John McCain NOT a natural-born U.S. Citizen - INELIGIBLE to run for President

[petej0]

I can't believe the ignorance on this topic.

In 1790 Congress extended citizenship to children born overseas to U.S. parents.  He is a naturalized citizen, case closed, end of story.

Go RON PAUL!!

[Dig]

I can't believe the ignorance on this topic.

In 1790 Congress extended citizenship to children born overseas to U.S. parents.  He is a naturalized citizen, case closed, end of story.

Go RON PAUL!!

hahaha, and the troll trap of truth catches another Omnicom employee.  Unreal.  Keep pushing that head in the sand theory, we read the constitution on this forum and are well aware that he is not eligible to be president.

The NY Times and the International Herald Tribune are on a similar page and once they start educating another 100 million citizens, John McCain will surrender like he always does.

He is the bravest surrendering coward this country has ever known.

[petej0]

Maybe you should read the IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT specifically sections 310 [8U.S.C. 1401] and 303 [8 U.S.C. 1403] which defines what a U.S. CITIZEN IS.

[petej0]

oops, typo there, that is supposed to be sections 301 [8 U.S.C. 1401] & 303 [8 U.S.C. 1403]

[Amd304912]

so is that 301 [8 U.S.C. 1401] & 303 [8 U.S.C. 1403] in the constitution or is it some quasi functioning law to CONTRADICT the Constitution?

[petej0]

The Immigration and Nationality Act covers laws pertaining to Immigration and Nationality.  Some of these laws can also be found in the United States Code (U.S.C.) which are permanent laws of the U.S. 

[Dig]

Maybe you should read the IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT specifically sections 310 [8U.S.C. 1401] and 303 [8 U.S.C. 1403] which defines what a U.S. CITIZEN IS.

if you read the constitution you will find that Congress has the responsibility to create laws for immigration and naturalization.  They, however, have no responsibility nor authority to create laws pertaining to the eligibility of the US President.  That actually would be unconstitutional as it would allow the legislative branch to have an unequal and imbalanced power over the executive branch.  So the only way to adjust the constitution would be for a constitutional convention which has not occured in relation to "country born/natural citizen."  The 14th Amendment allowed for any race to be eligible, but did not in any way, shape, or form allow panamanian nationals to be the president.

In addition, the US State Department further clarifies the insanity of the "born in US bases" bullshit with their 1995 document:
--------------------
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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.
-----------------------------------------

If you could be so kind as to read this entire thread it may allow you some insight to how big this issue actually is.  All of the things I have mentioned have already been discussed (like 3 times).  If after going through all of the evidence and arguments, you still have some questions about this please feel free to post it here.

thanks

[Dig]

The Immigration and Nationality Act covers laws pertaining to Immigration and Nationality.  Some of these laws can also be found in the United States Code (U.S.C.) which are permanent laws of the U.S. 

again unconstitutional laws have no validity.  and those are simply immigration laws, they have nothing to do with the eligibility of the presidency (as they cannot under the responsibility and limitations of what congress's purpose is).

[Amd304912]

so is that 301 [8 U.S.C. 1401] & 303 [8 U.S.C. 1403] in the constitution or is it some quasi functioning law to CONTRADICT the Constitution?

if you read the constitution you will find that Congress has the responsibility to create laws for immigration and naturalization.  They, however, have no responsibility nor authority to create laws pertaining to the eligibility of the US President.  That actually would be unconstitutional as it would allow the legislative branch to have an unequal and imbalanced power over the executive branch.  So the only way to adjust the constitution would be for a constitutional convention which has not occured in relation to "country born/natural citizen."  The 14th Amendment allowed for any race to be eligible, but did not in any way, shape, or form allow panamanian nationals to be the president.

In addition, the US State Department further clarifies the insanity of the "born in US bases" bullshit with their 1995 document:
--------------------
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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.
-----------------------------------------

If you could be so kind as to read this entire thread it may allow you some insight to how big this issue actually is.  All of the things I have mentioned have already been discussed (like 3 times).  If after going through all of the evidence and arguments, you still have some questions about this please feel free to post it here.

thanks

[petej0]

They define what a citizen is which, when provided with the constitution, clarify who can run for president.

Just like many of the other amendments in the constitution, it is vague in not defining what "Natural Born" is.  This is why we also continue to fight over the 2nd amendment as well.  What is the spirit of the amendment?  Did they intend that anyone born outside U.S. States are not "natural born"?  But someone born to illegals in our 50 states is?  Or do they mean that anyone born to U.S. Citizens over seas (for whatever reason) is "natural born".

Did they intend to deny "natural born" status to children of U.S. servicemen etc.. but decided to allow Children of illegals (possibly terrorists in sleeper cells, or English citizens who want to gain control of the U.S. and return fledgling country back to Englands control through a Manchurian candidate?) to be allowed "natural born" status?

[Dig]

MSNBC - McCain natural citizenship questioned!

His defense - Panama was a US territory at the time.  WTF?

There are a few issues with this:

1] Panama, nor any part of Panama, was ever a US territory.  If anything it was leased property and never sovereign land.

2] The entire country of Panama's sovereignty was in question until Carter signed a treaty in 1977.  Why is this the case you may ask?  Because a Frenchman and an international banker invented Panama to dissuade the obviously easier canal pathway in Nicaragua in 1903.  Even today eveyone realizes that Nicaragua would have been the better choice (and it still may happen because the super tankers cannot fit through that f**ked up inferior slapstip canal).  More information on this here:

---------------------------------------


Flag of Panama

Stephen Birmingham's "Our Crowd" details the illegal events of 1903 by the United States concerning the fake Panamanian independence. These illegalities were reconcilled over 70 years later with the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977:



The Isthmus of Panama was then a part of Columbia, and Columbia now changed her mind about granting a new right of way.  [Philippe] Buneau-Varilla began applying pressure, and certain sums of money began finding their way into Columbian officials' hands.  Columbia seemed about ready to change their mind, but then voted to ratify the canal treaty [treaty that a canal would go through Nicaragua and NOT Panama].  "There is nothing left," Buneau-Varilla explained to the Seligmans, but to have Panama secede from Columbia.  That will mean a revolution." James Seligman wanted to know, "How much would a revolution cost?"

That would, of course, depend.  Buneau-Varilla rented a suite at the Waldorf-Astoria and invited a group of would-be seccessionists to a meeting there.  The cost of a revolution was the chief topic on the agenda.  The Panamanians insisted they needed at least six million dollars to pay for their guerillas.  Buneau-Varilla hurried to the Seligmans, who said that six million was a bit too high.  Buneau-Varilla  returned with the Seligman's best offer--$100,000.  It would have to be a cut rate revolution, but the Panamanians accepted the terms.

Buneau-Varilla then went quickly back to the Seligman offices.  At a desk in the partners' room he wrote a Panamanian Declaration of Independence and a constitution.  He went to Macy's and bought silk for a Panama flag, which he had designed himself and, at James Seligman's summer house in Westchester, he spent a long evening stitching his new flag together.   The following Monday he boarded a train to Washington and, as he said later, "I called on President Roosevelt and asked him point blank if, when the revolt broke out, an American war ship would be sent to Panama to protect American lives and interests [including Seligman's interests].  The President just looked at me; he said nothing.  Of course, a President of the United States could not give such a commitment, especially to a foreigner and a private citizen like me.  But his look was enough for me."

And of course the warship Nashville did go to Panama to oversee the crisis.  It stood offshore and its presence was a considerable morale factor for the secceding Panamanians--and helped persuade the Columbians to put down their weapons.  The day was won for Phillippe Buneau-Varilla, and for the Seligmans.  The hand-stitched flag fluttered aloft, saluting one of the greatest public-relations triumphs of the age.

The Seligmans, understandably, were eager to show their gratitude to their new friend.  They made a series of discreet suggestions to certain of their friends in Washington, and presently the most implausible event in an altogether unlikely career had come to pass: Philippe Buneau-Varilla, a citizen of France, was appointed the first Ambassador of the Republic of Panama to the United States.

[Dig]

They define what a citizen is which, when provided with the constitution, clarify who can run for president.

Just like many of the other amendments in the constitution, it is vague in not defining what "Natural Born" is.  This is why we also continue to fight over the 2nd amendment as well.  What is the spirit of the amendment?  Did they intend that anyone born outside U.S. States are not "natural born"?  But someone born to illegals in our 50 states is?  Or do they mean that anyone born to U.S. Citizens over seas (for whatever reason) is "natural born".

Did they intend to deny "natural born" status to children of U.S. servicemen etc.. but decided to allow Children of illegals (possibly terrorists in sleeper cells, or English citizens who want to gain control of the U.S. and return fledgling country back to Englands control through a Manchurian candidate?) to be allowed "natural born" status?

again, please read this thead.  everything you are saying has zero or negative legal merit.  Sensationalizing the issue with the "anchor baby" argument does not address Juan McCain's Panamanian birth.

I mean are you arguing the now plainly obvious fact that Juan McCain is not eligible for the US presidency with fricking anchor babies?

How is this a legal argument?

Here is what you are saying: "Well you must rip up the constitution because it allows anchor babies to be president."

Sorry dude, I do not rip up the constitution because of anchor babies.  That would truly give illegal immigrants more power in this country as they would be able to destroy our constitution.  We have time to address the anchor babies (as Dr. Ron Paul has mentioned this often http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/ron-paul-on-anchor-babies/ ), but the anchor baby argument only serves to add a restriction to Natural Born Citizenship.  You are proposing the idea that we should remove a constitutional restriction because of the anchor baby issue.  That represents such an absurd position, it defies all semblance of rationality.

[Amd304912]

again, please read this thead.  everything you are saying has zero or negative legal merit.  Sensationalizing the issue with the "anchor baby" argument does not address Juan McCain's Panamanian birth.

I mean are you arguing the now plainly obvious fact that Juan McCain is not eligible for the US presidency with fricking anchor babies?

How is this a legal argument?

Here is what you are saying: "Well you must rip up the constitution because it allows anchor babies to be president."

Sorry dude, I do not rip up the constitution because of anchor babies.  That would truly give illegal immigrants more power in this country as they would be able to destroy our constitution.  We have time to address the anchor babies (as Dr. Ron Paul has mentioned this often http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/ron-paul-on-anchor-babies/ ), but the anchor baby argument only serves to add a restriction to Natural Born Citizenship.  You are proposing the idea that we should remove a constitutional restriction because of the anchor baby issue.  That represents such an absurd position, it defies all semblance of rationality.

the "anchor baby" concept is from american football. its a psyops approach on how someone would view being considered safe or justified. its complete bullshit and its made to confuse the people who hold to it. i mean he wouldn't think mccains eligible of office unless.

[Dig]

Holy Shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Juan McCain does not even know if he is eligible to be president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=29203.0

He is getting some legal advice to figure out if he is even eligible.

NOW HE GETS THE LEGAL ADVICE?

HE IS A FRICKING JOKE!

[petej0]

I am merely trying to understand the SPIRIT OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS TRYING TO SAY!  Why cant you understand that?  If the spirit of the text is to prevent foreigners (those born outside this country to non-US Citizens)  from becoming president then McCain is "Natural Born"

During the time of the writing of the Constitution it was conceivable for U.S. Parent to venture out into the non-U.S. territories of the mid west and further.  Did they mean to deny children of those parents "Natural Born" status and allow "Natural Born" status to children of non-U.S. Citizenship (English nationals who would implant a Manchurian candidate)?

Or did they want "Natural Born" status to only be to those born to U.S. Nationals both here and abroad?  In the later case children born to Illegals are not "Natural Born", but we in our ever greatness interpreted their text WRONG?

[Amd304912]

John McCain NOT a natural-born U.S. Citizen

Arnold Schwarzenegger NOT a natural-born U.S. Citizen

does that help?

[Dig]

I am merely trying to understand the SPIRIT OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS TRYING TO SAY!  Why cant you understand that?  If the spirit of the text is to prevent foreigners (those born outside this country to non-US Citizens)  from becoming president then McCain is "Natural Born"

During the time of the writing of the Constitution it was conceivable for U.S. Parent to venture out into the non-U.S. territories of the mid west and further.  Did they mean to deny children of those parents "Natural Born" status and allow "Natural Born" status to children of non-U.S. Citizenship (English nationals who would implant a Manchurian candidate)?

Or did they want "Natural Born" status to only be to those born to U.S. Nationals both here and abroad?  In the later case children born to Illegals are not "Natural Born", but we in our ever greatness interpreted their text WRONG?

Natural Born means born in a State within the United States.

Remember that the United States is a bunch of States.  The founding fathers specifically did not want anyone who was not born on a US State to be eligible for the Presidency.  Again you would know this if you read this thread instead of reading new Ted "so I lied about my wife calling me" Olson talking points.

And the anchor baby argument again is an argument against a supposed loophole.

You are suggesting the creation of an unconstitutional loophole to satisfy your personal desire.

I do not understand how you think this is a valid argument.

¡Juanito McCain ne es eligible!  ¿Comprende?

[petej0]

The fact of the matter is, nowhere in Constitution does it define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is.  So we must rely on the spirit of the text and what has been defined since then.

Does "Natural Born Citizen" mean born on U.S. Soil; or Born on U.S. Soil or U.S. Territory; or Born on U.S. Soil or U.S. Territory or born to U.S. Citizens; or Born to U.S. Citizens or etc..

Thats where the immigration and naturalization laws come into play.  If they can define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is then we can go BACK to the Constitution and apply any a reading.

[Amd304912]

Holy Shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Juan McCain does not even know if he is eligible to be president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=29203.0

He is getting some legal advice to figure out if he is even eligible.

NOW HE GETS THE LEGAL ADVICE?

HE IS A FRICKING JOKE!

[Dig]

The fact of the matter is, nowhere in Constitution does it define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is.  So we must rely on the spirit of the text and what has been defined since then.

Does "Natural Born Citizen" mean born on U.S. Soil; or Born on U.S. Soil or U.S. Territory; or Born on U.S. Soil or U.S. Territory or born to U.S. Citizens; or Born to U.S. Citizens or etc..

Thats where the immigration and naturalization laws come into play.  If they can define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is then we can go BACK to the Constitution and apply any a reading.

although Ted "Lying is Cool" Olson might find that talking point acceptable, it lacks any constitutional merit whatsoever.  Please read this thread as it answers that question specifically.

¡Juanito McCain no es eligible!  ¿Comprende?

[petej0]

No it doesn't.  Show me where in the constitution it describes the meaning of "Natural Born".  If you cant find it then you cant determine who is and who isnt "Natural Born".  If you cant do that then how do you know if he is or isnt eligible?

[Dig]

No it doesn't.  Show me where in the constitution it describes the meaning of "Natural Born".  If you cant find it then you cant determine who is and who isnt "Natural Born".  If you cant do that then how do you know if he is or isnt eligible?

so you do not want to read the thread, you just want to say "I am right, you are wrong" then tell me I need to prove where I am right (as I have done on 50 posts on this thread with links, evidence, logic, quotes, etc.) but yet you offer nothing but talking points on your end.

Whatever, I will give you more facts about why he is ineligible to be president:

Constitutional definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:“   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.   ”


Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)


¡Juanito McCain no es eligible!  ¿Comprende?

[Optimus]

The fact of the matter is, nowhere in Constitution does it define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is.  So we must rely on the spirit of the text and what has been defined since then.

Does "Natural Born Citizen" mean born on U.S. Soil; or Born on U.S. Soil or U.S. Territory; or Born on U.S. Soil or U.S. Territory or born to U.S. Citizens; or Born to U.S. Citizens or etc..

Thats where the immigration and naturalization laws come into play.  If they can define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is then we can go BACK to the Constitution and apply any a reading.

You just made our point about McCain not being a natural born citizen. The immigration and naturalization laws are just that. They do not define natural born because the Constitution does not grant congress the authority to do so.

[Amd304912]

No it doesn't.  Show me where in the constitution it describes the meaning of "Natural Born".  If you cant find it then you cant determine who is and who isnt "Natural Born".  If you cant do that then how do you know if he is or isnt eligible?

that is only an attempt to belligerent past the point mccain is ineligible.

U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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.

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


50 stars panama aint one

[Dig]

Who will be the next Natural Born Panamanian Puppet Dictator...

of any country (including the US and Panama)?



Here are the choices...




Natural Born Panamanian Manuel Noriega
-
Born in Panama City, Panama, he is George Bush I's puppet dictator who did whatever the Neo-Cons told him to do.
When he acted like he had his own balls, George Bush chopped them off, put him in jail for some advanced mind control and will soon release him.







Natural Born Panamanian Juanito Martinez Carlos Miguel McCain
 -
Born in Coco Solo, Panama, he is George Bush II's puppet dictator in waiting who does whatever the Neo-Cons want him to do.
When he acted like he had his own balls, Rockefeller chopped one off during his Keating crimes. 
George Bush II chopped the other one off in 2000 after the primary was over. 
Juan has been fully domesticated since then and makes a nice house pet.

[Optimus]

MSNBC - McCain natural citizenship questioned!

His defense - Panama was a US territory at the time.  WTF?

There are a few issues with this:

1] Panama, nor any part of Panama, was ever a US territory.  If anything it was leased property and never sovereign land.

2] The entire country of Panama's sovereignty was in question until Carter signed a treaty in 1977.  Why is this the case you may ask?  Because a Frenchman and an international banker invented Panama to dissuade the obviously easier canal pathway in Nicaragua in 1903.  Even today eveyone realizes that Nicaragua would have been the better choice (and it still may happen because the super tankers cannot fit through that f**ked up inferior slapstip canal).  More information on this here:

---------------------------------------


Flag of Panama

Stephen Birmingham's "Our Crowd" details the illegal events of 1903 by the United States concerning the fake Panamanian independence. These illegalities were reconcilled over 70 years later with the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977:



The Isthmus of Panama was then a part of Columbia, and Columbia now changed her mind about granting a new right of way.  [Philippe] Buneau-Varilla began applying pressure, and certain sums of money began finding their way into Columbian officials' hands.  Columbia seemed about ready to change their mind, but then voted to ratify the canal treaty [treaty that a canal would go through Nicaragua and NOT Panama].  "There is nothing left," Buneau-Varilla explained to the Seligmans, but to have Panama secede from Columbia.  That will mean a revolution." James Seligman wanted to know, "How much would a revolution cost?"

That would, of course, depend.  Buneau-Varilla rented a suite at the Waldorf-Astoria and invited a group of would-be seccessionists to a meeting there.  The cost of a revolution was the chief topic on the agenda.  The Panamanians insisted they needed at least six million dollars to pay for their guerillas.  Buneau-Varilla hurried to the Seligmans, who said that six million was a bit too high.  Buneau-Varilla  returned with the Seligman's best offer--$100,000.  It would have to be a cut rate revolution, but the Panamanians accepted the terms.

Buneau-Varilla then went quickly back to the Seligman offices.  At a desk in the partners' room he wrote a Panamanian Declaration of Independence and a constitution.  He went to Macy's and bought silk for a Panama flag, which he had designed himself and, at James Seligman's summer house in Westchester, he spent a long evening stitching his new flag together.   The following Monday he boarded a train to Washington and, as he said later, "I called on President Roosevelt and asked him point blank if, when the revolt broke out, an American war ship would be sent to Panama to protect American lives and interests [including Seligman's interests].  The President just looked at me; he said nothing.  Of course, a President of the United States could not give such a commitment, especially to a foreigner and a private citizen like me.  But his look was enough for me."

And of course the warship Nashville did go to Panama to oversee the crisis.  It stood offshore and its presence was a considerable morale factor for the secceding Panamanians--and helped persuade the Columbians to put down their weapons.  The day was won for Phillippe Buneau-Varilla, and for the Seligmans.  The hand-stitched flag fluttered aloft, saluting one of the greatest public-relations triumphs of the age.

The Seligmans, understandably, were eager to show their gratitude to their new friend.  They made a series of discreet suggestions to certain of their friends in Washington, and presently the most implausible event in an altogether unlikely career had come to pass: Philippe Buneau-Varilla, a citizen of France, was appointed the first Ambassador of the Republic of Panama to the United States.

From http://www.dailypaul.com/node/37509

Was the Canal Zone actually a territory under United States law, or was it just a leased area?

To answer that question, we look at the original Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903, negotiated by Theodore Roosevelt and his Secretary of State John Hay.

Of note are both Article II and Article III:

Article II

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific Ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant. The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said enterprise.

The Republic of Panama further grants in like manner to the United States in perpetuity, all islands within the limits of the zone above described and in addition thereto, the group of small islands in the Bay of Panama, named Perico, Naos, Culebra and Flamenco.

Article III

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.

Note that Article II Panama grants the United States “the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water” for the Canal. It does NOT say it cedes that land to the United States, not does it say that Panama grants ownership of the land to the United States, just use and control of it. This is a lease, not a transfer of real estate, and therefore Panama still owned the land. Article III is exactly the same in nature, but it applies to auxiliary areas if Panama owns them. Read the sovereign clause carefully as the “it” in there refers to Panama, not the United States.

Also of note is the resource use grant in Article IV:

Article IV

As rights subsidiary to the above grants the Republic of Panama grants in perpetuity, to the United States the right to use the rivers, streams, lakes and other bodies of water within its limits for navigation, the supply of water or waterpower or other purposes, so far as the use of said rivers, streams, lakes and bodies of water and the waters thereof may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal.

In other words, the landowner (Panama) granted water rights to the lessee (United States).

Further, note the payment schedule in Article XIV:

Article XIV

As the price or compensation for the rights, powers and privileges granted in this convention by the Republic of Panama to the United States, the Government of the United States agrees to pay to the Republic of Panama the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in gold coin of the United States on the exchange of the ratification of this convention and also an annual payment during the life of this convention of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in like gold coin, beginning nine years after the date aforesaid.

Notice it never says these payments are compensation for the land, just the “rights, powers, and privileges” to use it. This is RENT.

One last part adds to the lease argument, Article XXV:

Article XXV

For the better performance of the engagements of this convention and to the end of the efficient protection of the Canal and the preservation of its neutrality, the Government of the Republic of Panama will sell or lease to the United States lands adequate and necessary for the naval or coaling stations on the Pacific coast and on the western Caribbean coast of the Republic at certain points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.

If the United States owned the Canal Zone land, thereby making it a United States territory, then this clause would not be necessary as they could build such stations within the zone, and this clause would not have been necessary.

It’s pretty clear from the original treaty the Canal Zone was actually Panamanian land leased to the United States.

Text of Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/panama/pan001.htm

[Dig]

Can you find the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977?

Up until then, the entire "independence" of Panama is questioned.

[petej0]

so you do not want to read the thread, you just want to say "I am right, you are wrong" then tell me I need to prove where I am right (as I have done on 50 posts on this thread with links, evidence, logic, quotes, etc.) but yet you offer nothing but talking points on your end.

I did read the posts and I read the constitution.  You cant seem to understand that the definition of "Natural Born" DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION.  Otherwise we would not be having this debate!

A letter from John Jay to George Washington is not the Constitution nor is it an amendment to it.  You cant find anywhere in the Constitution that defines "Natural Citizen", again I ask where is this text?  If you want to follow the Constitution strictly then you must provide this text.  Otherwise your argument is invalid.  You cant quite anything not cited in or amended to the Constitution.  You can provide all the letters of case laws you want but if I cant cite the Immigration Laws and United States Code then you cant either.

The Unites States Code (A LAW) clearly defines who is and who isnt a citizen, this meaning can then be applied to the Constitution to determine who is and who isnt.

You just made our point about McCain not being a natural born citizen. The immigration and naturalization laws are just that. They do not define natural born because the Constitution does not grant congress the authority to do so.
Congress does have the power to make laws.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Amd304912]

John McCain
Senior Senator
from Arizona
Incumbent
Born    August 29, 1936 (1936-08-29) (age 71)
Panama Canal Zone


Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977: is After 8-29-1936 he is still an "anchorless baby"

[Optimus]

The Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903 clearly shows the US LEASED the canal zone from Panama. Panama did not cede it's sovereignty of the canal zone to the US. So Juan McCain was born on the Sovereign territory of Panama which makes him a natural born citizen of Panama, not the US. The immigration and naturalization laws of the US also makes him a naturalized citizen of the United States. Naturalized citizens CANNOT become president of the United States.

[Optimus]

Congress does have the power to make laws.

I am not talking about laws in general. I am talking about laws in regard to citizenship.

Obviously petej0 you have not read the Constitution. It only grants congress the power to make laws regarding NATURALIZATION, not natural born. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Dig]

so you do not want to read the thread, you just want to say "I am right, you are wrong" then tell me I need to prove where I am right (as I have done on 50 posts on this thread with links, evidence, logic, quotes, etc.) but yet you offer nothing but talking points on your end.

I did read the posts and I read the constitution.  You cant seem to understand that the definition of "Natural Born" DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION.  Otherwise we would not be having this debate!

A letter from John Jay to George Washington is not the Constitution nor is it an amendment to it.  You cant find anywhere in the Constitution that defines "Natural Citizen", again I ask where is this text?  If you want to follow the Constitution strictly then you must provide this text.  Otherwise your argument is invalid.  You cant quite anything not cited in or amended to the Constitution.  You can provide all the letters of case laws you want but if I cant cite the Immigration Laws and United States Code then you cant either.

The Unites States Code (A LAW) clearly defines who is and who isnt a citizen, this meaning can then be applied to the Constitution to determine who is and who isnt.

You just made our point about McCain not being a natural born citizen. The immigration and naturalization laws are just that. They do not define natural born because the Constitution does not grant congress the authority to do so.
Congress does have the power to make laws.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It took you that long to come up with 2 fake arguments?

wow, that is amazing.

1st argument...there are over 500 words that are not defined in the constitution, why do those words need defining, when the definition is obvious.  Do they define "the"?

2nd argument...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution...

the foregoing Powers, [eligibility of pres is not a power up to the legislature to decide, it is in the constitution]

and all other Powers...

vested by this Constitution [can only be a law necessary to execute powers vested by this constitution, not laws that contradict this constitution, wtf?]

 in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Optimus]

Quote from Sane

1st argument...there are over 500 words that are not defined in the constitution, why do those words need defining, when the definition is obvious.  Do they define "the"?

Maybe we need a comprehensive dictionary/thesaurus to define every single word in the Constitution.

Obviously we are soooo dumbed down that we can't possibly figure out what natural born means without one!

DUH!

[petej0]

For your information, I was out to lunch.

"1st argument...there are over 500 words that are not defined in the constitution, why do those words need defining, when the definition is obvious.  Do they define "the"?"
The constitution has a lot of ambiguity which need to be interpreted.  This is also why there is such an issue over gun rights.  Not everything in the dam document is clear.

I have yet to see this text that defines "Natural Born"

It is clear you guys are Constitution experts and are probably on retainer by the Dem's to easily squash McCains effort to run for president.  Just a quick question why didnt you guys find this last time McCain ran for president?  You would think someone would have researched this issue already. 
Lets go through the check list,
"Are you 35?"
"Yes"
"Are you Natural Born?"
"um..Yes?"
With all the dirt that is flung on both sides you would think this would be brought up by a competing GOP member!

I dont like McCain anymore then you guys do, I just dont see how you can claim he isnt "Natural Born" when nobody knows what the heck the founding fathers meant.  We wouldnt be having this debate if we did.

[Amd304912]

he is a naturally born Panamanian citizen

"Are you Natural Born?"
"um..Yes?" IN PANAMA before 1977 meaning he has no Birth Citizenship ANYwhere.

[Amd304912]

For your information, I was out to lunch.

"1st argument...there are over 500 words that are not defined in the constitution, why do those words need defining, when the definition is obvious.  Do they define "the"?"
The constitution has a lot of ambiguity which need to be interpreted.  This is also why there is such an issue over gun rights.  Not everything in the dam document is clear.

I have yet to see this text that defines "Natural Born"

It is clear you guys are Constitution experts and are probably on retainer by the Dem's to easily squash McCains effort to run for president.  Just a quick question why didnt you guys find this last time McCain ran for president?  You would think someone would have researched this issue already. 
Lets go through the check list,
"Are you 35?"
"Yes"
"Are you Natural Born?"
"um..Yes?"
With all the dirt that is flung on both sides you would think this would be brought up by a competing GOP member!

I dont like McCain anymore then you guys do, I just dont see how you can claim he isnt "Natural Born" when nobody knows what the heck the founding fathers meant.  We wouldnt be having this debate if we did.

Refer back to discussion
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=29203.msg117724;topicseen#msg117724

[Optimus]

Quote from petej0

The constitution has a lot of ambiguity which need to be interpreted.  This is also why there is such an issue over gun rights.  Not everything in the dam document is clear.

Quote from George W. Bush

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Do NOT call our Constitution a damn document you disrespectful little turd!!!

[Dig]

Hey look, Dallas Morning News uses similar talking points, what a conspiracy coincidence...



Is McCain a "natural-born citizen?"
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/02/is-mccain-a-nat.html
4:55 PM Thu, Feb 28, 2008 | Permalink
Colleen McCain Nelson    E-mail   News tips


An article in today's New York Times raises a fascinating question: Does the constitution preclude John McCain from being president? The Arizona senator was born, not in the United States, but in the Panama Canal Zone.

Without further explanation, the constitution requires that U.S. presidents be "natural-born citizens." McCain is a U.S. citizen, of course, but he wasn't born on American soil. Experts on this rather arcane subject consider McCain's situation a grey area, open to interpretation. And a professor who has studied the question extensively told the Times, "It is not a slam-dunk situation."

The consensus view seems to be that with a judgment call such as this, most experts would err on the side of allowing McCain to be president. A tie goes to the runner, as it were. But it's stunning that this far into McCain's second presidential bid -- and more than two centuries after those words were penned -- we're still not quite certain what "natural-born" means.

[Dig]

CASE CLOSED!!!!!


DEAD ISSUE!!!!!


JOHN "I DID NOT HAVE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MY LOBBYIST" MCCAIN SAID SO...


[How fricking full of crap is the McCain Insanity Bus? Take a look.  Apparently to Juanito McCain, if he says the case is closed, then it is closed.]


McCain Says Citizenship a Dead Issue
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJ3AHoO_Qz6G8f2AyVBVqU0q9RkwD8V3N9283
By LIBBY QUAID – 17 hours ago

RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said Thursday the question of whether he can run for president, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone, was put to rest 44 years ago in Barry Goldwater's run for the White House.

McCain added that he doesn't know why his campaign sought legal analysis of whether his birth outside the continental United States might disqualify him from the presidency.

The Constitution says only a "natural-born citizen" may serve as president.

McCain's campaign asked former Solicitor General Ted Olson for a legal interpretation of the issue.

McCain himself insists the issue was put to rest when fellow Arizonan, Barry Goldwater, ran for president in 1964.

"Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory, Arizona was a territory, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court," McCain told reporters Thursday on his campaign plane. "And there's no doubt about that. And it was researched again in 2000."

The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born on Aug. 29, 1936.

As for the reason for seeking Olson's opinion: "I don't know," McCain said. "Maybe my staff talked to him, but I didn't. But I have absolutely no concern about that."

"It's very clear that (the idea that) an American born in a territory of the United States whose father is serving in the military would not be eligible for the presidency of the United States is certainly not something our founding fathers envisioned." McCain's father was stationed in the Canal Zone by the Navy at the time of his birth.

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said the request for Olson's help was routine, and it wasn't necessary to bring it to the attention of the senator.

Olson said he is still researching the issue but is certain McCain is qualified. The plain meaning of "natural-born citizen" includes those born to parents who are citizens, particularly when they are born on a U.S. military base as McCain was, Olson said.

"I am confident that the United States Supreme Court, should it ever address the issue, would agree," Olson said in a statement.

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, people are born U.S. citizens if they are born in the U.S. or their parents are U.S. citizens. The question arises because Article II of the Constitution limits the office of president to a "natural-born citizen," a term on which the Founding Fathers did not elaborate.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a prominent backer of Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, introduced legislation Thursday that would define a "natural-born citizen" as anyone born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces. Obama's campaign announced late Thursday that he will co-sponsor the bill.

"Those who serve and sacrifice for their country, like John McCain and his father, deserve every honor and privilege that our nation can possibly provide, and that includes the ability to run for the highest office in the land," Obama said in a statement.

[Dig]

The plain meaning of "natural-born citizen" includes those born to parents who are citizens, particularly when they are born on a U.S. military base as McCain was, Olson said.

hahahahaha

apparently Ted "Yeah my wife called me on 9/11 you asshole" Olson who promotes the idea that lying to the public is GOOOOOOOOD, now wants everyone to believe him rather than reality.


the ship is sinking, the bird is spiraling fast, it is a McCain Mayday call. 

"Mommas all right, daddy's all right, they just look a little weird, surrender, surrender but don't give yourself away, ay, ay, ay."