common misperception.

  24. avatar
    Stanislaw June 18, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    da verg:
    Quit the BS “no standing” and other games. Just clear it up for current and future
    generations on all sides of the aisle.

    Standing is “BS?” Just that quickly you’ve already shown that, like many a birther before you, you know absolutely nothing about the law. And no, Swiss philosophy has never been and never will be law.

  25. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    da verg: No, I don’t agree with let whoever run , no matter who they are statement above.

    You have NO arguments against it though. Elections are about the people and what THEY want, not judges. There is no need to define anything. Just let the PEOPLE CHOOSE. I think even you must agree that makes sense. Unless you are a Communist? Are you???

  26. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    da verg: I think that the courts should the decide the definition of natural born citizen once
    and for all

    They have definiitely decided Obama is one. The fact that you don’t like the decision is too bad for you.

  27. avatar
    Northland10 June 18, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

    da verg: Just clear it up for current and future
    generations on all sides of the aisle. Is that so much to ask for ?

    It has been cleared up for current and future generations (over 100 years ago). You just don’t like the answer. Get over it.

  28. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    da verg: I guess you all “can’t fix stupid” can you ?

    Got that right! But we have many ideas on how to attempt just that. Care to volunteer for our ongoing human trials?

  29. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    Scientist: Per haps Mr da verg could try to justify why a mess like he posted beats 1-4 above?

    Because, Mr. Scientist Fancy-Pants, such a simplistic system fails to exclude all the wrong people. And by “wrong people”, I mean all the people right fer excludin’. I mean, you don’t want one of Them to become President, do you?

    ( 😉 )

  30. avatar
    Welsh Dragon June 18, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    John Woodman: Perhaps. But it does not seem a stretch to me to think that Marshall might well have been aware of both translations of Vattel. And given a choice between a translation of Vattel which threw into the mix an erroneous characterization of “natural born citizen” — a key term used in our Constitution — and a translation which did not, which do you think Justice Marshall would have used?

    He probably just quoted from the same translation that he’d been quoting since the 1780s. Indeed it’s possible he never saw a translation with “natural born citizen” in it.

  31. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    JPotter: I mean, you don’t want one of Them to become President, do you?

    You mean a Red Sox fan? By gosh, you’re right. No way.

  32. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Talk about the cut and paste, it appears (due to the date he used – Update: May 25, 2012 – that he got this from www-dot-fourwinds10-dot-net, but there are numerous (673 to be exact) citings of this exact post all over the net dating as far back as January.

    http://tinyurl.com/d5xpcqt

    (sorry about that, I set the link to a tinyurl link so it didn’t run off the page, and the link works. It just left off the ending quotation mark, so the cite count is different than I cited)

    I’m betting da verg probably didn’t write it, and plagiarized it.

  33. avatar
    bovril June 18, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Hey Virgie,

    Note you filed to mention in your spiel of vomitude that Saint Vattel of the Racist Birfoons chapter 214, where he explictly states that in other coutries, specifically Engkand his entire thesis counts for naught as they (and by common law extension, the USA) are jus soli.

    FAIL…..the natural ground state of the Birther

  34. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    Scientist: You mean a Red Sox fan? By gosh, you’re right. No way.

    To each their own exclusions!

    (…and thus every man guaranteed a headache.)

  35. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    da verg: Quit
    the BS “no standing” and other games.

    Why do you not respect the judicial process of ascertaining whether a person has a right to sue? Do you think that anyone should be able to sue another person based on baseless accusations?

  36. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    da verg: Thought-2#
    The FL SOS was looking really stupid after Klayman chewed him up and spit hime out.

    You must have been watching a completely different court hearing than I saw.

    Your salty birther tears which you spilled over your not understanding the nomination process (your thought #3) were very delicious. Thanks, I enjoyed them immensely.

  37. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 18, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    da verg: Patrick Leahy , libot from Vermont said in 2008 “I understand NBC requires two parents who are US citizens when born”.

    No he didn’t.Here, from his own website, is what he did say along with the McCain resolution:

    http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=fd6db55d-33d4-440e-b53d-754f5bb58983

    Why didn’t you take five seconds (like I did) to search for what Leahy said about McCain?

  38. avatar
    Stanislaw June 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    CarlOrcas: No he didn’t.Here, from his own website, is what he did say along with the McCain resolution:

    http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=fd6db55d-33d4-440e-b53d-754f5bb58983

    Why didn’t you take five seconds (like I did) to search for what Leahy said about McCain?

    Because like most birthers, he isn’t smart enough to realize that the rest of us are smarter than he is. It’s like it’s a requirement to be a birther or something.

  39. avatar
    BillTheCat June 18, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    da verg:

    BLAH BLAH CUT AND PASTE CUT AND PASTE

    Another WND cut’n’paste warrior spewing nonsense no court in the land agrees with. And sure dude – because 2 people allegedly said NBC = 2 citizen parents – IT MUST BE TRUE.

    Try harder.

  40. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    Stanislaw: Because like most birthers, he isn’t smart enough to realize that the rest of us are smarter than he is. It’s like it’s a requirement to be a birther or something.

    The stupidity alone is amazing, but then to see it paired with attitude and insults is a wonder to behold.

  41. avatar
    BillTheCat June 18, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    da verg:
    Anyone want to change the definition of is, or how about, marriage,next please.

    Aww, does cut’n’paste hate marriage equality too? Knock me over with a feather.

    The future is gonna be hell on ya, better buckle in 🙂

  42. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 18, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    Stanislaw: Because like most birthers, he isn’t smart enough to realize that the rest of us are smarter than he is. It’s like it’s a requirement to be a birther or something.

    I wonder if it isn’t more gullibility, a lack of skepticism or curiosity. I understood it years ago when it was really hard to dig up information but when you can test virtually any assertion in a matter of seconds………

    Hmm….now that I think about it you’re probably right…..it’s just plain old stupidity.

  43. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 18, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    da verg: I guess you all “can’t fix stupid” can you ?

    Amen, brother.

  44. avatar
    Reality Check June 19, 2012 at 12:44 am #

    I am not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet but the passage da verg quoted is actually from a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Marshall. The decision in The Venus was not unanimous. Both Marshall and Livingston dissented. The majority opinion was written by Justice Bushrod Washington.

    Patrick Calliano pointed out this mistake often made by Birthers on RC Radio earlier this year. It seems that it traces back to an erroneous article written by John Charlton in the Post and Email in 2009. He either lied or didn’t do his research very well. I suspect da verg’s post is from Charlton’s article.

    Poor da verg is not doing well. He quoted Patrick Leahy out of context and cites a dissenting opinion in The Venus.

    The opinions are available at Justia: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html

    da verg: WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
    In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

  45. avatar
    misha June 19, 2012 at 12:52 am #

    da verg: Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President

    Ignore the others here. I agree with you. I found a Kenya BC that’s going to bite Obama!

  46. avatar
    linda June 19, 2012 at 2:24 am #

    As you may have read above, (Reality Check beat me to it), the decision wasn’t unanimous and Justice Livingston didn’t write an opinion, he concurred with the dissent written by Chief Justice Marshall.

    Now that you know, does that make you suspect your sources of information? Rethink using them? Read cases for yourself?

    da verg: In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

  47. avatar
    Lupin June 19, 2012 at 2:54 am #

    da verg:

    I am a French lawyer who worked on editing Vattel and English-language publication of Vattel long before he was suddenly rediscovered in the US.

    I can’t comment on whether Vattel’s terminology (“indigene”, “naturels”) can be historically equated with your term “natural-born citizen”, not can I comment on the Venus case or WKA or any pother US cases which area beyond my field expertise.

    I can however tell you with 100% certainty that, had Obama been born in Switzerland at the time of Vattel from a Swiss mother and a visiting English father, and had he remained in Switzerland, raised by his mother, then in the eyes of Vattel and Swiss Law in general, he would indeed have been considered a “naturel” or ‘indigene”. No doubt about it.

    Any interpretation to the contrary is due to poor understanding or mistranslation of Vattel’s text.

    If you postulate (a big “if”) that (1) Vattel is applicable in Obama’s case, and (2) “indigene” = “NBC”, then it logically follows that Obama is an NBC.

    Do with that as you will.

  48. avatar
    Northland10 June 19, 2012 at 6:49 am #

    da verg: I guess you all “can’t fix stupid” can you ?

    A self-authenticating comment.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    No, stupid is very resilient because it is a well-known psychological phenomenon that the less someone knows, the more they overestimate their expertise.

    In fact, the phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in The Venus decision, and the English translation of Vattel available to the Framers didn’t have that phrase either.

    In fact, in all of the debates over qualification for Constitutional offices at the Federal Convention, someone having foreign sentiments was qualified by length of time in the country, not parentage. For Senate 9 years, for the House 7 years and for President from birth.

    Minor v. Happersett makes it abundantly clear that there are only two kinds of citizen: natural born, and naturalized. The former meaning those citizens from birth and the latter those made citizens later. Applying that definition in the later part of the Minor text, it is obvious that the Minor court didn’t decide the question of whether the children of aliens born in the US were citizens or not. US v. Wong did, and in the affirmative.

    Because you cannot read and comprehend, you will continue to be surprised as the courts reject your view over and over.

    da verg: guess you all “can’t fix stupid” can you ?

    Hey, it’s the birthers who have filed and lost 130 lawsuits. If anything is an example of banging the head against a wall, that is.

    da verg: how does it feel when you bang you head against wall?

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    When I make a mistake, I correct it. In this case, I was partly wrong, and you completely.

    1. There was no unanimous decision
    2. The text above was from a dissenting opinion
    3. It was written by Marshall with Livingston concurring.

    Your contention that Livingston translated it himself from the French sounds silly based on the fact that every word and bit of punctuation is identical to the 1787 American Edition of The Law of Nations. The only source I can find for this contention is from commenters like you on birther blogs.

    da verg: my paste above says otherwise, learn to read people…..In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision,

  51. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    misha: I found a Kenya BC that’s going to bite Obama!

    Bite? LMAO. I saw what you did there.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    Hey, I apologize for assuming that Marshall’s opinion was the opinion of the Court. On Justia, I just scrolled to the bottom to get the author (assuming Klayman wasn’t trying to pull a fast one) and didn’t realized that the Court’s opinion by Washington was stacked above the dissenting opinion.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    One other footnote. In addition to citing Marshall, Klayman referenced the Sedition Act to demonstrate the extent of early American fears of foreign influence. John Marshall opposed the Sedition Act.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    “Word has it?” Is that what you call a source, a fact, evidence? “Word has it” is a license to spout whatever bullshit comes into your brain, or repeat a rumor without checking it.

    I ought to put in a filter to just delete any comment that says “word has it.” It’s worthless on its face. Colon, Panama (where the false rumor puts McCain’s birth) is soundly in the Republic of Panama, not unincorporated US Territory — only McCain wasn’t born there.

    da verg: word has it McCain was born in a hospital in Panama outside of military base or military zone which I assume is what you are referring to as unincorporated US territory.

  55. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I ought to put in a filter to just delete any comment that says “word has it.” It’s worthless on its face

    There are many such phrases involving the words ‘believe’, ‘many’, ‘most’, ‘everyone’, and/or ‘knows’. “It is believed that” … “Many believe that” …. “Everyone knows”…. ad nauseum.

  56. avatar
    Reality Check June 19, 2012 at 10:15 am #

    Patrick Colliano deserves all the credit for this find. If you search for the Venus case and vattel you will see that Charlton’s misrepresentation has been quoted at about every Birther website.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Hey, I apologize for assuming that Marshall’s opinion was the opinion of the Court. On Justia, I just scrolled to the bottom to get the author (assuming Klayman wasn’t trying to pull a fast one) and didn’t realized that the Court’s opinion by Washington was stacked above the dissenting opinion.

  57. avatar
    nolu chan June 19, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    da verg:
    McCain was born in a then unincorporated US territory

    word has it McCain was born in a hospital in Panama outside of military baseor military zone which I assume is what you are referring to as unincorporated US territory.

    It is clear that did not happen. There was no Coco Solo Naval Hospital in 1936.

    If McCain were born in Colon, the only hospital around in 1936, then he was born outside the territory and jurisdiction of two U.S. citizen parents, was covered by the existing Federal statute, and was born a U.S. citizen, i.e., a natural born citizen.

    McCain was born in 1936.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=60931

    Executive Order 8981 – Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone, December 17, 1941, signed by President Franklin D Roosevelt said, “The following-described area of land in the Canal Zone is hereby reserved and set apart as, and assigned to the uses and purposes of, a naval reservation, which shall be known as Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, and which shall be under the control and jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy….”

    At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. Note the phrasing requires birth “out of the limits” AND out of the “jurisdiction of the United States.” This was corrected in 1937. The intent was to cover everyone not covered by the 14th Amdt. The first congressional attempt was flawed in that its phrasing did not cover someone born outside the territory of the U.S., but within the jurisdiction of the U.S.

    The United States did not exercise sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone.

    http://www.bartleby.com/43/47.html

    Article III of the Treaty provided, “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.”

    — “which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign” — is conclusive that the U.S. was -not- the sovereign of that territory, but only that it was permitted by the actual sovereign to exercise rights, powers, and authorities belonging to the actual sovereign. The sovereign (RP) delegates authority, it does not delegate sovereignty. The U.S. had jurisdiction but not sovereignty.

  58. avatar
    Thrifty June 19, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    da verg:
    tl;dr

    I was hoping a Vattelist Birther would show up. I was hoping you could answer a question for me.

    I found out about this great park near my home. I went to check it out without my dog. There was a sign that said “Dogs must be on leash at all time.” But I only have one dog. Should I find another park, get a second dog, or just ignore the sign and walk my one dog at a leash?

  59. avatar
    Rickey June 19, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    nolu chan: It is clear that did not happen. There was no Coco Solo Naval Hospital in 1936.

    It may not have officially designated a hospital in 1936, but the base had a medical facility and that is where McCain was born. The 1941 announcement apparently refers to a larger hospital which was built to replace the smaller medical facility.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp…/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf

    Mrs. McCain remembers hearing music from the Officers’ Club at the time of the birth.

    We had a somewhat similar situation when I was stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines in the sixties. The Subic Naval Hospital was actually located closer to the Naval Air Station at Cubi Point than to the Subic Naval Station. The Navy built a smaller facility, (which was called the dispensary) at the Naval Station. It looked and acted like a small hospital, but technically it wasn’t a hospital.

  60. avatar
    Patrick Colliano June 19, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    Yes, the quoted portion is from the dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall (of Marbury v. Madison fame). The fact that it’s a dissenting opinion, in and of itself, would be sufficient to discredit this as authoritative. We do not create case law out of dissenting opinions. The opinion of the Court is the only opinion from which precedent can be made. Dissenting, concurring or separate opinions (which require no more than a single judge willing to state his opinion for the record) do not make case law.

    And yes, da verg copied and pasted John Charlton’s article.

    More to the point, as the good doctor points out, Marshall was not looking for a definition of natural born citizen. He was referring to Vattel only to establish the nature of citizens of one nation temporarily residing in another.

  61. avatar
    BillTheCat June 19, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    Thrifty: I was hoping a Vattelist Birther would show up. I was hoping you could answer a question for me.I found out about this great park near my home. I went to check it out without my dog. There was a sign that said “Dogs must be on leash at all time.” But I only have one dog. Should I find another park, get a second dog, or just ignore the sign and walk my one dog at a leash?

    lol 😀

  62. avatar
    John Woodman June 19, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Thrifty: I was hoping a Vattelist Birther would show up.I was hoping you could answer a question for me.

    I found out about this great park near my home.I went to check it out without my dog.There was a sign that said “Dogs must be on leash at all time.”But I only have one dog.Should I find another park, get a second dog, or just ignore the sign and walk my one dog at a leash?

    Obviously, since the sign only says “Dogs must be on leash at all times,” then your dog is not required to be on a leash at all, since it is only a singular dog and not dogs.

    Actually, given the wording of the sign, even if you do have multiple dogs, you are under no obligation at all to put them on a leash (or leashes) — just as long as they are only “dogs” and not “Dogs.”

    (Disclaimer: You take any such action entirely at your own risk. I am not a lawyer, I am merely quoting from the Birther Guide to American Law.)

  63. avatar
    Reality Check June 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    So is da verg a drive-by cut ‘n paster?

  64. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Thrifty,

    If you follow the exactness of the statement, you must have at least two dogs on one leash.

  65. avatar
    Northland10 June 19, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Patrick Colliano: We do not create case law out of dissenting opinions.

    That certainly puts a crimp in BirtherLaw™.

  66. avatar
    Thrifty June 19, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    Hmmm…….

    I’m gonna need a longer leash.

    It’s a good thing I have such a small dog (a miniature dachshund). Otherwise, this could get tricky.

    bgansel9:
    Thrifty,

    If you follow the exactness of the statement, you must have at least two dogs on one leash.

  67. avatar
    richCares June 19, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

    “…merely quoting from the Birther Guide to American Law”
    .
    Completely made my day, how funny, a polite dig at birthers!

  68. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    Guys, it is unbelievable unfair of you to follow up on a birther’s citation to its primary source. It’s show a complete lack of respect for the birther’s dreams, desires, and wishes … completely disregards the value added as the material was spin-filtered through his carefully padded, foil-lined inner headspace.

    Seriously, the most impressively consistent thing about birther spiels is their predictability. Of course he quoted the dissent, or he regurgitated the spin of a secondary source, or quoted a tabloid headline without bothering to read the copy, and of course he quotes a spun video recap rather than watching the video for himself.

    It’s always backward, always inverted, the whole movement is a giant wish for a do-over. The minority wins, so the dissent is most important.

    Every time our reality comes to a fork, our reality goes one way, and the other path careens into the Birtherverse. The World of Things That Never Were.

    Wouldn’t it be mindblowing if, just for once, a birther popped off, you followed up …… and they were right? About anything?!? Even if it’s just the current weather conditions?

  69. avatar
    nolu chan June 20, 2012 at 2:41 am #

    Rickey: It may not have officially designated a hospital in 1936, but the base had a medical facility and that is where McCain was born. The 1941 announcement apparently refers to a larger hospital which was built to replace the smaller medical facility.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp…/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf

    Mrs. McCain remembers hearing music from the Officers’ Club at the time of the birth.

    We had a somewhat similar situation when I was stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines in the sixties. The Subic Naval Hospital was actually located closer to the Naval Air Station at Cubi Point than to the Subic Naval Station. The Navy built a smaller facility, (which was called the dispensary) at the Naval Station. It looked and acted like a small hospital, but technically it wasn’t a hospital.

    Not just technically. A dispensary has neither the staff nor facility of a hospital. It can do sick call. Please produce any official USN record showing that there was any hospital, or hospital-like facility at Coco Solo in 1936. Overseas stations with few service members do not sport hospitals.

    http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/buildbaseswwii/bbwwii2.htm

    Coco Solo

    Naval Air Station. – The Coco Solo air station occupies 185 acres of hard land, on the east side of Manzanillo Bay. Existing facilities in 1939 included a small landing-field, three plane hangars, one blimp hangar, barracks, officers’ quarters, three seaplane ramps, and a few miscellaneous buildings.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/3rmdx4

    The cited link (here functional TinyURL) goes to a 1936 copy of a Republic of Panama newspaper citing (father) McCain of the Submarine Base having a child born at the Submarine Base Hospital (there has never been one). The article was the Society Page for the Atlantic Side.

    In chapter 4 of “Faith of My Fathers,” McCain wrote “I was born in the Canal Zone at the Coco Solo air base hospital shortly after my grandfather arrived there.” Gramps was in charge of the Air Station. The McCain family knows the difference between a Naval Air Station and a Submarine Base. The Colon hospital was about 75 yards outside the limits. By treaty, Colon was considered not part of the CZ. There is no record of McCain’s birth in the official records of the CZ at College Park, MD. No BC has ever been made public. There is insufficient evidence to show where McCain was born. There is ample evidence to show his claim in his book is impossible.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224_pf.html

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

    The WAPO articles are seriously in error.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21736100/John-McCain-and-His-Mythical-Birth-Certificate

    There was no such thing as a Captain in the Medical Corps of the USN prior to the 1950s. “Captain” Irvine was a “Medical Director” but that was his rank, not his position, sort of like the still used term “Flight Surgeon” does not describe a surgeon. Irvine was attached to the Submarine Base, not the Air Station.

    I have never heard of a dispensary with an operating theater, an OB/GYN clinic, and a delivery room. Additionally, Subic was a base with command sponsored dependents, unlike 1936 Coco Solo which had no facilities for dependents.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19951984/BUMED-Historical-Files-Finding-Aid

    The BUMED Historical Files Finding Aid identifies all the official medical facilities.

  70. avatar
    Keith June 20, 2012 at 6:26 am #

    nolu chan: I have never heard of a dispensary with an operating theater, an OB/GYN clinic, and a delivery room.

    Not to dispute your research, because I have no way of doing that, but the thing is this:

    I have never heard of a taxi cab with an operating theater, an OB/GYN clinic, and a delivery room either, yet lots of people are born in taxi cabs.

    What then are we to make of that? hmmmm…..

  71. avatar
    Reality Check June 25, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    I see da verg left before we had a chance to dismantle Shanks v DuPont. We can save that for his next visit.