On March 6, a California voter filed a lawsuit, asking that a federal judge declare that Senator John McCain cannot hold the office of president. Inland Empire Voters and Andrew Aames v USA, 5:2008-cv-304. It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson in Riverside.
The defendants include the Office of the Federal Register and the Inaugural Committee.
In the opinion of Ballot Access News, no court would be able to entertain such a lawsuit, even if John McCain won a majority in the electoral college. Article II gives Congress the power to count the electoral votes that are cast in December. Electoral votes for John McCain could be challenged by any U.S. Senator, just as U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer challenged the Ohio electoral votes in January 2005. Congress, not any court, would then decide whether to count electoral votes for McCain. Similarly, Congress, not any court, decides who has been validly elected to Congress.
Is this the “he was born in Panama” deal? If so, a U.S. District Judge should be able to toss this case out pronto!
Not quite a knight in shining armor:
The State Bar of California
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 State Bar Home
Home > Attorney Search > Attorney Profile
A[ndrew] Benjamin Aames – #117380
Current Status: Active
This member is active and may practice law in California.
See below for more details.
Profile Information
Bar Number 117380
Address P O Box 56260
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone Number (951) 697-7423
Fax Number (951) 656-8462
e-mail Not Available
District District 6
Undergraduate School
Boston Coll; Chestnut Hill MA
County Riverside
Law School San Francisco Law Sch;
San Francisco CA
Sections Worker’s Compensation
Status History
Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
8/28/1995 Active
7/31/1995 Not Eligible To Practice Law
2/5/1985 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Explanation of member status
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status
Disciplinary and Related Actions
This member has no public record of discipline.
Administrative Actions
7/31/1995 Suspended/Child & Family Supp noncompliance Not Eligible To Practice Law
Start New Search >
Contact Us
Site Map
Privacy Policy
Notices
It’s hard to top this ridiculous non-issue for time wasting stupidity. I can’t believe it’s not only still making the rounds of the internet, but someone actually is wasting a court’s time with this. This was hardly even spoken of in 2000 when McCain ran – why does it keep coming up now? This is the political equivalent of an urban legend.
Leaving aside the fact that this person does not have standing to bring such a suit and it is clearly frivolous, Senator McCain happened to be born in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. territory, on a U.S. military installation to parents who were U.S. citizens but just happened to be in the PCZ temporarily as active duty soldiers who were there on orders of the U.S. government. What if they had been in Hawaii, Guam, or Alaska at the time? This is no different than a couple who are U.S. citizens and residents of, say, Kansas, who happen to go to France on vacation while the wife is pregnant, and she gives birth while in France. After two weeks they return to Kansas where they all spend the rest of their lives and live happily ever after. Is that child ineligible to become president? Who on earth would answer “no” to that question?
The only relevant phrase in the Constitution is “natural-born citizen,” which is so ridiculously vague that, even if Senator McCain’s situation weren’t in the “duh” category, any relevant authority would let this slide by.
Election results are qualifications for office are very obviously separate items.
The *natural-born citizen* phrase is derived from the common law of England.
See Blackstone’s commentaries. Allegiance from day 1 of birth — primitive tribal stuff.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch10.htm
See also the U.S. Senate debates in 1866 about the citizenship definition sentence in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
??? *Natural-born* citizens = 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.
If the father is NOT a U.S.A. Citizen, then are his kids natural-born citizens of the U.S.A. (even if born in a U.S.A. area) ???
If the mother is NOT a U.S.A. Citizen, then are her kids natural-born citizens of the U.S.A. (even if born in a U.S.A. area) ???
If anything it is Obama who may NOT be a *natural-born citizen* since his father was a citizen of Kenya when Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/08/26/kenya.obama/index.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Richard:
I can’t see that the electoral vote counting methodology at post-election in any way has the slightest thing to do with the basis for eligibility. But then, you’ve read the complaint; correct? Care to elaborate?
If this is indeed about the so-called “Canal Zone” controversy, the rest goes to Mr. Gaines……
At least get your facts straight on this one thing, Mr. Gaines: The Canal Zone is NOT a territory or protectorate of the U.S. in the sense of definition applied to such locales. The definitions don’t stretch to cover the Canal Zone and never have.
Also, by the time Congress got around to passing the law conferring “Jus Sanguini” status to military families’ offspring born on foreign soil, McCain was 16 years old (1952). Status was not retroactive.
McCain’s campaign has issued a statement about all this, but it was careful to avoid any hot-headed declarations of the type you offer. They instead pointed to Mr. Goldwater having been born in Arizona before statehood was granted, saying that it was the same sort of controversy (The complaint against Goldwater WAS frivolous), but otherwise completely avoided confronting the issue directly. They refused to try to apply the terms “territory” or “protectorate” to the situation at hand. They knew they’d be lying.
Two things trouble me about all this:
One is the fact that Mr. Gaines questions the standing of those bringing suit. He must not have a very high regard for his own franchise. If there are legitimate U.S. voters involved, and standing is denied because they need to be anything else, we all have indeed already been reduced to peonage and it’s really over for us.
Two; the matter has come up in this period of our history, when it is a little too routine for our “Rulers” to cherry-pick the laws of the land to suit the convenience of the moment – something I’m completely fed up with, personally.
It doesn’t really matter too much. McCain at his best is a weaker candidate than Dole was in ’96 on his worst day. His only chance at winning comes to the fore if H. Clinton wins out for nomination; but that doesn’t presume any real advantage for McCain going in, either, IMO. If Obama is the Dem nominee, McCain will lose. It will be ugly.
Well, those who think this is frivolous ought to read my anaylsis at http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html.
BTW, even though this Aames person is in my town, I have no association with either him or his suit.
I should also point out that Gaines is wrong. Panama was NEVER a U.S. territory, according to the treaties themselves!
The only problem with your argument Richard, and it is correct in substance, is that the lawsuit deals not with electoral votes and how they are counted, but whether McCain is even eligible to have electors in the first place.
Mr. Seebeck,
It seems to me that any presidential elector can vote for whomever they want, just as I can write-in names of people who are not eligible for the office of US Rep, Senator, etc.
This issue should be resolved during the joint session of Congress when the votes are counted.
Obviously the U.S.A. has had overseas bases for many decades with U.S.A. military folks having kids born on such bases.
Does their natural born citizen status go with the U.S.A. flag on the base ???
Stay tuned. The Supremes may have to act rather quickly.
The Coco Solo Hospital was not part of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of McCain’s birth in Aug 1936. Therefore he was not born in a US Territory or the Canal Zone.
Franklin Roosevelt Executive Order 8981 of Dec 17, 1941 moved the Coco Solo Hospital area into the Canal Zone.
Stine,
It’s my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, that electors are pledged to eligible candidates and that electors cannot vote for ineligible candidates and have their vote count. If this lawsuit succeeds it would prevent electors from voting for McCain.
Donaldd,
Didn’t know that about Coco, but all it does is move the hospital from outside the PCZ and US territory into the PCZ and still outside US territory. It shoots down one of McCain’s arguments, but doesn’t change the overall picture. But it’s good to know nonetheless.
I’m not going to get drawn into an arcane debate about the Panama Canal Zone. I assume the guy has a birth certificate. Go take a look at it if you’re interested. The birth certificate of a sitting United States Senator who’s running for president shouldn’t be a state secret.
My point, for those who actually read what I wrote, is that it is, or ought to be, ultimately irrelevant where he was born if both of his parents were lifetime U.S. citizens & residents who were situated wherever it was he was born only temporarily. Among past presidential candidates & hopefuls, Lowell Weicker was born in France, George Romney was born in Mexico, and Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory. Any major controversy over those fellows on this account?
I have no interest in the concept of President McCain whatsoever. I do think that if the only way desperate Democrats can keep him from occupying the Oval Office is to file lawsuits based on the fact that his American parents happened to be temporarily abroad when he popped out of the womb, then they’re even worse off than Ralph Nader has demonstrated that they are.
David Gaines, the question of the status of the PCZ is central to the issue. McCain has not released his birth certificate, nor will he, either, becuase A) it would go against him, and B) he knows it. As for your jus sanguinis argument, that has no basis in US laws except through naturalization statutes, and I covered that in my blog (if you actually read what I wrote).
And BTW, the Democrats aren’t “desperate” to get him out of the race. Most Republicans can’t stand him and are voting for him in the primary beauty pageants out of letter-zombie votes. McCain is a speedbump-for-the-steamroller in November and the DNC knows it. The RNC would rather throw him under the bus and kill the GOP at the same time than put up a real conservative and save the party.
In the first naturalization act passed in 1790, it states, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens. Provided: that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
This has been part of US law ever since, though the definition of natural born citizens has been expanded over time. So there has been since 1790 a distinction between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. While the 1790 naturalization act was repealed by a 1795 act, this latter legislation reiterated the provisions regarding persons born abroad to citizen parents; though not specifically classifying them as “natural born”.
Michael Seebeck in his blog argues that the 14th Amendment (re)classified citizens as either being citizens born in the United State or naturalized.
So a question to Michael: were citizens born abroad to US Citizens, stripped of their citizenship by the 14th Amendment? Or if they were “naturalized” as incident to their birth, were they somehow stripped of their “natural born” status?
Was it merely some accident or legislative oversight that the 14th Amendment would strip the eligibility to be president to someone situated like George Washington Adams (named for for first President, grandson of the 2nd President, son of the 6th president and brother of a vice presidential candidate in 1848)? GW Adams was born in 1801 in Berlin, Prussia, where JQ Adams was ambassador. Note: GW Adams died prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, but for sake of discussion assume that he had still been living in 1868 (he would have been 67 – his grandfather lived to be 90, and his father to 80 when he was still serving in the House of Representatives).
Weren’t persons who became citizens as a result of the 14th Amendment, (or perhaps legislation passed by Congress as part of enforcement of the 13th Amendment) citizens by naturalization? Were former slaves born prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment eligible to become President under Article II. Under the Dred Scott decision, Hiram Revels could not be a citizen. Had he actually been a US Citizen long enough to become a US Senator when he was elected?
To Charles Foster: The counting of electoral votes by Congress is more than a mere exercise of tabulation. It is they who would decide whether a particular ballot was legitimate or not.
The 12th Amendment only requires that electors voter for persons. There is no requirement that they vote for qualified persons. And in case, the qualification can not be determined in advance.
Only if John McCain were to be elected, would the issue of his qualifications come up. And the 20th Amendment has provisions for the case where a President-elect is not qualified to serve as President.
BTW, the named defendants in the case filed in California are:
United States of America;
Office of Federal Register;
Electoral College;
Inaugural Committee.
Note: John McCain is not a US Citizen by virtue of 8 USC 1403 (a), which is applicable to persons who may have only had one US Citizen parent, or whose parent(s) had not been resident in the US for some specified period prior to birth.
McCain, born in Panama, Is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency
True Patriots want to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of these United States. These are not just empty words. Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution: “No person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President”. In order to be a “natural born citizen,” a person must be born in the United States, a native-citizen, otherwise, he is made a citizen “by law” and is therefore “naturalized”. A naturalized citizen, is one who is a citizen only by the graces of the vested Congressional powers of naturalization coming from Article 1 Section 8.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifies the two modes of acquiring citizenship, birth in the United States and naturalization, which is “citizenship through Congressional law..”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”. The birthplace of McCain was in Panama. not in any of these United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof , so McCain’s citizenship status is naturalized, not “natural bornâ€, so he is not eligible to be on any state Presidential Primary Ballot.
The Isthmian Canal Convention, a Treaty ratified by the Senate; “act approved June 28, 1902, …by which the President of the United States is authorized to acquire within a reasonable time the control of the necessary territory of the Republic of Colombia, and the sovereignty of such territory being actually vested in the Republic of Panama, The U.S. Senate ratified this pact; The United States paid Panama annual indemnities; something a sovereign would not possibly do; United States General Laws (such as the criminal code) could not be applied in the Canal Zone; The United States Constitution never automatically applied in the Canal Zone;
Statute: The US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (7FAM1116.1-4) says: “US military installations abroad and US diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States”….”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.” So, McCain’s birth at the Coco Solo Air Base doesn’t make him a natural born citizen either.;
Article 1 Section 8, gave Congress the power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”, the lawful process of gaining citizenship ..NOT to re-define what “natural born” meant. Congressional laws cannot supersede the US Constitution, which requires that a “no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President”. Those born abroad, or wherever the US does not have sovereignty, even to US citizens, may be made or declared a citizen(naturalized) but they are not eligible to ascend to the Presidency, since any act of the United States Congress that makes rules regarding naturalization such as the Naturalization Act of 1790(repealed and replaced, anyway, or 8 USC 1403a, but may not overrule the Constitution and cannot re-define “natural born”.
McCain and hid backers may cite statute 8 USC 1403(a): “Any person born in the Canal Zone is declared to be a citizen of the United States”. But. someone who is “declared” a citizen by Congressional law is being naturalized and is NOT a “natural born†citizen. So, that argument isn’t valid because it has to do with naturalization. McCain is a naturalized citizen, one who is a citizen only by the graces of the vested Congressional powers of naturalization coming from Article 1 Section 8, and not a “natural born†citizen which is required by Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution’s Presidential eligibility standards, the higher qualification suggested by John Jay for the highest office in the land, President and Commander in Chief..
To Cameron Elliot:
7FAM1116.1-4 is a strawman argument. If a Canadian citizen gives birth at a military hospital in the US, the child is a US citizen. If a Canadian citizen gives birth at a US military hospital in Germany, the child is not a US citizen.
But if a US citizen gives birth at a US military hospital in Germany, the child is a US citizen (provided that the US residency requirements are met). The same would be true if the birth occured at a civilian hospital in Germany.
Likewise 8 USC 1403(a) is a strawman argument. John McCain is a US citizen from birth based on the US Citizenship of his parents. McCain would _not_ cite 8 USC 1403(a) simply because it is non-applicable to his situation.
The US Constitution does not define “natural born”. Presumably it has nothing to do with artificial insemination, but rather someone who is a (natural) citizen at birth. Naturalization is a process by which one becomes a (natural) citizen at some point after birth.
The 14th Amendment either does not define all classes of citizens, or is simply imperfect in its definition.
A question about your use of the term “True Patriot”. Since “patriot” derives from the word for “father”, which would imply that citizenship is derived by descent from one’s father, and you seem to be fixated on the locale of the mother at the time of birth, wouldn’t “Uber Nativist” be a more appropriate term?
Richard: Congress, not any court, would then decide whether to count electoral votes for McCain. Similarly, Congress, not any court, decides who has been validly elected to Congress.
In 2000 a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed with you on this. My guess is they would do so again.
Another suit in NH, MO to follow.. McCain used special interest for the last housing bubble LOL..Talk about diamonds on a hog. McCain is not eligible to be president and you will need to change the Constitution for him to be declared a Natural born Citizen. The Constitution does not allow Hessians not born in the United states to be president.. What is Manuel Noriega going to be VP?
…
Neo-con fascist Imperialist in the Bush CIA tradition. Non conservative immoral POS
This debate continues, though it looks like it has languished here.
Will it all just go away if McCain is elected and sworn into office? I think not. This will make the election of George Bush in 2000 look like just so much chad. See the discussion as it escalates at http://panamajohn.dominates.us/forum and participate.
PanamaJohn.dominates.us
I’ll address Jim R’s mistakes:
In the first naturalization act passed in 1790, it states, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens. Provided: that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.â€
This has been part of US law ever since, though the definition of natural born citizens has been expanded over time. So there has been since 1790 a distinction between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. While the 1790 naturalization act was repealed by a 1795 act, this latter legislation reiterated the provisions regarding persons born abroad to citizen parents; though not specifically classifying them as “natural bornâ€.
MWS: Sorry, the 1795 Act was repealed in 1802. There is no definition of “natural born” in the USC. I checked. This argument holds no water.
Michael Seebeck in his blog argues that the 14th Amendment (re)classified citizens as either being citizens born in the United State or naturalized.
MWS: Yes, indeed, and that is settled law. There is no such thing as a natural born citizen who became a naturalized citizen (without first revoking their citizenship), or vice versa.
So a question to Michael: were citizens born abroad to US Citizens, stripped of their citizenship by the 14th Amendment? Or if they were “naturalized†as incident to their birth, were they somehow stripped of their “natural born†status?
MWS: See INA 1952, which answers that question. Children born to US citizens abroad are not natural born citizens. They are U.S. nationals and must be naturalized to become citizens. I actually know a few.
Was it merely some accident or legislative oversight that the 14th Amendment would strip the eligibility to be president to someone situated like George Washington Adams (named for for first President, grandson of the 2nd President, son of the 6th president and brother of a vice presidential candidate in 1848)? GW Adams was born in 1801 in Berlin, Prussia, where JQ Adams was ambassador. Note: GW Adams died prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, but for sake of discussion assume that he had still been living in 1868 (he would have been 67 – his grandfather lived to be 90, and his father to 80 when he was still serving in the House of Representatives).
MWS: Unless he ran for Presdient, whatever pedigree he had is irrelevant. We call this a hypothetical red herring. It has no bearing on John Sidney McCain.
Weren’t persons who became citizens as a result of the 14th Amendment, (or perhaps legislation passed by Congress as part of enforcement of the 13th Amendment) citizens by naturalization? Were former slaves born prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment eligible to become President under Article II. Under the Dred Scott decision, Hiram Revels could not be a citizen. Had he actually been a US Citizen long enough to become a US Senator when he was elected?
MWS: Again, not relevant to McCain.
Note: John McCain is not a US Citizen by virtue of 8 USC 1403 (a), which is applicable to persons who may have only had one US Citizen parent, or whose parent(s) had not been resident in the US for some specified period prior to birth.
MWS: Wrong: 8 USC 1403(a): “(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.” It covers children born to parent or parents who are or were U.S. citizens if the child is born in the PCZ after a certian date, and it legislatively confers citizenship (lex soli) on them. You really ought to actually read the laws before you spout off on them.
John McCain is a US citizen from birth based on the US Citizenship of his parents.
MWS: Nope. There is no such thing as citizenship by bloodline in U.S. law. The Latin term for it is called “jus sanguinis”, and it has no basis in U.S. law. The only bases for citizenship in the U.S. are “jus soli” (natural born) and “lex soli (naturalization). I cover that clearly in the blog as well.
Okay, all of this trash talking about Mr. Aames has to stop. Since when is it ignorant to bring REAL issues to the table for questioning? All my father wanted was to clear things up for voters. Personally, I think that everyone that’s upset about McCain being eligable or not should look beyond the point and be grateful that there are people exercising their rights and asking questions, as opposed to just accepting issues without further research.