This would be wonderfull case to go before Chief Justice Scalia, to see if he is true to his word of interpreting he Consitiution as the original framers intended in the 18th century.

Sent by steve myers | 11:29 AM ET | 05-01-2008

As someone who falls in the same boat, I am curious about this and agree, w/ Steve. Sure seems illegal according to the constitution as originally & textually written to me. No wonder Scalia doesn't want to be McCain's running mate.

Sent by ted fournier | 12:27 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Military bases and assets just like embassys are considered US soil.

Sent by deek | 2:23 PM ET | 05-01-2008

INTENT

Sometimes I wonder about those radical, crafty neo-con spinmeisters: Do they at times go to sleep?

"There is no evidence of the intention of the framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of " one named Henry Kissinger ..

Of course we hardly take them seriously ..

'Punk', Decadence, Strippers / McCain '08, WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 2:41 PM ET | 05-01-2008

This makes me wonder... If Obama or Clinton was in McCain's shoes, would the Republicans vote the same way? I highly doubt it.

Sent by | 3:33 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Shades of trouble for the DNC, looks like they are lining up behing the McCain Train.

Oh and I agree with Steve, it would be very interesting indeed.

Cheers.

Sent by platonicform | 4:47 PM ET | 05-01-2008

You're still a natural born American if born to American citizens overseas... Anyone making a fuss about it in the first place is an idiot.

Sent by mego | 5:11 PM ET | 05-01-2008

From the US State Department website at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. 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.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President -- The Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 1

Unless the senate wants to completely write off what the State Department and the Constitution has to say, we have serious arguments in favor of objections to McCain's legal right to be a presidential contender.

Sent by Sam Palmisano | 5:57 PM ET | 05-01-2008

I don't think I understand the problem. The constitution says 'natural born citizen'...this would mean, to me I think, someone who was BORN a citizen, and who had no legalistic maneuvers to make that happen. In other words, so long as he either was born on us soil or had at elast one us citizen parent, he's a 'natural born citizen'. If, for example, there were a law allowign citizenship to kids to be processed before birht, that wouldn't count, eh wasn't 'naturally born' to his citizenship, he was put through by paperwork, even if the paperwork was ubmitted before birth. That's how I've always read it: if you're a citizen by birth (on soil or parentage), you can run for president. or, y'know, if you're 280 years old.

Sent by Tom Dooley | 6:32 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Okay. They can't figure out why gas is so high, they can't tell us how we are going to get out of this mortgage crisis, they can't seem to put together that China is more than likely Deliberately trying to do harm to not just our Economy but our health too(tainted paint on toys, tainted medicine. Every time the dollar drops the yen miraculously does they same so that it stays cheaper to do buisiness with them than with us.) they can't figure how or even when to give Iraq its country back but they are deliberating about whether or not john Mccain is a citizen....

Just seems like maybe that time could be spent elsewhere.

Sent by J.A. WILSON | 7:12 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Constitutionalists are like Bible Thumpers quoting scripture/Constituional amendments to suit there needs.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." 14th amendment, signed in 1866.

Yet Native Americans were not considered Americans until 1924, and most were not allowed to vote until after WWII.

Give me a break.

Sent by Chris Agen | 11:05 PM ET | 05-01-2008

There are two separate and distinct paths to citizenship: via birth in the US or via statute and "naturalization."

If you are born on a US base, you must go the "naturalization" route. Under the Constitution, McCain is not eligible, as dumb as that sounds.

Sent by motto | 11:27 PM ET | 05-01-2008

Maybe the framers of the constitution were not big fans of far flung wars nor the spawn of the military stationed abroad fighting far flung wars. Didn't we organize a coup in Panama in order to gain control of the canal zone? Would the framers think that kind of meddling was appropriate? Originalists like Scalia could rightfully do nothing other than defend the words in the Constitution, but of course if they were confronted with the question they would invent excuses to allow McCain to run.

Sent by Doug H | 1:26 AM ET | 05-02-2008

@deek
"Military bases and assets just like embassys are considered US soil."

which would explain why "gitmo" is on a "constitutional rights holiday."

and i thought the great secularist beast of liberalism was the home of the relativists. guess you ever can tell.

Sent by tim in exile | 2:16 AM ET | 05-02-2008

Sam Palmisano wrote:
" .. we have serious arguments in favor of objections to McCain's legal right to be a presidential contender. .."

J.A. WILSON wrote:
" .. (senators) are deliberating about whether or not john Mccain is a citizen....Just seems like maybe that time could be spent elsewhere...

Interesting points:
Why does the Senate NOW consider this issue to be of utmost urgency?
Sen McCain does not: He has been aware of the issue regarding his eligibility for the presidency for several years - since 2000. He has not shown any undue concern or haste to have it resolved.

Why has he thought all along that he can circumvent the requirements of our constitution? Does Sen McCain consider active and/or inactive servicemen to be above our laws and constitution?

If (woe is me!) he becomes the president of our republic, will he solemnly swear and undertake to uphold our laws and the constitution or will he at times consider himself as having a "pass" to overlook constraints that are inconvenient?

Perhaps while our Congress deliberates on the issue without haste, Sen McCain must sit in a corner, ponder his anti-social ways and perhaps try again in 2012 - if by that time he is declared eligible.

'Punk', Decadence, Stripper Culture / McCain '08, WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 5:36 AM ET | 05-02-2008

Tim it isn't the location of gitmo that imparts the special nature of the "guests" there, it is the special nature of the "guests" themselves. They are unlawful enemy combatatants. See? Relativism problem solved!

It seems I may have mispoken however, it seems that not all military assets are considered US soil. It would take some research.

Either way from the State Department PDF posted by Sam above:
"(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called "citizenship by descent" or "derivative citizenship", is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute."

Sent by deek | 12:40 PM ET | 05-02-2008

I can understand both sides of the argument. My main problem with this is what were the intentions. First and foremost are founders intended on creating a nation different than any other. This discussion could go on for hours but simply are founders did not want us INVOLVED with foreign affairs like we are today. And so if we would have kept to that John's parents would not have been assigned there in the first place.

We should not argue about these things though and I will tell you why. Government wants control and people are willing to give it. The control comes in different forms. People have also become lazy and those who are on government programs actually have more protection than a taxpayer deciding they do not think they should pay income tax.

Really there are several ways to bring this corrupted system to its knees by the power of the people without fighting. What if mostly everyone who works and pays taxes decided one day to save some money, to have a garden, learned to live with less, and then decided to stop working. This would remove mostly all finances from the government. This would not require fighting or marching on Washington. Face it, our nation is so in debt that it could not make it long if it lost a good portion of the tax revenue.

That is just one good example. Problem is most people are not willing to give up the way of life as they know it. But people really should start looking at what could become the truth if we give up too many of our freedoms.

One last thing I want to mention. Since Bush has been in office my taxes did go down. But inflation has went up massively. I have way less percentage of my pay check. Politicians in D.C. are for the most part crooks and get the funds they want one way or the other. Gas is up 300% just while Bush has been in the office. Most of the past record shows Democrats spend more than Republicans but Clinton spent way less, and the Republicans are now spending way more.

If the people really want to do what is right for the people they need to get truly educated on the past. We will bankrupt this nation if we keep doing what we are doing and then what security will we have?

People should really look into the Libertarian party and lets start pushing back, make government truly smaller, spend less, bring our defenses back and wait out the economy until we begin growing stronger again before we begin supporting more programs and services.

Sent by Larry | 4:28 PM ET | 05-03-2008