NATURALIZED IS NOT NATURAL-BORN
McCAIN CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT
It has been apparent from the replies to “IS JOHN McCAIN AN ILLEGAL ALIEN? Or Just A Naturalized Citizen?” that the Naturalization Act of 1790 is where most people stop their research into this crucial topic. This was even the case in 1998 Washington Post article titled “Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?”
Columnist Ken Rudin cited the Act of 1790 and made no reference to the Act of 1795. The relevant excerpt from that opinion piece is below:
Some might define the term "natural-born citizen" as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John's birth in 1936.
"He meets the requirement of U.S. citizenship in order to be eligible for president," said McCain spokesperson Nancy Ives. (For the record, McCain says the only thing on his plate is his bid for a third Senate term in November, though he is seen as a shoo-in.) ...
Here again is the citation at issue from the Naturalization Act of 1790:
"... And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:"
Here is the portion of the Naturalization Act of 1795 that repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790:
… 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.
The State of California is no different than any other state in the republic. Its requirements for a valid candidate for the Democratic Party are the same as the Republican Party.
Information Sheet of Qualifications and Requirements
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
MARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
The candidate must:
A. Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
B. Be at least 35 years of age, and
C. Be a resident of the United States at least 14 years.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1Clause (5)
John Jay in a letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787 wrote the following concerning natural-born citizenship being a requirement for the office of the President and Commander in Chief.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
Being born to US parents in Puerto Rico or Guam or in any foreign US military base (locations that are not within the fifty states) establishes automatic naturalized citizenship but not natural-born citizenship. Wake Island is not Alabama or Texas.
The serious and potentially criminal reasons for eliminating John McCain from ever being elected president are well covered here by ex-Navy, nuclear submarine officer Patrick Briley in MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO STOP McCAIN.
Disqualifying John McCain on clear constitutional grounds eliminates any basis of being accused of personal attacks. It is a clean and sterile means for removing him from consideration for the highest office in the land.
Who should bring this information to the public and the courts seeking his removal from the primary process? The self acclaimed - Defender of the Constitution - Ron Paul should be among that movement’s leaders. The following email was sent to two members of the Ron Paul legal team. There has been no response to date from Fein or Dye.
To: Bruce Fein and Alan Dye
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:05:30 AM
Subject: Re: IS JOHN McCAIN AN ILLEGAL ALIEN?
Gentlemen and members of the Ron Paul legal team,
The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared that the children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born citizens". That was in conflict with reality and the Article 2, Section 1 Clause 5 language as well. A simple declaration by a government cannot change the fact of the physical location of your birth. A simple declaration or Act of Congress cannot modify the Constitution. The error in language was addressed and corrected in the Naturalization Act of 1795, which at the very end states that it replaces the 1790 act. The 1790 act was not modified but replaced. All of this is quoted in my below article.
The root of the natural birth requirement was that the States formed the federal government and they required that a person must be physically born in one of the states. Simply being born on US territory or commonwealth property overseas does not qualify you as being natural born. This is also a related source/reason for the Electoral College. The States elect the executive and not the people because we do not have a democracy but a republic. The two are not the same but are antithetical.
My ex-wife was born overseas to an Air force officer and his wife, both citizens. She was taught as was everyone else and they knew/know that if you are born overseas and not physically within a state, then the only limitation to your citizenship (it is automatically naturalized) is that you cannot be president. You can run for Senate or the House or be a judge but not President.
Unless and until the Constitution is changed with an Article V process that is still the law.
One cannot un-know what you know. Facts and actions have consequences.
Few people really try to understand the meaning and effect of words. Attorneys are supposed to. John McCain is irrefutably disqualified by his place of birth from being president. Will you and Ron Paul act to protect and defend the Constitution or is he, his legal staff and his campaign simply an exercise in words with no substance?
The responsibility for derailing the McCain candidacy rests not only with Ron Paul but with the Constitution Party too. No doubt the CP has attorneys as members or on staff as consultants. Will the CP file the necessary federal lawsuits to unseat John McCain? If not then on what basis can it continue claiming the "Constitution" in its name?
If action is not taken now before McCain’s coronation by the GOP, then consider this Doomsday Scenario. It is October of 2008 and Hillary (with all her scandals having been dredged up) or Obama (with his Marxist policies having been fully explained) are clearly trailing McCain in the polls. The Democrat Party, desperate for the White House and still smarting from being hosed in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, loads up all its attorney bigwigs and files federal lawsuits claiming that John McCain is disqualified on constitutional grounds. Accelerated consideration takes it straight to the Supreme Court. The Democrats win the lawsuit because natural-born means having been physically born in one of the states. Hillary or Obama win the November 2008 Presidential election by default.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.