On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain is a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president. He also ruled that, even if he weren’t, the plaintiffs in Robinson v Bowen (08-cv-3836) did not have standing to challenge McCain’s ballot status. He said another presidential candidate running against McCain would have standing, but that even then, the case would only be ripe after the November election. The judge was aware that the California Supreme Court had ruled in 1968 that presidential candidates who are not eligible should not be on the ballot, but he didn’t discuss that in his 5-page opinion.
The plaintiffs in this case are supporters of Alan Keyes, so it is odd that Keyes did not join the case as a co-plaintiff. The plaintiff is a presidential elector candidate for Keyes, and he is also the (somewhat disputed) state chair of the American Independent Party of California.
Interesting how no one sues the Socialist Workers Party when Roger Calero is not an American citizen, yet he’s on the ballot in 5 states as their nominee.
This is one of the silly things that makes all third parties and independents look foolish. McCain is and should be eligible as a natural born American to be president. He just shouldn’t be elected because of what he stands for.
This is another reason the LP should go it alone and not work with other parties on important issues of Principle or actual ballot drives. We do not want to associate with crazies.
The only area where the LP should join other parties on a case by case basis is ballot access lobbying. Even then, there are some people we shouldn’t form coalitions with.
natural born my ass. It’s amazing the double standard these two parties have. They get away with everything.
I don’t think you know what double standard means. McCain’s position is a fairly unique one, where has such an issue come up before with any candidate for president major or minor? If you actually find one, was the ruling different?
Hmm, interesting, I never thought that I would agree with Keyes supporters on anything.
The ruling puzzles me regarding “standing”: Why wouldn’t ANY citizen and/or voter have “standing” to question any candidate’s eligibility, supposing, of course, there were any real legal question, any actual evidence.
Why is only another candidate considered to have “standing”?
Because judges, and most of our political elites, think elections are all about the candidates. (Most all of the candidates share this elevated view of themselves too, of course.)
But, the fact is, elections aren’t primarily about the candidates. They’re about the people and their sovereign right to govern themselves.
The ministers, who are supposed to work for the sovereign, are running the show, determining all of the terms of the continuation of their own positions. (Another way to put it is that the inmates are running the asylum…)
Government of, by, and for the people is on the endangered species list.
The constitutional mandate that is in question says that “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;” and by this mandate, I personally believe that the founding fathers intended for this office to only be filled by the direct descendants of the founding generation, so that among the various leaders of our nation, there would always be at least this one particular branch of government that would forever maintain a hereditary link to that founding generation of United States citizens.
This interpretation is one that simply requires us to look at the Constitution through the lens of the Declaration of Independence.
” . . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves . . . ”
You see, where the mandate explicitly qualifies “a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, the founding fathers basically had themselves and their own generation in mind. In other words, the intention of the founding fathers was to qualify all those who were citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
” . . . and [to] our posterity,”
And where the mandate explicitly qualifies “a natural-born citizen”, I believe that the founding fathers, in fact, had their own offspring in mind, together with all those who would someday descend from that first generation of United States citizens. In other words, the intention of the founding fathers was to qualify the direct descendants of all those who were citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Again, I believe the idea behind these qualifications was basically to ensure that there would always be at least one branch of government in the United States, namely the office of President, that would forever maintain a hereditary link to that founding generation of United States citizens.
You see, it was to be hoped back in those days that the President of the United States would always be raised up from within our own country, and from among the children of the old “seventy-sixer” generation, so as to ensure that he might always be someone who, by inheritance, would hold a vested interest in the welfare of our country. And I believe that this was intended as a safeguard, so as to reduce the possibility of some foreign prince stepping forward, from Europe or elsewhere, who might not truly have our nation’s best interest in mind.
And in this respect, I happen to believe that the Founders not only meant to disqualify any such foreign princes, who might have otherwise attempted to come on the scene, but also to disqualify anyone whose government philosophy was foreign-born, and which did not align with the limited government approach that was established by the Constitution.
You see, it should always be remembered that we live in a Constitutional Republic, and in our system of government, the Constitution is what holds the balance between complete libertarianism (which would amount to all out lawlessness) and complete socialism (which would amount to all out dependency). This balance is one that ought not be disturbed, and the Founders obviously recognized the importance of this detail.
And I believe that this is why this particular prohibition was established… not so much to split hairs over a person’s nativity, but instead, to prohibit any foreign worldview from infiltrating the executive branch of our government.
Joe
bolshevik-leninist Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I don’t think you know what double standard means. McCain’s position is a fairly unique one, where has such an issue come up before with any candidate for president major or minor? If you actually find one, was the ruling different?
Phil Sawyer responds:
Yes, the question has come up before. In 1964, some people claimed that Senator Barry Goldwater could not run for president because his home state, Arizona, was a territory when the Senator was born.
Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney was born in a Mormon polygamous colony in Mexico.
George Romney was ALSO a candidate for US President.
The cases are different Panama was not a territory.
Still can’t find any cases with third parties where the third party candidate was not allowed to run. Still no double standard. One could hypothetically exist, equality could also hypothetically exist, but we don’t know. Show me a situation where a third party candidate who’s parents were American citizens was not allowed to run because he was born somwhere outside the US.
If anyone knows the answer to the question posed by commenter #12, it’s probably Darcy Richardson, author of “Others”.
Lots of brain dead stuff out there in internet land.
4 July 1776 — new citizens of any of the 13 States (ex-British regime subjects — and their children) = U.S.A. citizens.
When did the last of the 4 July 1776 citizens pass away ???
Children of such citizens = natural born citizens.
Legal foreign folks may become naturalized citizens.
Children of naturalized citizens born AFTER the naturalization process is complete = natural born citizens.
Any Prezs having naturalized parents ???
Natural born = ALLEGIANCE to the regime at the time of birth.
Sorry – foreigners (legal and illegal), war time enemies, pirates, stateless terrorists, etc. have NO such ALLEGIANCE — so their children are NOT natural born U.S.A. citizens even if they are born inside the U.S.A. (even inside the Supremes Bldg in D.C.).
Way too difficult for the MORON courts to understand.
First, John S. McCain III was not born in the Canal
Zone as he is now asseverating. He was born on
the island of Manzanillo (City of Colon), Republic
of Panama at the Colon Hospital (located at Avenida
Melendez and Second Street). His date of birth was
August 29, 1936.
At his birth, John S. McCain III was born an alien.
On August 4, 1937, Public Law 242, S2416, entered
into force, which was a collective naturalization
act and is also know as United States Code
Title 8, Section 5e, John McCain III could have met the requires under secion 5e, if his father was a United States Government employee at the time of John S. McCain III birth and he can prove
he was in Panama at the time of conseption of John
S. McCain III.
If John McCain III parents complied with the terms
and regulations under the Act of August 4, 1937, then he would be a naturalized citizen today. The
bottom line McCain needs to prove he and/or his parents complied with the terms of the Act or it could be that he is still an alien.
But in no case is John S. McCain a “natural born citizen”. So he can not take the office of president.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#15 Sorry – natural born = ALLEGIANCE at birth to a regime – wherever physically born.
One more emergency case for the Supremes in Nov 2008-Jan 2009 ??? — hopefully NOT to be totally screwed up like Bush v. Gore in 2000 — correct result (Nov. 2000 votes for Prez electors in Florida unconstitutional — due to total failure of the entire Florida regime to have any definition of a *legal* vote — especially with the infamous punch card ballots) — BUT WRONG remedy (causing the major chaos).
Joe, Goldwater was born in AZ territory, which was most definitley part of the US. George Romney’s case never came up, although he under the laws at the time wasn’t eleigible either, for the similar reasons as McCain isn’t now. Goldwater’s case did make it to court.
Mark, did you subpoena McCain’s birth certificate?
stuff not posting again…
Demo Rep, go look up “jus sangunis”, “jus soli”, and “lex soli”, then find out how they tie into the USC and INA. You find you’re wrong, like a lot of people on this one.
http: //muddythoughts.blogspot.com /2008/02/ panmanchurian-candidate-mccain html
Maybe it’s the link it doesn’t like…
To: Michael Seebeck
I have a real copy of John Sidney McCain III’s birth certificate that was issued by the Panama
Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital)
for the Colon Hospital at Avenida Melendez and 2nd
Street, City of Colon, Republic of Panama.
For you information the “CERTIFICATE DE NACIMIENTO VITO” states that the alien John McCain was born
at 5:25 p.m. on August 29, 1936. It list his mother as “Roberta Wright” with employment as a “Housewife”. Therefore, Roberta Wright McCain
could not be the source for John Sidney McCain III’s being included in the collective naturalization Act of August 4, 1937.
Because at the time of John McCain III’s birth on
August 29, 1936, she was not an employee of the
United States Goverment nor an employee of the
Panama Rail Road Company, or its successor. The
law by which McCain could have been naturalized was
United States Code title 8, section 5e. However,
that was limited to having a parent with either
the United States Government or Panama Rail Road
Company employee. Roberta Wright McCain was neither.
I am at a current loss as of now how John McCain
is a natural born citizen. I do not even know if
John McCain was ever a citizen of the United States.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
Mark, are you guys looking at state laws that allow elections/nominations to be contested based on a candidate’s ineligibility? They vary in term of who has standing (usually just electors and/or rival candidates have standing, but in some cases party officials also do, if I remember correctly), whether nominations can be challenged, and who adjudicates. Off the top of my head, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Indiana allow such election contests.
To Uri:
Of the states you remember, can you cite the election law sections where party officials can
contest McCain status on the ballot.
I have found no documentation that John McCain III
was anything other than his birth status, viz. an
alien born in Panama. One question I have does any
one know where John McCain III’s 74 year old sister
live. Her name is Jean Alexandra McCain Morgan.
McCain sister is married to a heir of the J. P.
Morgan estate. She goes by Sandra and Sandy.
I believe she my live in the Houston, Texas area.
The wikipedia give her birth at the same location in the canal as the manager at BEST BUYS stated.
Therefore a reply would be most helpful.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
Hmm. May be one of you could check an old map of Panama. The Canal Zone was composed of several bases throughout Panama, not just the area around the actual canal. Manzanillo, Colon became under US control (ie CZ) in 1904.
Indiana Code, Title III Article 12 Chapter 11 Section 1(b)
http://law.justia.com/indiana/codes/title3/ar12/ch11.html
North Carolina’s protest provision allows eligible voters to protest “the conduct of the election,” which arguably includes eligibility issues.
North Carolina General Statutes 163-182.9
Complaints go to the county board, but a denial is appealable to the courts.
John Sidney McCain III was the son of United States citizens.
He is, therefore, a “natural-born citizen” himself.
May I suggest Mr. Seidenberg read the U.S. Constitution?
And while he is reading, he might also want to check out a good grammar book.
Nope, Professor, go do some research. Bloodline is not a citizenship grounds in this country. Never was in McCain’s lifetime, either.
Thanks for the info, Mr. Siedenberg, I hope you win the appeal.
Professor Judie Eaves, you have no clue. Go look up what jus sanguinis measn and its bearing on the USC, then go look up INA 1952 and 8 USC 1403(a), which is a LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION of citizenship, and is thereby naturalization by definition.
http: //muddythoughts.blogspot.com /2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain. html
(remove the spaces, links seem to make the posts disappear)
It took a court ruling to prove this? What a waste of time and money for the court.
As much as we don’t want him to be president, we must be honest and accurate. John McCain III is legally qualified, if not morally or philosophically, by the Constitution to be president.
He was the son and grandson of Navy officers.
If, at the time of his birth, his parents were stationed outside the actual national boundaries, he is still a U.S. citizen.
EVEN IF his parents were stationed outside the actual national boundaries, he IS STILL A U.S. CITIZEN.
The Naval base is, just like an embassy, considered United States territory, at least for such purposes as deciding citizenship.
Get over it. Fight him on the moral and philosophical issues.
A little addition: The military base is U.S. territory in the case of children born to U.S. citizens.
Non-citizens giving birth there do not have citizenship conferred on the child.
Morrison, you are completely and unequivocally wrong.
Whether he was born of navy officers or police officers is irrelevant.
Go read the Muddythoughts blog on the subject (link above), with the CITED FACTS.
Amazing how many people simply don’t understand facts anymore…
BTW, this was researched 7 months ago and the facts are cited, and properly explained. Go read the link and you will see not only HOW the ruling is wrong, but WHY.
TO: Michael Morrison
In your posting you stated that John S. McCain was
born on a military base. John McCain was not born on a military base nor even in the Canal Zone. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital,located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.
At the time of John Sidney McCain III’s birth he
was born an alien. That was because at the time of his birth, viz., August 29, 1936, the terms of Revised Statute # 1933 did not apply to that location in the Republic of Panama, because the island of Manzanillo was under the jurisdiction of the United States, but external to the territory of the Canal Zone.
By the collective naturalization act of August 4,
1937, viz., United States Code title 8, sections
5d and 5e governed the naturalizations of certain
classes of persons born in either the Canal Zone or
the Republic of Panama. Section 5d covered the Canal Zone and 5e covered the Republic of Panama.
The Act of August 4, 1937 was S2416 and Public Law
242. It was repealed by Congress in early 1941.
Therefore, if John McCain III’s parents had him included under the terms United States Code title 8, section 5e they would have to completed the process before the Act was repealed in January of
1941. That is why a look at John McCain first passport application is very important. It would
show if he is a citizen or not. Under the terms
of section 5e, John McCain III’s parents would have
to provided many documents to the INS during a window between about the ages of one and the age of
four years of age. This would only make him a naturalized citizen and not a natural-born citizen.
It is my current understanding John McCain was not
“entered” in the United States in late 1936 on Roberta McCain return to the United States with her
two children, viz., John Sidney III and Jean Alexandra (who is now about 74 years of age and lives in or near Houston, TX now with her husband an heir to JP Morgan estate.) Roberta McCain lives
in Washington, DC.
It should be noted here that Revised Stat. 1993 did
not apply to either the Canal Zone or the Republic
of Panama after February 25, 1904. And that was based on the Act of February 10, 1855, chap. 71,
sec. 1. Remember John Sidney McCain III was born
on August 29, 1936 in the Republic of Panama. I
have found no documentation yet that show John McCain is not a citizen of Panama, because he was
born in the Republic of Panama.
Under section 5e, John McCain III can not base his
rights to naturaization based on his mother Roberta
being a United States Citizen at birth, because she
was not employed at the time of by either the United States Government or the Panama Railroad Company or it successors.
That is why a trip to Mexico is so important to see
if the January 21, 1933 marriage between Jack and
Roberta McCain was valid. I was informed several
mouths ago by the biographer of Admiral John “Slew”
McCain, that the witnessing of the January 21, 1933
marriage certificate may have made it void. The
marriage on January 21, 1933 took place if valid at
Ceasar’s Bar in TJ, Baja California, Mexico.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
arrival with
app
First, Please igore “arrival with” and “app” on the
above post that was an error.
Second,In the above I stated that the Act of August
4, 1937 was repealed in early 1941. I could not
remember that date when I wrote it. I know the date now, viz., The Act of August 4, 1937 was repealed January 13, 1941.
I have found out that there is no known record of
Senator John Sidney McCain III ever visiting as an
adult the “Ministreio de Gobierno Y Justicia” of Panama, which is the agency governing citizenship
in Panama.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
P.S. Under Panama law the way to lose citizen status is to make a personal appearance to the Ministreio de Gobierno y Justicia to give up citizenship. It can not be done by mail. There
is no other way to volentary loss citizenship
in Panama. Therefore, John Sidney McCain III is a
“natural born citizen” of Republic of Panama only.
update: the michigan law review has posted an online symposium on mccain and natural born citizens, including contributions from some leading legal scholars. opinions are split on whether mccain is or is not a natural-born citizen. i draw your attention to prof. tokaji’s article, which suggests what i’ve been suggesting: that though challenges in federal court have failed, these matters are justiciable in state courts.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/index-fi.htm
Mark Seidenber- Please post the birth certificate so we can see. I have someone else who says they have the BC but the time is different.
you can do this by uploading it to a free account a http://www.photobucket.com and inserting a link here.
Thank you,
JRQ
Looks like McCain was born in the Canal Zone according to this old map: http: // social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/panmap.htm
That is if he was born at Colon Hospital, Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon.
Does not look like this is on an island though.