Well, despite this, I don’t think so. I think that it’s pretty settled English common law that the offspring of two citizens of a nation is a natural-born citizen of that nation, regardless of the location of birth, and particularly when it occurs on that nation’s territory, even if not within its borders.
It would explain a lot, though.
First the “lobbyist scandal” story, now this? I think it’s pretty obvious that the Times is campaigning as hard as it can for Anyone-But-McCain.
Don’t worry. If Sen. Keating-McCain wins the Electoral College vote, expect some goof-ball Dem representative from a safe district (a moron like McDermott here in the Upper Left Washington) to challenge him receiving votes based on this when VP Cheney presents to results to Congress. The precedent will be how they challenged the Florida results in 2001.
From what I rememeber from long-ago discussions with military brats, those born overseas have dual citizenship until they turn 18. At that point, they declare their citizenship. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which, IIRC, was actually US terroritory at the time. That should bolster the case that he is a native-born US citizen.
Here is the relevant law:
8 U.S.C.
Tempest–>Teacup = campaign silly season
Dennis and Larry J,
Very respectfully: the issue isn’t whether a person born in the Canal Zone is a citizen, or a “native born” citizen. No one disputes that. The question is whether that person is a “natural born” citizen. I don’t think anyone really thinks this will be a problem for McCain (and Obama is co-sponoring a bill to help make sure it won’t be a problem for him), but there really is a question about whether McCain is a natural born citizen.
Given McCain’s long-standing advocacy of amnesty for illegal aliens, combined with the striking resemblance between the lobbyist, Ms Iseman, and Mrs. McCain, there can be only one conclusion:
They’re Cylons.
I think it should be looked into, just saying.