In Reply to: Re: I see posted by Mr. Don on September 02, 2008 at 17:46:26:
Here's an answer I saw on the Freedom Board answering my question, do you agree? So THERE WAS a problem, but has Bush passes laws against Constitution rights today, in 1953 and afterwards, they easily changed the laws to have McCain possibly be US President in years to come. It was easy thing to ask from McCain's father to his White House friends as he was admiral. Here's what Colonel said about that on the Freedom Board:
FREEDOM BOARD (free board where rebels, pacifist activists are welcome)
[ FREEDOM BOARD | Search | Edit Post | FREEDOM BOARD ]
Natural Born Citizen
Posted on 2/9/2008 at 21:46:35 by Colonel
The video quotes the U.S. Constitution perfectly. Then it says, "In my opinion"... - and there's the rub.
The founding fathers never defined what is a "natural born citizen". Everyone has their opinion upon it. Eventually it will take a U.S. Supreme Court decision to finally lay that argument to rest. In the meantime, McCain has this going for his side:
1. He was born of parents who were citizens of the USA.
2. He was born in a territory controlled by the USA.
3. He was born in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station there.
The U.S. Congress recognized potential problems and passed the legislation below:
In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship. Title 8, Section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. This differs from the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment which grants citizenship to all born in the United States, regardless of parental nationality.
In addition, the U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution in May 2008 declaring John McCain to be a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States.
With so many U.S. citizens working abroad for the government, military, in private enterprise, or just traveling as tourists on vacation - should the opportunities of their offspring born in foreign lands by happenstance later prevent them from seeking the highest office of their parents' mother country?
The founding fathers could not envision the "to and fro" of today's world and probably never considered it. I would venture what they had in mind was an immigrant to the USA born of a foreign land and foreign parents attempting to seek the office.
Nevertheless, the "natural born citizen" has not legally been defined but at the end of the day, if it is ever pushed to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of the above situations will be considered and in all probability will prevail.
It renders the argument moot at this time, yet we all remain with our differing opinions about it.