I figured this was coming sooner or later.
LOS ANGELES - John McCain has been called an American hero. But is he a natural born citizen?The complaint can be found hereA federal judge in California has been asked to determine if the Republican presidential candidate, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, meets the legal test to qualify for the nation's highest office.
The Constitution requires that only "natural born" citizens hold the presidency, a term on which the Founding Fathers did not elaborate.
McCain has said there is no question about his eligibility, an assessment echoed by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who is examining the issue for the campaign. It was also researched for his first presidential bid in 2000.
*****
The complaint was filed by Andrew Aames, 52, a Riverside lawyer who has dabbled in local politics, including volunteering for a Democratic congressional campaign. He said he is a registered Republican but previously was a Democrat.
He said he had no political stake in the outcome. A court ruling would clear up any confusion for voters, he added, and McCain has a "very, very good" chance of prevailing.
Eugene Volokh writes- "I suspect it will get thrown out on procedural grounds," Probably true. The Goldwater precedent, the law, and Blackstone commentaries seem to address this issue.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Legal action, McCain
Comments (4)
This isn't the first time t... (Below threshold)1. Posted by DoubleU | March 12, 2008 8:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This isn't the first time this has come up in the past couple of months.
1. Posted by DoubleU | March 12, 2008 8:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2008 08:03
2. Posted by BPG | March 12, 2008 8:05 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Good morning and welcome to Immigration Law 101. Today's topic is does this specious lawsuit have any merit? No! See 8 USC 1403(a):
"Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."
2. Posted by BPG | March 12, 2008 8:05 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2008 08:05
3. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 12, 2008 11:31 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904,
Darn...they'll have to extend that to cover McCain.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
3. Posted by Larkin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 12, 2008 11:31 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2008 11:31
4. Posted by Jim Addison | March 12, 2008 3:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The question is whether the Congress had the power. If it were a matter of clarification, consistent with the Constitution, it's fine. If it altered the application of the law in any way, though, an Amendment would have been required.
If it is ever decided by SCOTUS, they will probably cite common law regarding embassies as sovereign territory and go from there.
Democrats, of course, want to stay as far away from this as possible. They already have enough trouble with the men and women in our Armed Forces; being seen as wanting to declare babies born on American installations overseas to active-duty service personnel ineligible for the Presidency would not help their chances.
4. Posted by Jim Addison | March 12, 2008 3:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 12, 2008 15:19