It’s very unlikely the Republicams would go after McCain. It would be too divisive. It wouldn’t be worthwhile unless he won the nomination, and if he did so, the Party would destroy the future of any Republican who would risk their chance at the Presidency by bringing such a suit.
I could easily see a Democratic candidate who lost the general election going to court with it, however. What would there be to lose?
At long last, all human decency.
During the 1964 Presidential campaign, famed personal-injury attorney Melvin Belli brought up the question of Goldwater’s eligibility. I did not know at the time whether or not Romney was born outside the U.S.; but it’s my understanding that a U.S. Citizen would have to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth.” (Cf. 14th Amendment.)
Alexander Hamilton, given his strong right-wing political philosophy (and the question of whether his parents were married when he was born), would not have had a chance to be elected President, regardless of his birth in the West Indies. As already noted he, like Washington, John Adams, etc., was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.
Al Gore wasn’t born in a state, either. He was born in Washington, D. C. 
I can’t believe ignorance is so widespread. The President has to be “natural born” citizen. Where people get that this is the same as “born on US soil” I have no idea. Natural born citizen means he was born a citizen and not naturalized later. You can be born a US citizen anywhere in the world.
And BTW, the president must have resided in the USA for 14 years so, a US citizen born in Paraguay and who has resided in the USA for 14 years and is older than 35 is eligible but a US citizen born in the USA but who has not resided in the US for 14 years is not eligible.
IMHO a natural born citizen is any person born in US territory or have both parents being US citizens (regardless of place of birth). Those are the only criteria that automatically makes the child a US citizen (thus natural born), all others may either be naturalized or arbitrated.
Since “natural born citizen” was never defined in the constitution, nor for that matter by Federal courts, why do you assume that thise who don’t “know” what it means are so ignorant? I take exception to that.
The information I’ve found indicates that the definition is still open to question.
yojimboguy, exactly where do you get the notion that natural born citizen equals born on US soil? Because I do not think you will find any support for that notion. Natural born means citizen by birth as opposed to a “naturalized” citizen who has acquired the nationality later. The idea that “natural born” equates “born on US soil” just shows absolute ignorance about the concept of nationality. You will not find support for that concept from anything but ignorant sources. Certainly not from any text or government sources. Or can you show any?
Sailor,
I will look for some support. Meanwhile, since you’re the one who’s flatly asserted what the definition of the term is, I challenge you to do the same. Find a definition and show me.
I already posted two cites above. Here’s another. This is admittedly a sideways approach to the question, as it addresses state rather than national citizenship. The relevant portion is:
Note the definition of citizenship does NOT include children born abroad of American parents.
Your turn.
I actually found the words of Cecil himself through a Google search:
Your turn again…
and unadorned from Amendment 14, section 1 of the US Constitution:
::foot tapping:: still your turn
Note that acquiring nationality by place of birth (ius solis) is quite rare and the USA is much more the exception than the norm in this. The norm in most countries is the newborn gets the nationality of the parents (ius sanguinis), and the USA is no exception to this either.
The language of the distinction is quite clear: a citizen can be either natural or naturalized. Now, the child of US parents born a broed is a citizen. Are you claiming the child is not a “natural” citizen and is therefore “naturalized”?
The Naturalization Act of 1790 had a clause
1 Stat. 103, 104
Also there have been Supreme Court rulings stating that the 14th Amendment does not exclusively set down just who is a natural born citizen.
See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
To add to the above: one can be born a citizen by being born in the US or by being born to American parents. People born in the USA to American parents acquire citizenship for two reasons but of these reasons parents is more important than soil.
There are exceptions to people acquiring citizenship by ius solis and it is conceivable that the law could be changed to deny automatic citizenship to the children of aliens born in the USA. In fact, I remember this has already been discussed because of the children of illegal aliens acquiring citizenship at birth.
OTOH, it would go against hundreds of years of tradition and it would be inconceivable to deny citizenship to children born abroad to citizens. I do not know of any country which does this.
So, I believe there is the wide misconception in the USA that where you are born is the determinat factor when, in reality, who your parents are is much more important.
I don’t deny that there are additional ways to acquire citizenship than what is spelled out in the Constitution. However, the question is whether those additional ways bestow “sufficient” citizenship to qualify the person to be President of the United States.
I think it’s quite arguable that extra-constitutional laws or regulations are simply irrelevant to the question of Presidential qualification. Since the only constitutional amendment that defines citizenship DOESN’T include children of American born abroad, in order to change those qualifications, it may be that the constitution itself needs to be amended.
Please note, I am not claiming this is the case. I DO claim the question is still an open one, and maintaining this position is NOT a demonstration of “ignorance” on my part.
>> I don’t deny that there are additional ways to acquire citizenship than what is spelled out in the Constitution
No, that is not the point. The point is that you are saying the child of US parents born abroad is not a “natural born citizen”. So what is he? Naturalized? Chopped liver?
Actually, according to BobT’s cite, naturalized, regarless of the quote pulled by BobT. Here is a fuller portion quoted:
(bolding mine)
I don’t really want to continue to debate this. I simply wish you would withdraw your assertion that an opinion contrary to yours on this question is an ignorant one.
And I never claimed this. YOU, in fact, claimed that such a child IS a natural birn citizen. I say that the child might not be, that the question remains open.
>> I don’t really want to continue to debate this
. . . He said before continuing the debate _
Kidding aside, I agree we have pretty much exhausted the subject and we’ll just have to amicably agree to disagree.
I would be a lot more amicable if you withdrew your statement about the ignorance of those (like me) who differ with your opinion.