SubscribeThe NYT Pretends McCain Can’t Be President
From the remarkably uninformed or merely malicious New York Times:
McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
February 28, 2008
By CARL HULSEWASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office…
In the best New York Times tradition, this article prattles on in a longwinded and uninformed fashion without ever reaching a conclusion.
Mr. Hulse obviously blind-sided the “legal experts” he consulted, who understandably might not have had the details about citizenship at their fingertips.
However, even the most cursory of Google searches will show that this topic has been long since put to bed.
Indeed, a website calling itself the US Constitution Online has a whole page explaining US citizenship and even the seemingly inextricable intricacies (at least for The Times) of being “natural born.”
Fortunately, the site seems to be aimed at school children. So it is written in in such simple terms that even the Solons at the New York Times should be able to follow its exegesis:
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.
If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”
QED
Indeed, as the last paragraph notes, Mr. McCain is a natural born United States citizen several times over under our laws.
But why let such minor details stand in the way of a good story?
The only question here is why did the New York Times even bring up the question? Are they really that uninformed? That lazy?
Or are they desperately trying to change the subject?
Related Articles:
21 Responses to “The NYT Pretends McCain Can’t Be President”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Are they really that uninformed? That lazy?
Probably. But never rule out good old-fashioned stupidity in why liberals say and do what they do.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Sharps Rifle;….”never rule out good old-fashioned stupidity in why liberals say and do what they do….”
Have you ever heard “Pinch” speak? I think too much of his inheritance found a path to his nose via the “white powder” route..
February 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am
This is the best they could do?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
…..”This is the best they could do?….”
Throw enough mud against the wall and something will stick. They’re trying to see what that something is. What I find baffling is McCain’s naievete. For someone who has held a Senate seat and who has been around as long as he has in D C, he seems to think the NYT will give him a fair hearing. They will chew him up and spit him out. He’d better go “bare-knuckle” pretty soon and start on the offensive. The Times is publishing all of this nonsense hoping to plant the seed of doubt. Questioning his credibility will be the natural response of the electorate. McCain got cozy with the NYT and they’re repaying the favor.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
It would seem that the paper of “record” that has wound up in the toilet, having massive layoffs and profits that are swirling in the tank water, has decided that since they are there, they might as well publish stories from the same area.
The NYTs motto remains: All The News That Is Unfit To Print.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
retire05; Caught your post on another thread about having to declare a party in order to receive a ballot. Same here in Missouri as you’re aware. Next week should tell the story. What’s the mood and trend down Texas way?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Please, please - you all are missing the point - the NYTs is making a non-story about McCain whose only purpose is to create the ‘talking point’ of the week on why McCain is a worthless scum of the earth candidate.
They won’t really attack any of his legislation - ever - as they are their own - so these vapid, stupid and utterly baseless piece of fluff attacks are what they are the best they can do - also they won’t cry all that hard if McCain wins because at least a RHINO/Demlite is in office, the only thing that bothers them is the (R) behind his name - but hey, he is in their corner so they can pretend to hate him - For The Masses - to keep their street cred up.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Wow - they must know something about Obama that they can’t bear to share. Clearly, McCain poses a threat to them and their anointed, messiah-like candidate.
And, now, just to make sure I get this straight - the child of legal American citizens who is born in a territory outside the U.S. aren’t citizens when they run for the Presidency as a Republican, but the children of immigrants who cross the border illegally, live here illegally and often break other laws are supposed to be citizens? We’re supposed to grant amnesty to the millions of people who don’t pay taxes, fly under the radar, and won’t own up to going through the process of citizenship?
The New York Times may actually hand McCain the presidency…
February 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
wardmama4 ….”whose only purpose is to create the ‘talking point’ of the week on why McCain is a worthless scum of the earth candidate.”
That was pretty much my point, I thought. Maybe I didn’t phrase it correctly. And you’re right, the NYT could live with McCain for all the reasons you state. But only by default would they accept him. Why settle for a “diet cola” when the genuine article is available? The second point I meant to raise was, how badly does McCain want to win? I’m not sure he knows how to campaign.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I suggest we make one addition to Section 1401.
(I) a person must love their country and posses gratitude for the freedom, liberty, and prosperity that the sacrifice of their fathers has secured for them.
Of course this would make the likes of Hussein and Pelosi ineligible to hold public office.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am
GuppyNblue;….”ineligible to hold public office….”
You’d pretty well wipe out the entire Democrat side of the aisle with that one, start with Murtha–a complete disgrace to the uniform that I wore.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
JohnMG
“start with Murtha”- roger that, but Murtha would have to be taken a step further as I believe he should sharing a barred room with Bubba.
There are so many of our young that are being indoctrinated to hate America. I remember my first economics class in college being a wake up call for me personally. The professor assigned three books; one small one on Keynesian economics, one called the Real Terrorist Network (that being America and Israel), and finally one about a Bolivian minor who felt her oppression was America’s fault and only socialism could bring justice to the world. The professor right out admitted that he was a member of the Communist Party in California and told us, “this isn’t high school so if you don’t like what I’m teaching, you can leave.” And that was only the beginning.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
GNb; Socialism works so well–there are many examples throughout the world, right? (gag) I can’t pinpoint the exact time when the US began ignoring traitors instead of prosecuting them but it must have been sometime after WWII before which, deserters from the military and the like were jailed and/or executed. Once the trend of leniency was established, others were emboldened. Communists and socialists are entitled to spew their garbage but it should be called what it is. If what they want is so great, let the light of day shine on it instead of flying it under the radar. You’re right. What passes for higher education today is pathetic. Indoctrination would be a more apt term.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Um, Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, which is outside the continental United States, isn’t it?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:45 am
So if John McCain was born in Panama proper and his mother strapped him to her back and swam across the Rio Grande, THEN could the NYT support his “citizenship”?
February 29th, 2008 at 5:48 am
What makes me the maddest about this whole thing is that I went to journalism school for as long as I could stand it, and while there I met some NYT staff. You could not imagine a more condescending bunch of snobs when it comes to blogs, talk radio, etc. All about how they have fact checkers and validation processes and on and on…
Why is it that every damn week they’re wrong, then? I mean, this isn’t even hard. All you would have to do is spend five minutes looking up the US Code! Don’t they have a copy of that lying around, perhaps? Or maybe one of them could have spent thirty entire seconds Googling it?
February 29th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Lipstick on a PIAPS;…”strapped him to her back and swam across the Rio Grande, THEN could the NYT support his “citizenship”?…….”
Not unless he entered illegally, in which case he’d have to go back to Panama, pay a $50 fine, then apply for a guest worker visa and…………..
February 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
JohnMG - you are right -we were making the same point - sometimes I get writing too fast to put the agreement with another in. . .My point being is that the NYTs is no longer about ‘All the News’ and more about ‘Talking Point of the Week’ -
I go back and forth on whether these people are that weak and stupid (or perhaps the air up there is so rarified - they don’t really have a clue) but I don’t think so - I read the lefty sites too (keep your friends close, your enemies closer) and if you get past the headlines and the ones who are so out there as to not be even close to the realm of reality - most of the people say the same/similar things as said here - politicians are corrupt, taxes too high, too many with their hands out etc. We, the majority of Americans are really alike - it is the msm and the politicians who want to Divide and Conquer - and we have let them for far too long.
These people are only stupid in the sense that they truly believe we are stupid - Yes on an individual level you can walk out your door and not have to go very far to find someone who is ignorant or maybe even a real, live stupid person - but ask some of these yokels at the NYTs or DC beltway - certain questions and guess who comes off sounding just as stupid as John or Jane Doe?
A lack in a certain area - be it politics, speech, or writing ability does not make someone stupid - it is the craven ability to see oneself as right, better than and holier than thou - when standing nakked in a puddle of gasoline while lighting a cigarette. . .and while reading the NYTs!
Look inward before you ponitificate on the shortcomings of others - I do it every day - which is why I only post half of what I used to - and I’m attempting to clean up what I post - before I point my pointy little finger at those who can’t be bothered.
Once again - they are not stupid - they just are convinced We are.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:11 am
wardmama4;….”they are not stupid - they just are convinced We are….”
Crafty, disingenuous, sly, dishonest…..the list could go on. But there is method to their madness. They keep the allegations, etc. flowing fast and furious, and never bother to address the refutations. When and while we respond to one falsehood they issue forth with another, ignoring our previous response. I don’t know how many people are aware of this–”The Apologist” probably is–but newspapers are printed geared to an 8th grade reading level. This alone should speak of their contempt for the populace at large. It’s also a sad commentary on the level of political awareness of the electorate.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
This could come back to bite them. A lot of conservatives are alienated from Sen McCain and the NYT is trying to win sympathy for him.
I find the Times piece interesting, but as the left is so fond of saying, “I question the timing.”
March 1st, 2008 at 5:28 am
I guess this is just a shot across the bow that the Straight Talk Express isn’t selling at the New York Times anymore. Can’t wait to see who else jumps ship, pardon the nautical references, from the Express in the Lame Stream Media. Interesting to see how it will play out! Brace for impact Senator!