John McCain's Citizenship Status
In John McCain's case, it doesn't really appear to be a question over whether he is or is not a U.S. citizen that is of concern. Instead it is a question of interpretation of the basic qualification layed out in the U.S. Constitution that a president must be a "natural-born citizen." In the case of John McCain, who was born in 1936, it was a retroactive 1937 law that conferred citizenship on children born in the Canal Zone after 1904 to American parents.
"...Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen ofthe Unied 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."Because this law was not in effect at the time of McCain's birth, experts such as University of Arizona law professor Prof. Gabriel J. Chin say that it came too late to make John McCain a natural-born citizen. At the time of McCain's birth, the relevant statute did grant citizenship to any child of an American parent "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." Professor Chin said the precise wording is important here, and that "out of the...jurisdiction" doesn't apply to the Panama Canal Zone which was under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time. Others argue that recognition of the "unintentional gap" is the reason that Congress passed the 1937 Canal Zone citizenship law.
The meaning of the term "natural born" citizen has long been debated and never convincingly resolved. So, while John McCain stands by his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office, his campaign sought a review from legal experts to put the issue to rest, just as it did in his first White House run in 2000.
Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican backing John McCain, and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, a Democrat and advisor to Barack Obama, disagree with Professor Chin's narrow interpretation of the naturalization law and its intent. In a paper issued in March they found that John McCain is "natural born" under the Constitution.
"Based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution."
Stephen E. Sachs, a recent Yale J.D. and judicial law clerk, also argued that Professor Chin's argument was flawed, in his paper John McCain's Citizenship: A Tentative Defense.
In an effort to put this long-standing debate to rest, at least in the case of John McCain, Senators Patrick Leahy and Claire McCaskill introduced a non-binding resolution in March 2008 expressing that John McCain qualifies as a "natural born Citizen" as specified in the Constitution. The resolution, supported by Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Jim Webb, was unanimously passed by the Senate later that month.
Comments
Here is more of “fact check…. According to the government John McCain is viewed as a an AMerican Citizen at birth “b. This provision is the same as those in section 203(b) NA and Section 2 of
the Act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat. 558). Because it applies retroactively,
it is not necessary to refer to the prior versions for citizenship
adjudication purposes; they are of historical interest only. Under all three
sections, a child born in Panama on or after February 26, 1904, to a U.S.
citizen employee of the U.S. Government or the Panama Railroad
Company is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth even if the citizen parent
had never previously resided or been physically present in the United
States. The child is not required to take any particular steps in order to retain citizenship”
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
That’t not relevant, Solid Citizen. Congress doesn’t have the power to change constitutional requirements. So it can say a person should be considered a natural-born citizen for any other purpose. But it cannot say that w/r/t the presidency, because to do so would be to amend the Constitution.
The “retroactive” provisions of the 1937 law are also nullified by the prohibition on ex post facto laws in Article 1 Sec. 9 US Constitution.
No, Cliffy, Congress is not amending the Constitution. There is no constitutional definition of “natural born” and Congress is exercising its constitutional authority to enact immigration law by defining what is a natural born citizen. Congress is not changing the requirement that the President be natural born.
To “Solid Citizen”: the statute you refer to confers US citizenship. It does not address natural born citizenship. Section 1401(e) of Title 8 confers natural born citizenship on persons like McCain who were born to citizen parents in overseas possessions of the US if their parents meet a residency requirement. The purpose of the provision you cite was to prevent Panamanians who gave birth in the Canal Zone from claiming US citizenship.
To “Henry Morgan”: the provision against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal statutes. The Supreme Court has that the clause prohibits laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and does not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters.