There has been a lot of debate on several forums concerning John McCain and SR 511.
SR 511 simply stated that ‘Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.’
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Where is it defined?
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base
John McCain was born to citizen parents on US military soil,
Here is the kicker folks.
The same is for American Military bases, if the land is purchased it’s considered American soil. The same stipulations have been applied for renting, hence US bought it to connect North America and South America. The U.S. rented the land from Panama
On February 26, 1904, the Isthmian Canal Convention was proclaimed. In it, the Republic of Panama granted 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 the canal.
Therefore John McCain was born to two United States Citizens ON United States controlled soil.
From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States, which had built the canal and financed its construction. From 1979 to 1999 the canal itself was under joint U.S.–Panamanian control. In 1977 the Torrijos-Carter Treaties established the neutrality of the canal.
The United States had soverign control of the canal zone when John McCain was born.
John McCain has both jus sanguinis and Jus soli citizenship.
Barack Obama has neither, as a foreign national father and no evidence (except manufactured) of place of birth.