Legal NewsLine reports that the American Independent Party is seeking to have John McCain’s name removed from the presidential ballot in California, arguing “in court papers that federal law would bar the former Vietnam War POW from taking office were he to be elected in November because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 while his father was stationed at Coco Solo Naval Air Station. U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California will hear arguments in the case Sept. 11, said AIP attorney Gregory Walston of the law firm of Walston Cross of San Francisco.â€
The AIP “claims it will be ‘irreparably harmed by Senator McCain’s illegal and illegitimate presence on the ballot.’ The plaintiffs in the case want McCain enjoined from running for president. The lawsuit was brought by Markham Robinson of Vacaville, Calif., chairman-elect of the American Independent Party. The AIP has nominated author Alan Keyes for president.â€
The account of McCain’s birth being in Coco Solo is a fabrication. This was popularized by the McCain legal defense team. The fabrication is that he was born in the Coco Solo hospital at the Naval Air Station. However, no hospital existed at Coco Solo until one was built five years after McCain’s birth. Although some people speculated that he must have been born at Colon, the fact of the location of his birth didn’t come out until his birth certificate was produced for the U.S. Circuit Court in New Hampshire in late July 2008. This is still not widely known.
Also, his parents did not live on base. They lived in Colon, Republic of Panama. Colon was not part of the Canal Zone in 1936.
There is a good deal of information available at http://PanamaJohn.dominates.us including McCain’s birth certificate with affidavit, and more.
http://panamajohn.dominates.us/articles/McCain_Certificate_1_1936x2.gif
A press release about Berg’s lawsuit and copies of court documents related to the case can be found here:
http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/1-philip-j-berg-esq-files-federal-lawsuit-requesting-obama-be-removed-as-a-candidate-as-he-does-not-meet-the-qualifications-for-president
Correct, Brandon. His name is Philip J. Berg. He was on Coast2Coast on last week’s Friday broadcast with Ian. He got grilled pretty good for not having all his proofs and not being able to reference sources that he will use in his case, yet he seems sincere.
I wouldn’t put it past our ‘shadowy overlords’ to flip the bird at us and show us how feeble our laws are by running two completely ineligible candidates, so if it ever turned out to be true … =/
McCain is constitutionally ineligible to be president. But saying something is “unconstitutional” IS viewed as “nutjobbery” by the Power Elite and the sheople who cower before them.
“Nutjobbery?”
Do you think it was the Original Intent that army brats born outside of the several states — as foreign occupiers — would be eligible for president?
This is desperate low-blow nutjobbery and one of the things that a lot of Ron Paul “supporters” argued that really turned me off.
There are a lot of real reasons for libertarians and conservatives to oppose McCain but a lot of people seem focused on only the most bizarre and desperate ploys.
I don’t see anything in the 14th Amendment that says that a person born outside the United States to U.S. parents is a “natural born citizen.”
I don’t think there’s any real doubt that McCain is a citizen, but there is doubt as to whether he is a “natural born” one.
I’ve read the arguments made against Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. They are VERY weak and based on incorrect data.
It’s extremely unlikely, though, that either of them would be ruled ineligible. Courts would try very hard to find an argument against doing so. Even in McCain’s case, there are reasonable arguments that he is a “natural born citizen.”
As someone who supports open ballot access, I would prefer that candidates never be disqualified due to qualities over which they had no control (e.g., their places of birth).
eerrrr… the 14th amendment.
I just read someone filed a lawsuit against Obama as well. While I think both Republicrats are safe as far as citizenship goes, I would love to see both of them ruled ineligible for the Presidency.
But what of the 14th Amendment’s “Citizenship clause”?
“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.”
According to: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/03-citizens-of-the-united-states.html , this means, among other things:
“The requirement that a person be ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents.”
I would think that being born to U.S. parents would place McCain as having been born under U.S. jurisdiction.
Chairman Jim King, and the legitimate AIP does not endorse, nor sanction this position, or lawsuit.
I recall that George Romney (Mitt Romney’s father) was forced out of the ’68 race because of his Mexican birth.
Or maybe it was low poll numbers.
To be really facetious, one could say that “natural born citizen†might refer to someone that was NOT born caesarean.
PEACE
Steve
I do not think that the U.S. Constitution says anything about being born under U.S. “jurisdiction.”
It says:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The legal question is whether McCain’s foreign birth makes him not a “natural born citizen.”
There is a good argument to be made that it does. The law is just not settled on that point.
Besides the usual counter-arguments, though, there is another one in this case:
The November election is for the choosing of presidential electors, not the president. Even if the Electoral College would be prohibited from electing McCain, that would not mean that California voters were prohibited from considering a McCain slate of electors (unless there is a state law that denies ballot access to a slate associated with a candidate who is not constitutionally eligible to be president).
It’s nonsense. The Constitution requires that a person be born under U.S. “jurisdiction,” not on U.S. soil.
If Americans in France or Russia give birth to a kid, that kid is born under U.S. “jurisdiction.”
The case was filed by Markham Robinson, not the American Independent Party. Robinson is with the faction of the California AIP that supports Alan Keyes.