What’s even more interesting is the reason he was born in Mexico. His grandparents had fled there from the US in order to continue practicing polygamy. I’m not sure if George Romney’s parents practiced polygamy, but that would be an interesting thing to find out. According to this site, the answer is “no”, but you can see that the grandparents on both sides were polygamists.
Lemur866, this is GQ. We discuss facts here, not your personal opinions. It is a matter of debate among constitutional scholars, including the professors at my law school. You’re free to doubt my testimony, but you’ve no reason to do so. The law listserves I am on are not public, but I’m sure a little googling will reveal some public listserves on which the issue is being debated.
If you have an argument against the points I raised, I’ve love to hear it. If it’s a settled issue, cite the case for me.
As I said, no court would ever touch the issue for prudential issues (mainly, political question doctrine). But your dismissal of the issue is not an argument, it’s a feeling.
I would be very surprised if the framers’ intent was to deprive citizenship from the children of US citizens living abroad because the government had ordered them to live abroad. Also, besides the canal zone issue, he was born on a US military base-- not exactly an embassy, but I would think that would be an important consideration as well.
In addition to the dry, legal analysis, McCain was the child of a serving Navy officer and born at his father’s overseas duty station.
If someone (particularly his Democratic opponent) tried to seriously advance the argument that a child is ineligible to be President because the child is born when his or her parents were overseas in the service of the United States, it would (rightly) cause a political shitstorm of the highest order, particularly when the child at issue served a as a naval officer like his father and grandfather before him (both four-star admirals), and had a notably harrowing ordeal as a POW.
If it’s Hillary vs McCain, and McCain wins, we might very well see this taken to court. 
Absolutely. I think the framer’s intent argument is very strong. On the other hand, the early laws of Congress did not provide jus sanguins citizenship to people like John McCain unless they met certain requirements (they came back to the US fairly quickly and remained there).
I’m not saying McCain doesn’t have strong arguments. I’m saying the issue isn’t definitely settled.
Here’s an article on the topic. It says:
He goes on to say that there is a consensus that foreign born children are “natural-born” under Article II. But an academic consensus does not settled law make, and I think he overstates this consensus in any case.
Ah, poor McCain. So old…and yet not quite old enough.
Richard: Just to be clear, I wasn’t arguing with you. I was just expanding on other extraordinary circumstances that might be in McCain’s favor besides the status of the Canal zone. IOW, it’s not like his parents were bohemian-living expats drinking cheap wine in Paris with plans that might or might not have included a return to the US at some point. I can see where the framers might not have had that situation in mind for “natural born citizen”.
Got it, John, thanks.
Does anyone have a cite that McCain was born in Coco Solo Submarine Base (and not, say, a nearby hospital) *and *that this base was on land ceded to the US? I’m seeing arguments on this front saying that Coco Solo was not a US military base, but rather a joint canal-zone base not technically under the sovereign control of US. Perhaps there’s some ambiguity like Gitmo.
The cite was from wikipedia, which cited a WaPo article. That article, though, does not mention that he was born on base. The wikipedia article on Coco Solo sub base makes no mention of it being anything other than a US navy base.
Speaking as someone who grew up in a Navy family, it is inconceivable that he would not have been born on the base. You just don’t do stuff like that “on the outside”, as we would say.
AKAIK English law considered children born abroad to English subjects to be English subjects as well.
Isn’t that another way of saying that it’s a settled issue?
As kar as you know…? 
Another thought: If McCain’s status as natural-born citizen is granted by statute, does that mean Congress can take it away by amending the statute? That seems to go to the heart of the problem of thinking that Congress gets to define the Constitution. Congress can pass no ex post facto laws, but this law is only taking away a current privilege (just like the expatriation laws do), not punishing a previous act.
Lemur866, “settled issue” is a term of art in the law meaning the highest relevant court has made a clear judgment on it. It may be a “settled issue” in a practical sense, as I acknowledged in my first post.
That’s not entirely true. I was born outside the UK with one parent a UK-born British subject. I was for about 40 years a British subject under UK law and under Australian law, but I am no longer a British subject, and I have never been a UK citizen.
(It all depends on where you were born, when you were born, and the gender of your UK-born British-subject parent. It’s very complex, leaving aside the fact that it’s not English law, and there haven’t been English subjects since the Act of Union of 1707.)
English law in the time of kings was based on the location of birth. You were a subject if you were born under the sovereignty of the king.
That’s a rule that’s been changed by legislation. I was born under the sovereignty of HM King George VI of the United Kingdom, of Australia, and other realms and territories, but I’m no longer a subject of his daughter under UK law.
Oh yeah, I didn’t mean to imply that it was current law. But it was the source of the common law on citizenship at the time of the founding of the US.
All right then.
But still, John McCain’s birth is not going to stop him from becoming president. There will be no legal challenges to his presidency, therefore he meets the requirements to be President.
So what more discussion is needed?
This is far from the only instance of the Constitution using a term that it doesn’t define. My remembering of Con. law is that in most of those situations, congress gets to determine what it means. Given that this is indeed what’s happened for the last 215 years, there would have to be a damn compelling reason for the Supreme Court to get involved.