alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[Cecilie1200]

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

What he's saying is that any and all written laws referring to being a citizen refer ONLY to naturalized citizens, and there is some sort of amorphous, unspecified law from God-knows-where that says ONLY people who are born actually on US dirt are "natural-born citizens".

Just don't ask him to explain what that law is, or where it comes from. That's just how it is, and he says so, and that's all we need to know.

What, exactly, he thinks Congress's actual job and powers are is also a mystery to me, since he certainly seems to think they aren't legally allowed to . . . y'know, make laws about shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

You weren't aware that, as a US territory, Puerto Rico's citizens are also US citizens (although they don't vote in Presidential elections)?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

What are you confused about?

Its a classification that's unique in US law....existing in no other circumstance for no other people, before or after. The classification has no legal relevance save to prevent Puerto Ricans, who are citizens at birth.....from being President.

The whole statehood thing.

Yeah, but the Supreme Court long ago recognized that the United States consists of the States and territories as far as the constitution is concerned:

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

So those born in Puerto Rico are born in the United States. Yet Congress invented the bizarre 'Naturlized at birth' designation for those born in Puerto Rico.

Not those born in all territories. JUST Puerto Rico. That's why its so bizarre. Its an absolute legal outlier, existing no where else in the history of our law. And for no other region, state or territory.

Yes, different US territories have different terms that were negotiated for and applied to their status as such, due to whatever the circumstances were at the time they became US territories. In the case of Puerto Rico, they are also a separate Commonwealth, with their own government.

 

[dcraelin]

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

*sigh* I'll ask it again. If the rules regarding who is and is not a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen, in other words) are not determined by the United States government in the form of its legislative body, the US Congress, then exactly where do those rules come from? Are they some natural law of the universe, like physics, that simply exist? Are they decided by someone else?

It's all very well for you to sit here, adopting some faux-world weary attitude and say, "Yes, you can cite laws that specify what is and isn't a citizen, but that only refers to THIS type of citizen, not THAT type, and no, I can't prove it, but it just IS". It's another thing for you to explain your obstinate assertions.

We are done with you demanding proof over and over without offering any of your own. Your turn.

I wasnt demanding proof, just logic............

The Constitutions granting of permission to Congress to write rules of naturalization is a whole separate section than the presidential eligibility rules. They didnt say in that section "Congress can decide what a natural born citizen is, they said rules of naturalization"....i.e. making citizens of non-citizens. naturalization of foreigners does not magically convert their birth to one on US soil,...... and not all citizens can be president.

If subsequently the Congress or the courts have used that phrase and perhaps redefined it.....1) it was illegitimate and 2) it, or they, cant go back in time and change the understanding at ratification.

the terms are close enough that that, and British use of the similar natural-born subject, has perhaps caused courts confusion.

BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

 

[Cecilie1200]

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

*sigh* I'll ask it again. If the rules regarding who is and is not a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen, in other words) are not determined by the United States government in the form of its legislative body, the US Congress, then exactly where do those rules come from? Are they some natural law of the universe, like physics, that simply exist? Are they decided by someone else?

It's all very well for you to sit here, adopting some faux-world weary attitude and say, "Yes, you can cite laws that specify what is and isn't a citizen, but that only refers to THIS type of citizen, not THAT type, and no, I can't prove it, but it just IS". It's another thing for you to explain your obstinate assertions.

We are done with you demanding proof over and over without offering any of your own. Your turn.

I wasnt demanding proof, just logic............

The Constitutions granting of permission to Congress to write rules of naturalization is a whole separate section than the presidential eligibility rules. They didnt say in that section "Congress can decide what a natural born citizen is, they said rules of naturalization"....i.e. making citizens of non-citizens. naturalization of foreigners does not magically convert their birth to one on US soil,...... and not all citizens can be president.

If subsequently the Congress or the courts have used that phrase and perhaps redefined it.....1) it was illegitimate and 2) it, or they, cant go back in time and change the understanding at ratification.

the terms are close enough that that, and British use of the similar natural-born subject, has perhaps caused courts confusion.

BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

I skimmed through this just enough to see that you once again ducked the question to continue on with "No evidence is enough, no citation of law is enough, I'm right and you're wrong just because I say so, so THERE!"

So then I completely ignored it.

Sack up and answer the question, chickenshit: where does the definition of a natural-born citizen of the United States come from, if not from the laws made by Congress, the legislative body of the United States? If it's an immutable, unchangeable law of the universe that only people physically born on US dirt are "natural-born citizens", why is it that Congress keeps writing laws about it, and the courts keep agreeing with them? If there's some class of "citizen at birth but not natural-born", how come no one's ever heard of it before? Is it just because you're so damned much more clever than every Constitutional authority who has ever existed in this country, and have magically deciphered this provision that no one has ever applied before now?

Natural-born citizen means someone who is a citizen at their birth. If you want to insist on something else, get to answering the questions.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

i know, the birther thing again, doesn't seem to want to go away.

anyway republicans want sick people to die quickly. grayson is back. he is the dizzying hugo chavez of our American congress.

Alan Grayson Threatens Lawsuit on Citizenship Grounds if Ted Cruz Is the GOP Nominee - Breitbart

if you google die quickly, you get this:




COLMES: Well, his mother was born here, so I guess like Obama, though it’s interesting to me the people who had a problem with Obama, though it’s interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz who literally was born in another country and renounced his Canadian citizenry.

GRAYSON: I don’t know … the Constitution says natural-born Americans, so now we’re counting Canadians as natural born Americans? How does that work? I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s ineligible.

COLMES: So you’re saying should he get the nomination, Alan Grayson will file a lawsuit against his candidacy.

GRAYSON: Absolutely! Call me crazy but I think the president of America should be an American.

COLMES: Now I wonder, does he qualify because of having an American mother can considered an American citizen and in fact he renounced his Canadian citizenship to be an American citizen, but you’re talking about American birth, but I believe if that’s one of you parents —

GRAYSON: Look, even the anchor babies are actually born here. He doesn’t even meet that qualification.

COLMES: Right. And although I don’t like the term anchor babies, it’s been embraced by people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — not Ted Cruz — Marco Rubio who may in fact be one, as I understand.

GRAYSON: Oh, it’s shocking. In Cruz’s case, it is obvious what happened. The Canadians got pissed off at us for acid rain, so they gave us Ted Cruz.

grayson is not considered to be one of the high intellectuals of the DC congress...
alan colmes is just plain creepy.

Why doesn't Grason do what republican wants. Get sick and die quickly

 

[dcraelin]

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

*sigh* I'll ask it again. If the rules regarding who is and is not a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen, in other words) are not determined by the United States government in the form of its legislative body, the US Congress, then exactly where do those rules come from? Are they some natural law of the universe, like physics, that simply exist? Are they decided by someone else?

It's all very well for you to sit here, adopting some faux-world weary attitude and say, "Yes, you can cite laws that specify what is and isn't a citizen, but that only refers to THIS type of citizen, not THAT type, and no, I can't prove it, but it just IS". It's another thing for you to explain your obstinate assertions.

We are done with you demanding proof over and over without offering any of your own. Your turn.

I wasnt demanding proof, just logic............

The Constitutions granting of permission to Congress to write rules of naturalization is a whole separate section than the presidential eligibility rules. They didnt say in that section "Congress can decide what a natural born citizen is, they said rules of naturalization"....i.e. making citizens of non-citizens. naturalization of foreigners does not magically convert their birth to one on US soil,...... and not all citizens can be president.

If subsequently the Congress or the courts have used that phrase and perhaps redefined it.....1) it was illegitimate and 2) it, or they, cant go back in time and change the understanding at ratification.

the terms are close enough that that, and British use of the similar natural-born subject, has perhaps caused courts confusion.

BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

I skimmed through this just enough to see that you once again ducked the question to continue on with "No evidence is enough, no citation of law is enough, I'm right and you're wrong just because I say so, so THERE!"

So then I completely ignored it.

Sack up and answer the question, chickenshit: where does the definition of a natural-born citizen of the United States come from, if not from the laws made by Congress, the legislative body of the United States? If it's an immutable, unchangeable law of the universe that only people physically born on US dirt are "natural-born citizens", why is it that Congress keeps writing laws about it, and the courts keep agreeing with them? If there's some class of "citizen at birth but not natural-born", how come no one's ever heard of it before? Is it just because you're so damned much more clever than every Constitutional authority who has ever existed in this country, and have magically deciphered this provision that no one has ever applied before now?

Natural-born citizen means someone who is a citizen at their birth. If you want to insist on something else, get to answering the questions.

you sound an awful lot like Skylar, are you twins? this kind of forum is made for debate,....if all we had to do is go by law .....why have the forum at all?.....lets just find out what some erroneous courts have said and go by that.

Regardless Grayson, who is likely a lawyer himself and has ample access to legal opinion, presumably knows that more than one legal expert has said that presidential eligibility in this area has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court and is not open and shut.

the definition of words comes from usage. there are some legal "terms of art" within the Constitution but BORN isnt one of them, neither is NATURAL. And together their meaning is clear.

In fact, the term natural denotes that the courts and legislators can have no damn say in the matter at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

*sigh* I'll ask it again. If the rules regarding who is and is not a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen, in other words) are not determined by the United States government in the form of its legislative body, the US Congress, then exactly where do those rules come from? Are they some natural law of the universe, like physics, that simply exist? Are they decided by someone else?

It's all very well for you to sit here, adopting some faux-world weary attitude and say, "Yes, you can cite laws that specify what is and isn't a citizen, but that only refers to THIS type of citizen, not THAT type, and no, I can't prove it, but it just IS". It's another thing for you to explain your obstinate assertions.

We are done with you demanding proof over and over without offering any of your own. Your turn.

I wasnt demanding proof, just logic............

The Constitutions granting of permission to Congress to write rules of naturalization is a whole separate section than the presidential eligibility rules. They didnt say in that section "Congress can decide what a natural born citizen is, they said rules of naturalization"....i.e. making citizens of non-citizens. naturalization of foreigners does not magically convert their birth to one on US soil,...... and not all citizens can be president.

If subsequently the Congress or the courts have used that phrase and perhaps redefined it.....1) it was illegitimate and 2) it, or they, cant go back in time and change the understanding at ratification.

the terms are close enough that that, and British use of the similar natural-born subject, has perhaps caused courts confusion.

BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

I skimmed through this just enough to see that you once again ducked the question to continue on with "No evidence is enough, no citation of law is enough, I'm right and you're wrong just because I say so, so THERE!"

So then I completely ignored it.

Sack up and answer the question, chickenshit: where does the definition of a natural-born citizen of the United States come from, if not from the laws made by Congress, the legislative body of the United States? If it's an immutable, unchangeable law of the universe that only people physically born on US dirt are "natural-born citizens", why is it that Congress keeps writing laws about it, and the courts keep agreeing with them? If there's some class of "citizen at birth but not natural-born", how come no one's ever heard of it before? Is it just because you're so damned much more clever than every Constitutional authority who has ever existed in this country, and have magically deciphered this provision that no one has ever applied before now?

Natural-born citizen means someone who is a citizen at their birth. If you want to insist on something else, get to answering the questions.

you sound an awful lot like Skylar, are you twins? this kind of forum is made for debate,....if all we had to do is go by law .....why have the forum at all?.....lets just find out what some erroneous courts have said and go by that.

Regardless Grayson, who is likely a lawyer himself and has ample access to legal opinion, presumably knows that more than one legal expert has said that presidential eligibility in this area has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court and is not open and shut.

the definition of words comes from usage. there are some legal "terms of art" within the Constitution but BORN isnt one of them, neither is NATURAL. And together their meaning is clear.

In fact, the term natural denotes that the courts and legislators can have no damn say in the matter at all.

Yeah, debate, which DOESN'T mean you ignore all questions while making demands on me. THAT would be an interrogation, Torquemada, and you can go fuck yourself.

Now stop dodging and answer the question, chickenshit, or just admit that you can't, and you're too afraid to try. That's what I'm going to assume anyway if you keep pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[dcraelin]

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

*sigh* I'll ask it again. If the rules regarding who is and is not a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen, in other words) are not determined by the United States government in the form of its legislative body, the US Congress, then exactly where do those rules come from? Are they some natural law of the universe, like physics, that simply exist? Are they decided by someone else?

It's all very well for you to sit here, adopting some faux-world weary attitude and say, "Yes, you can cite laws that specify what is and isn't a citizen, but that only refers to THIS type of citizen, not THAT type, and no, I can't prove it, but it just IS". It's another thing for you to explain your obstinate assertions.

We are done with you demanding proof over and over without offering any of your own. Your turn.

I wasnt demanding proof, just logic............

The Constitutions granting of permission to Congress to write rules of naturalization is a whole separate section than the presidential eligibility rules. They didnt say in that section "Congress can decide what a natural born citizen is, they said rules of naturalization"....i.e. making citizens of non-citizens. naturalization of foreigners does not magically convert their birth to one on US soil,...... and not all citizens can be president.

If subsequently the Congress or the courts have used that phrase and perhaps redefined it.....1) it was illegitimate and 2) it, or they, cant go back in time and change the understanding at ratification.

the terms are close enough that that, and British use of the similar natural-born subject, has perhaps caused courts confusion.

BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

I skimmed through this just enough to see that you once again ducked the question to continue on with "No evidence is enough, no citation of law is enough, I'm right and you're wrong just because I say so, so THERE!"

So then I completely ignored it.

Sack up and answer the question, chickenshit: where does the definition of a natural-born citizen of the United States come from, if not from the laws made by Congress, the legislative body of the United States? If it's an immutable, unchangeable law of the universe that only people physically born on US dirt are "natural-born citizens", why is it that Congress keeps writing laws about it, and the courts keep agreeing with them? If there's some class of "citizen at birth but not natural-born", how come no one's ever heard of it before? Is it just because you're so damned much more clever than every Constitutional authority who has ever existed in this country, and have magically deciphered this provision that no one has ever applied before now?

Natural-born citizen means someone who is a citizen at their birth. If you want to insist on something else, get to answering the questions.

you sound an awful lot like Skylar, are you twins? this kind of forum is made for debate,....if all we had to do is go by law .....why have the forum at all?.....lets just find out what some erroneous courts have said and go by that.

Regardless Grayson, who is likely a lawyer himself and has ample access to legal opinion, presumably knows that more than one legal expert has said that presidential eligibility in this area has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court and is not open and shut.

the definition of words comes from usage. there are some legal "terms of art" within the Constitution but BORN isnt one of them, neither is NATURAL. And together their meaning is clear.

In fact, the term natural denotes that the courts and legislators can have no damn say in the matter at all.

Yeah, debate, which DOESN'T mean you ignore all questions while making demands on me. THAT would be an interrogation, Torquemada, and you can go fuck yourself.

Now stop dodging and answer the question, chickenshit, or just admit that you can't, and you're too afraid to try. That's what I'm going to assume anyway if you keep pretending it doesn't exist.

I answered the question you senile old hag.

 

[Syriusly]

[
BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

One of the typical things Obama Birthers did was try to equate eligibility issues with his policies.

You are doing the same with Cruz.

I defend Cruz's eligiblity- as I defended Obama's- because Cruz is eligible.

There are two kinds of citizens according to the Constitution- natural born citizens and naturalized.

When was Cruz naturalized?

 

[Cecilie1200]

*sigh* I'll ask it again. If the rules regarding who is and is not a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen, in other words) are not determined by the United States government in the form of its legislative body, the US Congress, then exactly where do those rules come from? Are they some natural law of the universe, like physics, that simply exist? Are they decided by someone else?

It's all very well for you to sit here, adopting some faux-world weary attitude and say, "Yes, you can cite laws that specify what is and isn't a citizen, but that only refers to THIS type of citizen, not THAT type, and no, I can't prove it, but it just IS". It's another thing for you to explain your obstinate assertions.

We are done with you demanding proof over and over without offering any of your own. Your turn.

I wasnt demanding proof, just logic............

The Constitutions granting of permission to Congress to write rules of naturalization is a whole separate section than the presidential eligibility rules. They didnt say in that section "Congress can decide what a natural born citizen is, they said rules of naturalization"....i.e. making citizens of non-citizens. naturalization of foreigners does not magically convert their birth to one on US soil,...... and not all citizens can be president.

If subsequently the Congress or the courts have used that phrase and perhaps redefined it.....1) it was illegitimate and 2) it, or they, cant go back in time and change the understanding at ratification.

the terms are close enough that that, and British use of the similar natural-born subject, has perhaps caused courts confusion.

BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

I skimmed through this just enough to see that you once again ducked the question to continue on with "No evidence is enough, no citation of law is enough, I'm right and you're wrong just because I say so, so THERE!"

So then I completely ignored it.

Sack up and answer the question, chickenshit: where does the definition of a natural-born citizen of the United States come from, if not from the laws made by Congress, the legislative body of the United States? If it's an immutable, unchangeable law of the universe that only people physically born on US dirt are "natural-born citizens", why is it that Congress keeps writing laws about it, and the courts keep agreeing with them? If there's some class of "citizen at birth but not natural-born", how come no one's ever heard of it before? Is it just because you're so damned much more clever than every Constitutional authority who has ever existed in this country, and have magically deciphered this provision that no one has ever applied before now?

Natural-born citizen means someone who is a citizen at their birth. If you want to insist on something else, get to answering the questions.

you sound an awful lot like Skylar, are you twins? this kind of forum is made for debate,....if all we had to do is go by law .....why have the forum at all?.....lets just find out what some erroneous courts have said and go by that.

Regardless Grayson, who is likely a lawyer himself and has ample access to legal opinion, presumably knows that more than one legal expert has said that presidential eligibility in this area has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court and is not open and shut.

the definition of words comes from usage. there are some legal "terms of art" within the Constitution but BORN isnt one of them, neither is NATURAL. And together their meaning is clear.

In fact, the term natural denotes that the courts and legislators can have no damn say in the matter at all.

Yeah, debate, which DOESN'T mean you ignore all questions while making demands on me. THAT would be an interrogation, Torquemada, and you can go fuck yourself.

Now stop dodging and answer the question, chickenshit, or just admit that you can't, and you're too afraid to try. That's what I'm going to assume anyway if you keep pretending it doesn't exist.

I answered the question you senile old hag.

A lie and ad hominem attack.

I accept your surrender. You can stop waving your white flag now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[
BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

One of the typical things Obama Birthers did was try to equate eligibility issues with his policies.

You are doing the same with Cruz.

I defend Cruz's eligiblity- as I defended Obama's- because Cruz is eligible.

There are two kinds of citizens according to the Constitution- natural born citizens and naturalized.

When was Cruz naturalized?

Like I said, DC thinks there's some amorphous third type of citizen, "naturalized by birth", that no one else have ever noticed before.

 

[dcraelin]

[
BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

One of the typical things Obama Birthers did was try to equate eligibility issues with his policies.

You are doing the same with Cruz.

I defend Cruz's eligiblity- as I defended Obama's- because Cruz is eligible.

There are two kinds of citizens according to the Constitution- natural born citizens and naturalized.

When was Cruz naturalized?

Congress can pass rules of naturalization, if it wants to say this happens automatically in certain situations then it can......it can certainly not say a person was naturally born. If it or the courts think they can they are mistaken.

 

[Syriusly]

[
BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

One of the typical things Obama Birthers did was try to equate eligibility issues with his policies.

You are doing the same with Cruz.

I defend Cruz's eligiblity- as I defended Obama's- because Cruz is eligible.

There are two kinds of citizens according to the Constitution- natural born citizens and naturalized.

When was Cruz naturalized?

Congress can pass rules of naturalization, if it wants to say this happens automatically in certain situations then it can......it can certainly not say a person was naturally born. If it or the courts think they can they are mistaken.

There are two kinds of citizens according to the Constitution- natural born citizens and naturalized.

When was Cruz naturalized?

 

[washamericom]

Citizenship in the United States, being a citizen, is a status that entails specific rights, duties and benefits.Citizenship is understood as a "right to have rights" since it serves as a foundation for a bundle of subsequent rights, such as the right to live and work in the United States and to receive federal assistance.[2]

There are two primary sources of citizenship: birthright citizenship, in which a person is presumed to be a citizen provided that they are born within the territorial limits of the United States, or other circumstances existing at the time of their birth (for example, citizenship of a parent),[3] and naturalization, a process in which an immigrant applies for citizenship and is accepted. These two pathways to citizenship are specified in the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution's 1868 Fourteenth Amendment which reads:

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.

National citizenship signifies membership in the country as a whole; state citizenship, in contrast, signifies a relation between a person and a particular state and has application generally limited to domestic matters. State citizenship may affect (1) tax decisions and (2) eligibility for some state-provided benefits such ashigher education and (3) eligibility for state political posts such as U.S. Senator.

In Article One of the Constitution, the power to establish a "uniform rule of naturalization" is granted explicitly to Congress.

U.S. law permits multiple citizenship. A citizen of another country naturalized as a U.S. citizen may retain their previous citizenship, though they must renounce allegiance to the other country. A U.S. citizen retains U.S. citizenship when becoming the citizen of another country, should that country's laws allow it. Citizenship can be renounced by American citizens who also hold another citizenship via a formal procedure at a U.S. Embassy,[4][5] and it can also be restored.[6]

Citizenship Status v. Tax Status


e=mc2

 

[washamericom]

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”


The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

Photo

A 1936 picture shows the future presidential candidate John McCain in the arms of his grandfather John Sidney McCain in the Canal Zone. His father, John Sidney McCain Jr., is at left. CreditMcCain Presidential Campaign, via Associated Press
“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.


Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.

In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”

 

[Faun]

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”


The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

Photo

A 1936 picture shows the future presidential candidate John McCain in the arms of his grandfather John Sidney McCain in the Canal Zone. His father, John Sidney McCain Jr., is at left. CreditMcCain Presidential Campaign, via Associated Press
“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.


Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
[iframe frameborder="0" src="SafeFrame Container" id="google_ads_iframe_/29390238/NYT/us/politics_15" name="1-0-2;31730;

if ('') { document.write(''); }
(function(){var g,h=this,aa=function(a,b,c){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},ba=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2b?1:0};var q=function(a){return Array.prototype.concat.apply(Array.prototype,arguments)},ca=function(a){var b=a.length;if(0parseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),D={},E=function(a){if(!D[a]){for(var b=0,c=n(String(A)).split("."),d=n(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f2*this.h&&L(this),!0):!1};var L=function(a){if(a.h!=a.i.length){for(var b=0,c=0;b=d.i.length)throw ka;var e=d.i[b++];return a?e:d.m[e]};return e};var M=function(a,b){return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,b)};var la=/^(?[^:/?#.]+)?(?:\/\/(?[^/?#]*)@)?([^/#?]*?)(?:[0-9]+))?(?=[/#?]|$))?([^?#]+)?(?:\?([^#]*))?(?:#(.*))?$/,ma=function(a,b){if(a)for(var c=a.split("&"),d=0;db)throw Error("Bad port number "+b);a.H=b}else a.H=null},sa=function(a,b,c){O(a);b instanceof Q?(a.o=b,a.o.N(a.l))c||(b=R(b,xa)),a.o=new Q(b,0,a.l))},O=function(a){if(a.Z)throw Error("Tried to modify a read-only Uri");};N.prototype.N=function(a){this.l=a;this.o&&this.o.N(a);return this};var P=function(a,b){return a?b?decodeURI(a.replace(/%25/g,"%2525")):decodeURIComponent(a):""},R=function(a,b,c){return"string"==typeof a?(a=encodeURI(a).replace(b,ya),c&&(a=a.replace(/%25([0-9a-fA-F]{2})/g,"%$1")),a):null},ya=function(a){a=a.charCodeAt(0);return"%"+(a>>4&15).toString(16)+(a&15).toString(16)},ta=/[#\/\?@]/g,va=/[\#\?:]/g,ua=/[\#\?]/g,xa=/[\#\?@]/g,wa=/#/g,Q=function(a,b,c){this.h=this.g=null;this.j=a||null;this.l=!!c},S=function(a){a.g||(a.g=new K,a.h=0,a.j&&ma(a.j,function(b,c){a.add(decodeURIComponent(b.replace(/\+/g," ")),c)}))};g=Q.prototype;g.add=function(a,b){S(this);this.j=null;a=T(this,a);var c=this.g.get(a);c||this.g.set(a,c=[]);c.push(b);this.h++;return this};g.remove=function(a){S(this);a=T(this,a);return this.g.A(a)?(this.j=null,this.h-=this.g.get(a).length,this.g.remove(a)):!1};g.A=function(a){S(this);a=T(this,a);return this.g.A(a)};g.B=function(){S(this);for(var a=this.g.v(),b=this.g.B(),c=[],d=0;d(function(){var h=this,aa=function(a){var b=typeof a;if("object"==b)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return"array";if(a instanceof Object)return b;var c=Object.prototype.toString.call(a);if("[object Window]"==c)return"object";if("[object Array]"==c||"number"==typeof a.length&&"undefined"!=typeof a.splice&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("splice"))return"array";if("[object Function]"==c||"undefined"!=typeof a.call&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("call"))return"function"}else return"null";else if("function"==b&&"undefined"==typeof a.call)return"object";return b},k=function(a){return"string"==typeof a},ba=function(a,b){var c=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1);return function(){var b=c.slice();b.push.apply(b,arguments);return a.apply(this,b)}},m=Date.now||function(){return+new Date},n=function(a,b){var c=a.split("."),d=h;c[0]in d||!d.execScript||d.execScript("var "+c[0]);for(var e;c.length&&(e=c.shift())c.length||void 0===b?d=d[e]?d[e]:d[e]={}:d[e]=b};var p=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(e)c=a+("&"+b+"="+c);else{var f="&"+b+"=",g=a.indexOf(f);0>g?c=a+f+cg+=f.length,f=a.indexOf("&",g),c=0<=f?a.substring(0,g)+c+a.substring(f):a.substring(0,g)+c)}return 2E3b?1:0};var qa=Array.prototype.indexOf?function(a,b,c){return Array.prototype.indexOf.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){c=null==c?0:0>c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(k(a))return k(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;cparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),Da={},A=function(a){var b;if(!(b=Da[a])){b=0;for(var c=oa(String(Ca)).split("."),d=oa(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&fe?c[1]="?":e==d.length-1&&(c[1]=void 0)}return c.join("")};var La=0,G={},Na=function(a){var b=G.imageLoadingEnabled;if(null!=b)a(b);else{var c=!1;Ma(function(b,e){delete G[e];c||(c=!0,null!=G.imageLoadingEnabled||(G.imageLoadingEnabled=b),a(b))})}},Ma=function(a){var b=new Image,c,d=""+La++;G[d]=b;b.onload=function(){clearTimeout(c);a(!0,d)};c=setTimeout(function(){a(!1,d)},300);b.src=""},Oa=function(a){if(a){var b=document.createElement("OBJECT");b.data=a;b.width=1;b.height=1;b.style.visibility="hidden";var c=""+La++;G[c]=b;b.onload=b.onerror=function(){delete G[c]};document.body.appendChild(b)}},Pa=function(a){if(a){var b=new Image,c=""+La++;G[c]=b;b.onload=b.onerror=function(){delete G[c]};b.src=a}},Qa=function(a){Na(function(b){b?Pa(a):Oa(a)})};var Ra={l:"ud=1",j:"ts=0",B:"sc=1",h:"gz=1",i:"op=1"};if(B&&B.URL){var ea=B.URL,Sa=!(ea&&0=b)){var d=0,e=function(){a();d++;db{try{if(c.google_osd_static_frame)return c}catch(d){}try{if(c.aswift_0&&(!a||c.aswift_0.google_osd_static_frame))return c.aswift_0}catch(d){}b++;c=c!=c.parent?c.parent:null}return null},Ya=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(10=e)){var f=Number(c[d].substr(0,e)),e=c[d].substr(e+1);switch(f){case 5:case 8:case 11:case 15:case 16:case 18:e="true"==e;break;case 4:case 7:case 6:case 14:case 20:case 21:case 22:case 23:e=Number(e);break;case 3:case 19:if("function"==aa(decodeURIComponent))try{e=decodeURIComponent(e)}catch(l){throw Error("Error: URI malformed: "+e);}break;case 17:e=ra(decodeURIComponent(e).split(","),Number)}b[f]=e}}b=b[0]?b:null}else b=null;if(b&&(c=new I(b[4],b[12]),K&&K.match(c))){for(c=0;cX&&!T&&2==Y&&Pb(q,"osd2","hs="+X)},Rb=function(){var a={};J(K,a);a[0]="goog_dom_content_loaded";var b=L(a);try{Ta(function(){Za(b)},10,"osd_listener::ldcl_int")}catch(c){}},Sb=function(){var a={};J(K,a);a[0]="goog_creative_loaded";var b=L(a);Ta(function(){Za(b)},10,"osd_listener::lcel_int");Eb=!0},Tb=function(a){if(k(a)){a=a.split("&");for(var b=a.length-1;0<=b;b--){var c=a,d=Ra;c==d.l?(kb=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.h?(W=1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.j?(T=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.i&&(lb=!0,a.splice(b,1))}Hb=a.join("&")}},Ub=function(){if(!Cb){var a=hb();a&&(Cb=!0,Db=a.tagName,a.complete||a.naturalWidth?Sb():H(a,"load",Sb,"osd_listener::creative_load"))}};n("osdlfm",F("osd_listener::init",function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,l,V){Q=a;zb=b;Ab=d;S=f;jb=V;g&&Tb(g);T=f;1==l?tb.push(947190538):2==l?tb.push(947190541):3==l&&tb.push(947190542);K=new I(e,ca());H(q,"load",Mb,"osd_listener::load");H(q,"message",Ob,"osd_listener::message");R=c||"";H(q,"unload",Qb,"osd_listener::unload");var u=q.document;!u.readyState||"complete"!=u.readyState&&"loaded"!=u.readyState?("msie"in Ha?Ha.msie:Ha.msie=-1!=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf("msie"))&&!window.opera?H(u,"readystatechange",function(){"complete"!=u.readyState&&"loaded"!=u.readyState||Rb()},"osd_listener::rsc"):H(u,"DOMContentLoaded",Rb,"osd_listener::dcl"):Rb();-1==Q?Y=f?3:1:-2==Q?Y=3:0{"uid":6,"hostPeerName":"Breaking News, World News & Multimedia","initialGeometry":"{\"windowCoords_t\":12,\"windowCoords_r\":1138,\"windowCoords_b\":696,\"windowCoords_l\":62,\"frameCoords_t\":2927,\"frameCoords_r\":1093.5,\"frameCoords_b\":3177,\"frameCoords_l\":793.5,\"styleZIndex\":\"auto\",\"allowedExpansion_t\":165,\"allowedExpansion_r\":73.5,\"allowedExpansion_b\":204,\"allowedExpansion_l\":793.5,\"xInView\":1,\"yInView\":1}","permissions":"{\"expandByOverlay\":false,\"expandByPush\":false,\"readCookie\":false,\"writeCookie\":false}","metadata":"{\"shared\":{\"sf_ver\":\"1-0-2\",\"ck_on\":1,\"flash_ver\":\"20.0.0\"}}","reportCreativeGeometry":false}" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="300" height="250" data-is-safeframe="true" >
At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.

In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”

What kind of country deploys its military to other parts in the world and then denies their kids' citizenship because they were born while their parents were employed in the service of their country?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”


The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

Photo

A 1936 picture shows the future presidential candidate John McCain in the arms of his grandfather John Sidney McCain in the Canal Zone. His father, John Sidney McCain Jr., is at left. CreditMcCain Presidential Campaign, via Associated Press
“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.


Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
[iframe frameborder="0" src="SafeFrame Container" id="google_ads_iframe_/29390238/NYT/us/politics_15" name="1-0-2;31730;

if ('') { document.write(''); }
(function(){var g,h=this,aa=function(a,b,c){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},ba=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2b?1:0};var q=function(a){return Array.prototype.concat.apply(Array.prototype,arguments)},ca=function(a){var b=a.length;if(0parseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),D={},E=function(a){if(!D[a]){for(var b=0,c=n(String(A)).split("."),d=n(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f2*this.h&&L(this),!0):!1};var L=function(a){if(a.h!=a.i.length){for(var b=0,c=0;b=d.i.length)throw ka;var e=d.i[b++];return a?e:d.m[e]};return e};var M=function(a,b){return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,b)};var la=/^(?[^:/?#.]+)?(?:\/\/(?[^/?#]*)@)?([^/#?]*?)(?:[0-9]+))?(?=[/#?]|$))?([^?#]+)?(?:\?([^#]*))?(?:#(.*))?$/,ma=function(a,b){if(a)for(var c=a.split("&"),d=0;db)throw Error("Bad port number "+b);a.H=b}else a.H=null},sa=function(a,b,c){O(a);b instanceof Q?(a.o=b,a.o.N(a.l))c||(b=R(b,xa)),a.o=new Q(b,0,a.l))},O=function(a){if(a.Z)throw Error("Tried to modify a read-only Uri");};N.prototype.N=function(a){this.l=a;this.o&&this.o.N(a);return this};var P=function(a,b){return a?b?decodeURI(a.replace(/%25/g,"%2525")):decodeURIComponent(a):""},R=function(a,b,c){return"string"==typeof a?(a=encodeURI(a).replace(b,ya),c&&(a=a.replace(/%25([0-9a-fA-F]{2})/g,"%$1")),a):null},ya=function(a){a=a.charCodeAt(0);return"%"+(a>>4&15).toString(16)+(a&15).toString(16)},ta=/[#\/\?@]/g,va=/[\#\?:]/g,ua=/[\#\?]/g,xa=/[\#\?@]/g,wa=/#/g,Q=function(a,b,c){this.h=this.g=null;this.j=a||null;this.l=!!c},S=function(a){a.g||(a.g=new K,a.h=0,a.j&&ma(a.j,function(b,c){a.add(decodeURIComponent(b.replace(/\+/g," ")),c)}))};g=Q.prototype;g.add=function(a,b){S(this);this.j=null;a=T(this,a);var c=this.g.get(a);c||this.g.set(a,c=[]);c.push(b);this.h++;return this};g.remove=function(a){S(this);a=T(this,a);return this.g.A(a)?(this.j=null,this.h-=this.g.get(a).length,this.g.remove(a)):!1};g.A=function(a){S(this);a=T(this,a);return this.g.A(a)};g.B=function(){S(this);for(var a=this.g.v(),b=this.g.B(),c=[],d=0;d(function(){var h=this,aa=function(a){var b=typeof a;if("object"==b)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return"array";if(a instanceof Object)return b;var c=Object.prototype.toString.call(a);if("[object Window]"==c)return"object";if("[object Array]"==c||"number"==typeof a.length&&"undefined"!=typeof a.splice&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("splice"))return"array";if("[object Function]"==c||"undefined"!=typeof a.call&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("call"))return"function"}else return"null";else if("function"==b&&"undefined"==typeof a.call)return"object";return b},k=function(a){return"string"==typeof a},ba=function(a,b){var c=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1);return function(){var b=c.slice();b.push.apply(b,arguments);return a.apply(this,b)}},m=Date.now||function(){return+new Date},n=function(a,b){var c=a.split("."),d=h;c[0]in d||!d.execScript||d.execScript("var "+c[0]);for(var e;c.length&&(e=c.shift())c.length||void 0===b?d=d[e]?d[e]:d[e]={}:d[e]=b};var p=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(e)c=a+("&"+b+"="+c);else{var f="&"+b+"=",g=a.indexOf(f);0>g?c=a+f+cg+=f.length,f=a.indexOf("&",g),c=0<=f?a.substring(0,g)+c+a.substring(f):a.substring(0,g)+c)}return 2E3b?1:0};var qa=Array.prototype.indexOf?function(a,b,c){return Array.prototype.indexOf.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){c=null==c?0:0>c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(k(a))return k(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;cparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),Da={},A=function(a){var b;if(!(b=Da[a])){b=0;for(var c=oa(String(Ca)).split("."),d=oa(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&fe?c[1]="?":e==d.length-1&&(c[1]=void 0)}return c.join("")};var La=0,G={},Na=function(a){var b=G.imageLoadingEnabled;if(null!=b)a(b);else{var c=!1;Ma(function(b,e){delete G[e];c||(c=!0,null!=G.imageLoadingEnabled||(G.imageLoadingEnabled=b),a(b))})}},Ma=function(a){var b=new Image,c,d=""+La++;G[d]=b;b.onload=function(){clearTimeout(c);a(!0,d)};c=setTimeout(function(){a(!1,d)},300);b.src=""},Oa=function(a){if(a){var b=document.createElement("OBJECT");b.data=a;b.width=1;b.height=1;b.style.visibility="hidden";var c=""+La++;G[c]=b;b.onload=b.onerror=function(){delete G[c]};document.body.appendChild(b)}},Pa=function(a){if(a){var b=new Image,c=""+La++;G[c]=b;b.onload=b.onerror=function(){delete G[c]};b.src=a}},Qa=function(a){Na(function(b){b?Pa(a):Oa(a)})};var Ra={l:"ud=1",j:"ts=0",B:"sc=1",h:"gz=1",i:"op=1"};if(B&&B.URL){var ea=B.URL,Sa=!(ea&&0=b)){var d=0,e=function(){a();d++;db{try{if(c.google_osd_static_frame)return c}catch(d){}try{if(c.aswift_0&&(!a||c.aswift_0.google_osd_static_frame))return c.aswift_0}catch(d){}b++;c=c!=c.parent?c.parent:null}return null},Ya=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(10=e)){var f=Number(c[d].substr(0,e)),e=c[d].substr(e+1);switch(f){case 5:case 8:case 11:case 15:case 16:case 18:e="true"==e;break;case 4:case 7:case 6:case 14:case 20:case 21:case 22:case 23:e=Number(e);break;case 3:case 19:if("function"==aa(decodeURIComponent))try{e=decodeURIComponent(e)}catch(l){throw Error("Error: URI malformed: "+e);}break;case 17:e=ra(decodeURIComponent(e).split(","),Number)}b[f]=e}}b=b[0]?b:null}else b=null;if(b&&(c=new I(b[4],b[12]),K&&K.match(c))){for(c=0;cX&&!T&&2==Y&&Pb(q,"osd2","hs="+X)},Rb=function(){var a={};J(K,a);a[0]="goog_dom_content_loaded";var b=L(a);try{Ta(function(){Za(b)},10,"osd_listener::ldcl_int")}catch(c){}},Sb=function(){var a={};J(K,a);a[0]="goog_creative_loaded";var b=L(a);Ta(function(){Za(b)},10,"osd_listener::lcel_int");Eb=!0},Tb=function(a){if(k(a)){a=a.split("&");for(var b=a.length-1;0<=b;b--){var c=a,d=Ra;c==d.l?(kb=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.h?(W=1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.j?(T=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.i&&(lb=!0,a.splice(b,1))}Hb=a.join("&")}},Ub=function(){if(!Cb){var a=hb();a&&(Cb=!0,Db=a.tagName,a.complete||a.naturalWidth?Sb():H(a,"load",Sb,"osd_listener::creative_load"))}};n("osdlfm",F("osd_listener::init",function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,l,V){Q=a;zb=b;Ab=d;S=f;jb=V;g&&Tb(g);T=f;1==l?tb.push(947190538):2==l?tb.push(947190541):3==l&&tb.push(947190542);K=new I(e,ca());H(q,"load",Mb,"osd_listener::load");H(q,"message",Ob,"osd_listener::message");R=c||"";H(q,"unload",Qb,"osd_listener::unload");var u=q.document;!u.readyState||"complete"!=u.readyState&&"loaded"!=u.readyState?("msie"in Ha?Ha.msie:Ha.msie=-1!=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf("msie"))&&!window.opera?H(u,"readystatechange",function(){"complete"!=u.readyState&&"loaded"!=u.readyState||Rb()},"osd_listener::rsc"):H(u,"DOMContentLoaded",Rb,"osd_listener::dcl"):Rb();-1==Q?Y=f?3:1:-2==Q?Y=3:0{"uid":6,"hostPeerName":"Breaking News, World News & Multimedia","initialGeometry":"{\"windowCoords_t\":12,\"windowCoords_r\":1138,\"windowCoords_b\":696,\"windowCoords_l\":62,\"frameCoords_t\":2927,\"frameCoords_r\":1093.5,\"frameCoords_b\":3177,\"frameCoords_l\":793.5,\"styleZIndex\":\"auto\",\"allowedExpansion_t\":165,\"allowedExpansion_r\":73.5,\"allowedExpansion_b\":204,\"allowedExpansion_l\":793.5,\"xInView\":1,\"yInView\":1}","permissions":"{\"expandByOverlay\":false,\"expandByPush\":false,\"readCookie\":false,\"writeCookie\":false}","metadata":"{\"shared\":{\"sf_ver\":\"1-0-2\",\"ck_on\":1,\"flash_ver\":\"20.0.0\"}}","reportCreativeGeometry":false}" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="300" height="250" data-is-safeframe="true" >
At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.

In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”

What kind of country deploys its military to other parts in the world and then denies their kids' citizenship because they were born while their parents were employed in the service of their country?

Well, lots of pissant third-world-type countries have policies that can lead to that. We don't, though. The fact that one can find an ivory tower halfwit on the Internet who'll gabble on about it is irrelevant. You can find fools in colleges who'll say anything.

 

[washamericom]

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”


The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

Photo

A 1936 picture shows the future presidential candidate John McCain in the arms of his grandfather John Sidney McCain in the Canal Zone. His father, John Sidney McCain Jr., is at left. CreditMcCain Presidential Campaign, via Associated Press
“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.


Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
[iframe frameborder="0" src="SafeFrame Container" id="google_ads_iframe_/29390238/NYT/us/politics_15" name="1-0-2;31730;

if ('') { document.write(''); }
(function(){var g,h=this,aa=function(a,b,c){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},ba=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2b?1:0};var q=function(a){return Array.prototype.concat.apply(Array.prototype,arguments)},ca=function(a){var b=a.length;if(0parseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),D={},E=function(a){if(!D[a]){for(var b=0,c=n(String(A)).split("."),d=n(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f2*this.h&&L(this),!0):!1};var L=function(a){if(a.h!=a.i.length){for(var b=0,c=0;b=d.i.length)throw ka;var e=d.i[b++];return a?e:d.m[e]};return e};var M=function(a,b){return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,b)};var la=/^(?[^:/?#.]+)?(?:\/\/(?[^/?#]*)@)?([^/#?]*?)(?:[0-9]+))?(?=[/#?]|$))?([^?#]+)?(?:\?([^#]*))?(?:#(.*))?$/,ma=function(a,b){if(a)for(var c=a.split("&"),d=0;db)throw Error("Bad port number "+b);a.H=b}else a.H=null},sa=function(a,b,c){O(a);b instanceof Q?(a.o=b,a.o.N(a.l))c||(b=R(b,xa)),a.o=new Q(b,0,a.l))},O=function(a){if(a.Z)throw Error("Tried to modify a read-only Uri");};N.prototype.N=function(a){this.l=a;this.o&&this.o.N(a);return this};var P=function(a,b){return a?b?decodeURI(a.replace(/%25/g,"%2525")):decodeURIComponent(a):""},R=function(a,b,c){return"string"==typeof a?(a=encodeURI(a).replace(b,ya),c&&(a=a.replace(/%25([0-9a-fA-F]{2})/g,"%$1")),a):null},ya=function(a){a=a.charCodeAt(0);return"%"+(a>>4&15).toString(16)+(a&15).toString(16)},ta=/[#\/\?@]/g,va=/[\#\?:]/g,ua=/[\#\?]/g,xa=/[\#\?@]/g,wa=/#/g,Q=function(a,b,c){this.h=this.g=null;this.j=a||null;this.l=!!c},S=function(a){a.g||(a.g=new K,a.h=0,a.j&&ma(a.j,function(b,c){a.add(decodeURIComponent(b.replace(/\+/g," ")),c)}))};g=Q.prototype;g.add=function(a,b){S(this);this.j=null;a=T(this,a);var c=this.g.get(a);c||this.g.set(a,c=[]);c.push(b);this.h++;return this};g.remove=function(a){S(this);a=T(this,a);return this.g.A(a)?(this.j=null,this.h-=this.g.get(a).length,this.g.remove(a)):!1};g.A=function(a){S(this);a=T(this,a);return this.g.A(a)};g.B=function(){S(this);for(var a=this.g.v(),b=this.g.B(),c=[],d=0;d(function(){var h=this,aa=function(a){var b=typeof a;if("object"==b)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return"array";if(a instanceof Object)return b;var c=Object.prototype.toString.call(a);if("[object Window]"==c)return"object";if("[object Array]"==c||"number"==typeof a.length&&"undefined"!=typeof a.splice&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("splice"))return"array";if("[object Function]"==c||"undefined"!=typeof a.call&&"undefined"!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable("call"))return"function"}else return"null";else if("function"==b&&"undefined"==typeof a.call)return"object";return b},k=function(a){return"string"==typeof a},ba=function(a,b){var c=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1);return function(){var b=c.slice();b.push.apply(b,arguments);return a.apply(this,b)}},m=Date.now||function(){return+new Date},n=function(a,b){var c=a.split("."),d=h;c[0]in d||!d.execScript||d.execScript("var "+c[0]);for(var e;c.length&&(e=c.shift())c.length||void 0===b?d=d[e]?d[e]:d[e]={}:d[e]=b};var p=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(e)c=a+("&"+b+"="+c);else{var f="&"+b+"=",g=a.indexOf(f);0>g?c=a+f+cg+=f.length,f=a.indexOf("&",g),c=0<=f?a.substring(0,g)+c+a.substring(f):a.substring(0,g)+c)}return 2E3b?1:0};var qa=Array.prototype.indexOf?function(a,b,c){return Array.prototype.indexOf.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){c=null==c?0:0>c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(k(a))return k(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;cparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),Da={},A=function(a){var b;if(!(b=Da[a])){b=0;for(var c=oa(String(Ca)).split("."),d=oa(String(a)).split("."),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&fe?c[1]="?":e==d.length-1&&(c[1]=void 0)}return c.join("")};var La=0,G={},Na=function(a){var b=G.imageLoadingEnabled;if(null!=b)a(b);else{var c=!1;Ma(function(b,e){delete G[e];c||(c=!0,null!=G.imageLoadingEnabled||(G.imageLoadingEnabled=b),a(b))})}},Ma=function(a){var b=new Image,c,d=""+La++;G[d]=b;b.onload=function(){clearTimeout(c);a(!0,d)};c=setTimeout(function(){a(!1,d)},300);b.src=""},Oa=function(a){if(a){var b=document.createElement("OBJECT");b.data=a;b.width=1;b.height=1;b.style.visibility="hidden";var c=""+La++;G[c]=b;b.onload=b.onerror=function(){delete G[c]};document.body.appendChild(b)}},Pa=function(a){if(a){var b=new Image,c=""+La++;G[c]=b;b.onload=b.onerror=function(){delete G[c]};b.src=a}},Qa=function(a){Na(function(b){b?Pa(a):Oa(a)})};var Ra={l:"ud=1",j:"ts=0",B:"sc=1",h:"gz=1",i:"op=1"};if(B&&B.URL){var ea=B.URL,Sa=!(ea&&0=b)){var d=0,e=function(){a();d++;db{try{if(c.google_osd_static_frame)return c}catch(d){}try{if(c.aswift_0&&(!a||c.aswift_0.google_osd_static_frame))return c.aswift_0}catch(d){}b++;c=c!=c.parent?c.parent:null}return null},Ya=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(10=e)){var f=Number(c[d].substr(0,e)),e=c[d].substr(e+1);switch(f){case 5:case 8:case 11:case 15:case 16:case 18:e="true"==e;break;case 4:case 7:case 6:case 14:case 20:case 21:case 22:case 23:e=Number(e);break;case 3:case 19:if("function"==aa(decodeURIComponent))try{e=decodeURIComponent(e)}catch(l){throw Error("Error: URI malformed: "+e);}break;case 17:e=ra(decodeURIComponent(e).split(","),Number)}b[f]=e}}b=b[0]?b:null}else b=null;if(b&&(c=new I(b[4],b[12]),K&&K.match(c))){for(c=0;cX&&!T&&2==Y&&Pb(q,"osd2","hs="+X)},Rb=function(){var a={};J(K,a);a[0]="goog_dom_content_loaded";var b=L(a);try{Ta(function(){Za(b)},10,"osd_listener::ldcl_int")}catch(c){}},Sb=function(){var a={};J(K,a);a[0]="goog_creative_loaded";var b=L(a);Ta(function(){Za(b)},10,"osd_listener::lcel_int");Eb=!0},Tb=function(a){if(k(a)){a=a.split("&");for(var b=a.length-1;0<=b;b--){var c=a,d=Ra;c==d.l?(kb=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.h?(W=1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.j?(T=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.i&&(lb=!0,a.splice(b,1))}Hb=a.join("&")}},Ub=function(){if(!Cb){var a=hb();a&&(Cb=!0,Db=a.tagName,a.complete||a.naturalWidth?Sb():H(a,"load",Sb,"osd_listener::creative_load"))}};n("osdlfm",F("osd_listener::init",function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,l,V){Q=a;zb=b;Ab=d;S=f;jb=V;g&&Tb(g);T=f;1==l?tb.push(947190538):2==l?tb.push(947190541):3==l&&tb.push(947190542);K=new I(e,ca());H(q,"load",Mb,"osd_listener::load");H(q,"message",Ob,"osd_listener::message");R=c||"";H(q,"unload",Qb,"osd_listener::unload");var u=q.document;!u.readyState||"complete"!=u.readyState&&"loaded"!=u.readyState?("msie"in Ha?Ha.msie:Ha.msie=-1!=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf("msie"))&&!window.opera?H(u,"readystatechange",function(){"complete"!=u.readyState&&"loaded"!=u.readyState||Rb()},"osd_listener::rsc"):H(u,"DOMContentLoaded",Rb,"osd_listener::dcl"):Rb();-1==Q?Y=f?3:1:-2==Q?Y=3:0{"uid":6,"hostPeerName":"Breaking News, World News & Multimedia","initialGeometry":"{\"windowCoords_t\":12,\"windowCoords_r\":1138,\"windowCoords_b\":696,\"windowCoords_l\":62,\"frameCoords_t\":2927,\"frameCoords_r\":1093.5,\"frameCoords_b\":3177,\"frameCoords_l\":793.5,\"styleZIndex\":\"auto\",\"allowedExpansion_t\":165,\"allowedExpansion_r\":73.5,\"allowedExpansion_b\":204,\"allowedExpansion_l\":793.5,\"xInView\":1,\"yInView\":1}","permissions":"{\"expandByOverlay\":false,\"expandByPush\":false,\"readCookie\":false,\"writeCookie\":false}","metadata":"{\"shared\":{\"sf_ver\":\"1-0-2\",\"ck_on\":1,\"flash_ver\":\"20.0.0\"}}","reportCreativeGeometry":false}" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="300" height="250" data-is-safeframe="true" >
At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.

In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”

What kind of country deploys its military to other parts in the world and then denies their kids' citizenship because they were born while their parents were employed in the service of their country?

the kind that allows usurpers apparently. will get it fixed.

 

[dcraelin]

[
BTW the man your defending is using some creepy psychological data mining group in his campaign. Data mined largely from unsuspecting Facebook users.

Ted Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

One of the typical things Obama Birthers did was try to equate eligibility issues with his policies.

You are doing the same with Cruz.

I defend Cruz's eligiblity- as I defended Obama's- because Cruz is eligible.

There are two kinds of citizens according to the Constitution- natural born citizens and naturalized.

When was Cruz naturalized?

Congress can pass rules of naturalization, if it wants to say this happens automatically in certain situations then it can......it can certainly not say a person was naturally born. If it or the courts think they can they are mistaken.

There are two kinds of citizens according to the Constitution- natural born citizens and naturalized.

When was Cruz naturalized?

sigh, same answer I gave above.