Originally Posted by Article II, Section 1, subsection 5

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.

Originally Posted by Article I Section 9, subsection 3

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed

Originally Posted by Lumara

McCain isn't natural-born but hey, who is following the Constitution anymore?Not the current corrupt officials.

Originally Posted by malrenalds

But any law that can be described within less then 3 pages is probably being interpreted wrongly.

Originally Posted by malrenalds

This came up before I need to dig in it more. But any law that can be described within less then 3 pages is probably being interpreted wrongly.

Originally Posted by BoneDaddy

I got into a conversation on another forum. The question of McCain's 'natural born' status came up. During a search of 'ships of war' in the Laws of Nations, I was startled at what I found.

Everyone knows, or should know that one of the qualifications to be the POTUS is to be 'natural born.'



What exactly is a 'natural born citizen. Well I always presumed it was a citizen born in one of the sovereign states and excluded territories, protectorates and such.

I was actually researching what requirements nations have with respect to 'ships of war' of friendly nations when I ran across this:



Primer.....the laws of nations existed prior to the ratification of the constitution and is in fact what our constitution is based off of. It is NOT the same as 'international law.' Article I Section 8 subsection 10 binds us to the laws of nations. In Chisolm v. Georgia, Jon Jay (our first chief justice) stated that the United States "had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the laws of nations." The SCOTUS has found time and time again that our government is bound to the LoN. A google seach will provide you with all the disired reading material you may can stomach. However, I find the cases interesting...so I am a geek.

Anyway, in light of this discovery, the LoN is clear. Though 'citizenship' is granted by birthright of the parent to children born in 'foreign countries, born at sea and children born in the armies of the state' they are not considered 'natural born.' They have 'citizenship' but are not 'native.'

Now, what the right winger assert is that federal law states stat "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States." The law that conferred this status took effect on August 4, 1937, one year after John McCain was born

What am I getting at?



Look at the dates. This law was passed and it was 'ex post facto.' Furthermore, congress lacks authority to 'redefine' a word. The word 'natural born' was already understood to mean 'native' per the LoN.

Sorry GOP, but your guy isn't qualified to be the POTUS. Is he a citizen? Sure. Is he 'natural born?' I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Meh. If it was up to me (and of course it isn't, so relax), I'd get rid of some of these archaic, artificial niggling points. It's entirely possible that some absolutely amazing, dynamic, historymaking great person is or has been disqualified for high office. Who can say?