scandinaviany3
03-05-2008, 04:05 PM
everyone...why dont we fund raise to challenge mccains eligibility.
I know this has been circulated a couple of times.
But the arguements are not weak and there is nothing to loose and everything to gain.
for instance i was sent these challenges and links amongst so many logical other ones:
1) no ex post facto laws--big problem for all retroactive actions that were done to give even naturalized citizenship. This would mean the last act before his birth would define his only chance to be a natural born citizen without a constitutional amendment.
2) laws in place used terms declared--used always for naturalization not citizen at birth
3) The canal zone has numerous times in history been called not a possession of the US and ruled this way in the courts. This possession term, ability to buy or sell this property, was not by treaty given the US. So the US could not exercise sovereignty as was always the key need of the common law to define for sovereigns to give their citizens natural born status in the common law.
4) Cant find any case against goldwater, rather there has been cases dealing with citizenship. Typically mccain mixing lie he does to confuse people and get them off his tale. If someone can show me the case law i will edit this but no luck so far.
5) Military children born after the naturalization act of 1940 and until the act of 1952 had citizenship expressly challenged in panama and require them to be naturalized..thus the act exists in 1952. Remember mccain is born in 1936 before the 1940 act. He must base his citizenship on the laws present prior to his birth, which would make him naturalized by the act of 1934. Thus unable to run for president.
Again we must go over only:
1) the constitution
2) the framers intent
3) the statutes in force before he was born, not retroactively other than to show believed intent of his status.
4) other groups rights of similar issue that were, or were not given, this privilege. He can not have a special privilege denied of others.
5) no ex post facto laws. previously only during the windows of statute ruling was even citizenship defined or repealed by terms. 1790 act on shows this to be the case. Many times people fell between the cracks and would have to be naturalized given the in and out dangers of citizenship defined by statute. Quite a mess to have ones citizenship be defined by statute and not the US constitution. So on the same leaning then one can tie natural born citizenship. Any challenge to the definition of the term would not muster constitutional status and could not be challenged by statute.
Items that seem paramount for natural born status:
1) born in the US...ie the states or possessions(owned property) where allegiance is given...holds no water to a natural born citizenship being given to mccain with his panama canal zone birth.
2) statute definitions of natural born could be created, but only under a constitutional amendment given past case law these statutes would be by precedence ruled unconstitutional.
3) the spirit of the law referencing john jay feared people born in a different country where they have some allegiance or tie to that would put the interests of that group or country ahead of the US. McCains tie to immigration from mexico and latin america seriously call the purpose of this challenge to the forefront and can not be ignored.
Notes to review:
interesting read here on the courts already ruling...
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...confusion.html
page content if link is not revived:
Natural born confusion
US elections 2008: John McCain's eligibility to be president hinges on an antiquated rule that should be stripped from the constitution
By Lawrence Friedman
John McCain may have to overcome more than the misgivings of conservatives or the challenge of defeating the Democratic candidate before he can claim the presidency. Lurking in the US constitution is a different type of threat to the prospects of the likely GOP nominee: the requirement that "no person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of president".
If, as many scholars believe, that language means that the president has to have been born in the US, McCain has a problem. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father served in the navy. Whether or not McCain is disqualified, his candidacy is an opportunity for a critical look at this antiquated rule, and can perhaps be the incentive to get rid of it once and for all.
The "natural born citizen" standard is unique to the presidency. Every other federal official can be foreign born. Historians speculate that John Jay added the phrase to the constitution to prevent the Prussian Baron von Steuben from being president. The provision was not discussed by the drafters of the constitution, is not defined anywhere and has never been interpreted by any court. It has, however, cast a shadow over many candidates, including Mitt Romney's father, Michigan governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico and was a leading GOP contender in 1968 until he said he was "brainwashed" about the Vietnam war.
Children born overseas to American parents, like McCain, are citizens at birth under federal law. Congress is free to pass (or not pass) a law to define citizenship in this way, but a congressional statute cannot override a constitutional requirement regarding eligibility for office. So it remains an open question whether the foreign-born offspring of US citizens meet the constitutional test for being "natural born". The possible answers touch on two experiences that shaped American history: immigration and its perverse doppelganger, slavery.
The fourteenth amendment was added to the constitution after the civil war to grant citizenship to "persons born or naturalised in the United States". This language was intended to overturn the supreme court's pre-civil war Dred Scott decision and make clear that former slaves were citizens. But the wording of the fourteenth amendment had the unintended consequence of conferring citizenship on any child born on US territory, even if the child's parents are here illegally and can never be citizens themselves. America is still grappling with the human results of that definition of citizenship at birth.
The fourteenth amendment's language about automatic citizenship for persons "born ... in the United States" created another issue: are people born in overseas US possessions (like the Panama Canal Zone, or the Philippines before 1946) American citizens at birth?
The courts have ruled that only those born in one of the states, and not in outlying territories, are "born in the United States" for purposes of the fourteenth amendment. If that principle were applied to the "natural born citizen" requirement, McCain's Canal Zone birthplace would disqualify him.
Other arguments support McCain's eligibility to be president. Some are technical (the fourteenth amendment impliedly repealed the "natural born citizen" rule) and others are historical (the drafters of the constitution understood that children of American citizens born overseas were citizens).
The bottom line is that no one really knows what "natural born citizen" means, and the supreme court would have the final say. Justices who were willing to pick the winner of the 2000 election (albeit by a 5-4 vote) likely would not stand in the way of a McCain inaugural. But whatever happens with McCain, we must decide whether 18th-century concerns about Baron von Steuben should continue to dictate presidential eligibility in 21st-century America, and whether we should continue to send an unmistakable message of exclusion to tens of millions of naturalised Americans.
Immigration is a bitterly divisive issue today. But both parties (and independents) should find common ground and agree that it no longer makes sense to bar naturalised citizens like Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California (born in Austria) or Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan (born in Canada) from the presidency. We are about to make history with the first major party female or African-American nominee. It is an especially good time to rid ourselves of another anachronism, and remove the "natural born citizen" requirement from our constitution.
Lawrence Friedman is an attorney and writer in St Louis, Missouri. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. From 1984-1986, he worked for the US department of justice’s commission of organised crime and since 1986 has been in private practice at Thompson Coburn LLP.
a few years after mccain was born about the 1940 act of naturalization:
The complications of citizenship:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OdZu2TNnqWEC&dq=the+nationality+act+of+1934&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
interesting read on arguements about military was talked about as an issue for naturalization being necessary.
http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00107800591.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZD.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=OdZ...hl=en#PPA27,M1
page 27 of the outlying possessions clearly states that panama canal zone was not considered such a possession. This would nullify natural born citizenship opportunity.
1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.
"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."
Again this statute declares his citizenship and does not say he is a citizen by birth or a natural born citizen
I know this has been circulated a couple of times.
But the arguements are not weak and there is nothing to loose and everything to gain.
for instance i was sent these challenges and links amongst so many logical other ones:
1) no ex post facto laws--big problem for all retroactive actions that were done to give even naturalized citizenship. This would mean the last act before his birth would define his only chance to be a natural born citizen without a constitutional amendment.
2) laws in place used terms declared--used always for naturalization not citizen at birth
3) The canal zone has numerous times in history been called not a possession of the US and ruled this way in the courts. This possession term, ability to buy or sell this property, was not by treaty given the US. So the US could not exercise sovereignty as was always the key need of the common law to define for sovereigns to give their citizens natural born status in the common law.
4) Cant find any case against goldwater, rather there has been cases dealing with citizenship. Typically mccain mixing lie he does to confuse people and get them off his tale. If someone can show me the case law i will edit this but no luck so far.
5) Military children born after the naturalization act of 1940 and until the act of 1952 had citizenship expressly challenged in panama and require them to be naturalized..thus the act exists in 1952. Remember mccain is born in 1936 before the 1940 act. He must base his citizenship on the laws present prior to his birth, which would make him naturalized by the act of 1934. Thus unable to run for president.
Again we must go over only:
1) the constitution
2) the framers intent
3) the statutes in force before he was born, not retroactively other than to show believed intent of his status.
4) other groups rights of similar issue that were, or were not given, this privilege. He can not have a special privilege denied of others.
5) no ex post facto laws. previously only during the windows of statute ruling was even citizenship defined or repealed by terms. 1790 act on shows this to be the case. Many times people fell between the cracks and would have to be naturalized given the in and out dangers of citizenship defined by statute. Quite a mess to have ones citizenship be defined by statute and not the US constitution. So on the same leaning then one can tie natural born citizenship. Any challenge to the definition of the term would not muster constitutional status and could not be challenged by statute.
Items that seem paramount for natural born status:
1) born in the US...ie the states or possessions(owned property) where allegiance is given...holds no water to a natural born citizenship being given to mccain with his panama canal zone birth.
2) statute definitions of natural born could be created, but only under a constitutional amendment given past case law these statutes would be by precedence ruled unconstitutional.
3) the spirit of the law referencing john jay feared people born in a different country where they have some allegiance or tie to that would put the interests of that group or country ahead of the US. McCains tie to immigration from mexico and latin america seriously call the purpose of this challenge to the forefront and can not be ignored.
Notes to review:
interesting read here on the courts already ruling...
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...confusion.html
page content if link is not revived:
Natural born confusion
US elections 2008: John McCain's eligibility to be president hinges on an antiquated rule that should be stripped from the constitution
By Lawrence Friedman
John McCain may have to overcome more than the misgivings of conservatives or the challenge of defeating the Democratic candidate before he can claim the presidency. Lurking in the US constitution is a different type of threat to the prospects of the likely GOP nominee: the requirement that "no person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of president".
If, as many scholars believe, that language means that the president has to have been born in the US, McCain has a problem. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father served in the navy. Whether or not McCain is disqualified, his candidacy is an opportunity for a critical look at this antiquated rule, and can perhaps be the incentive to get rid of it once and for all.
The "natural born citizen" standard is unique to the presidency. Every other federal official can be foreign born. Historians speculate that John Jay added the phrase to the constitution to prevent the Prussian Baron von Steuben from being president. The provision was not discussed by the drafters of the constitution, is not defined anywhere and has never been interpreted by any court. It has, however, cast a shadow over many candidates, including Mitt Romney's father, Michigan governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico and was a leading GOP contender in 1968 until he said he was "brainwashed" about the Vietnam war.
Children born overseas to American parents, like McCain, are citizens at birth under federal law. Congress is free to pass (or not pass) a law to define citizenship in this way, but a congressional statute cannot override a constitutional requirement regarding eligibility for office. So it remains an open question whether the foreign-born offspring of US citizens meet the constitutional test for being "natural born". The possible answers touch on two experiences that shaped American history: immigration and its perverse doppelganger, slavery.
The fourteenth amendment was added to the constitution after the civil war to grant citizenship to "persons born or naturalised in the United States". This language was intended to overturn the supreme court's pre-civil war Dred Scott decision and make clear that former slaves were citizens. But the wording of the fourteenth amendment had the unintended consequence of conferring citizenship on any child born on US territory, even if the child's parents are here illegally and can never be citizens themselves. America is still grappling with the human results of that definition of citizenship at birth.
The fourteenth amendment's language about automatic citizenship for persons "born ... in the United States" created another issue: are people born in overseas US possessions (like the Panama Canal Zone, or the Philippines before 1946) American citizens at birth?
The courts have ruled that only those born in one of the states, and not in outlying territories, are "born in the United States" for purposes of the fourteenth amendment. If that principle were applied to the "natural born citizen" requirement, McCain's Canal Zone birthplace would disqualify him.
Other arguments support McCain's eligibility to be president. Some are technical (the fourteenth amendment impliedly repealed the "natural born citizen" rule) and others are historical (the drafters of the constitution understood that children of American citizens born overseas were citizens).
The bottom line is that no one really knows what "natural born citizen" means, and the supreme court would have the final say. Justices who were willing to pick the winner of the 2000 election (albeit by a 5-4 vote) likely would not stand in the way of a McCain inaugural. But whatever happens with McCain, we must decide whether 18th-century concerns about Baron von Steuben should continue to dictate presidential eligibility in 21st-century America, and whether we should continue to send an unmistakable message of exclusion to tens of millions of naturalised Americans.
Immigration is a bitterly divisive issue today. But both parties (and independents) should find common ground and agree that it no longer makes sense to bar naturalised citizens like Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California (born in Austria) or Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan (born in Canada) from the presidency. We are about to make history with the first major party female or African-American nominee. It is an especially good time to rid ourselves of another anachronism, and remove the "natural born citizen" requirement from our constitution.
Lawrence Friedman is an attorney and writer in St Louis, Missouri. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. From 1984-1986, he worked for the US department of justice’s commission of organised crime and since 1986 has been in private practice at Thompson Coburn LLP.
a few years after mccain was born about the 1940 act of naturalization:
The complications of citizenship:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OdZu2TNnqWEC&dq=the+nationality+act+of+1934&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
interesting read on arguements about military was talked about as an issue for naturalization being necessary.
http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00107800591.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZD.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=OdZ...hl=en#PPA27,M1
page 27 of the outlying possessions clearly states that panama canal zone was not considered such a possession. This would nullify natural born citizenship opportunity.
1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.
"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."
Again this statute declares his citizenship and does not say he is a citizen by birth or a natural born citizen