User talk:Hutcher/Natural-born citizen

Random Notes

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-mccain-birthplacefeb28,0,6597433.story

us dept website us installations are not part of the us 14th ammendment does not acquire us citizenship by reason of birth

State Department is encouraging people to have their children back in country

This has been hotly debated since 1790 so I'm not sure why it's reduced to a footnote. "A person can be considered to be a citizen-at-birth either due to place of birth within that country's territorial jurisdiction jus soli or through descent from a citizen of that country jus sanguinis, or through some combination of those two elements. A person who is a citizen-at-birth and was also born within that country would be additionally considered a native-born citizen"[1]. A citzen-at-birth, like John McCain, is not necessarily a native-born citizen or a Natural-born citizen as explicitly stated in the Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.

The Rudin article noted the Naturalization Act of 1790, with the term "Natural born", but it was repealed and replaced by Naturalization Act of 1795 without such a note. Both of these, plus the much maligned Dred Scott v. Sandford case, addressed naturalization which grants rights of citizenship but does not ammend Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, although not truly ratified, overturned Dred Scott and is considered the authority on citizenship but, again, does not ammend Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.

So is the Panama Canal Zone considered to by "within that country (USA)"? That's also debatable because it was not an organized incorporated territory. Being controlled by the "Panama Canal Company" and organized by a United States territorial court outside the jurisdiction of Article Three of the United States Constitution what are it's rights under the Constitution?

[10.14.18 @JamesDot4u As a natural-born Citizen myself I think as such mine and all opinions of citizens count even if as the person says below "it means squat" to him/her. I think the USC is pretty clear that jurisdiction and Federal employees (perhaps even state) are under the jurisdiction of the US when paid to perform duties in other countries. Can we really think service persons in another country are not under the jurisdiction of the US? Did not the US send them? Would not the US be in violation of every written document signed? John McCain was born of parents both US citizens under the jurisdiction of the US, this made McCain a natural-born Citizen even as the child of an ambassador is as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.154.244 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McCain may need a Constituational Ammendment[2]. It would be a shame if McCain would break his oath to uphold the Constitution while taking the oath of office. Hutcher (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so write a separate article on who can be president, that covers all the possible cases including this one, and we can link to that. But to include a full discussion of this in the main McCain bio article would be a huge diversion. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right so I've added a note referring to the most appropriate existing article: Natural-born citizen. In addition I removed the existing footnote since it's assertions are debatable if not incorrect Hutcher (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more importantly, if he was born in a military hospital under a Status of Forces Agreement that so provided, that would be considered US soil. There are several specialized exceptions, one of which being that if the parent(s) are in the service of the government (e.g., diplomats or military), the child is presumed to be American, although the child might later choose dual citizenship -- which, I would think, would be a practical bar to becoming President. Also, an aircraft or ship registered in a given country is considered to be under the jurisdiction of that country -- including birth, which is more common on ships -- even if in international waters. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that would make McCain a citizen-at-birth which is different from Natural-Born Citizen. Again, the Ken Rudin article's only source is a law that was repealed and replaced. Your reference to SOFA further bolsters my claim "SOFA is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country" and does not address naturalization. As far as I know McCain was not born at sea so your second point is also invalid. That footnote is in error and, again, does not do this subject justice. The only reason for shoehorning this debate into a footnote is to hide it from visitors who do not ready the Talk page or re-research the article by following the references. A proper mention to Natural-born citizen belongs in this article. Hutcher (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of whether McCain is qualified due to his place of birth is now in the first footnote of the entire article. If it's going to be bumped up into the main article text, then you'd need to provide a reliable source discussing the issue, plus get consensus that it's notable and neutral to include in the main text. And even then, it would belong in the section on his presidential campaign, unless the issue was raised in 1936.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jillions of words have been written about McCain by WP:RS during this campaign and his 2000 campaign, and just about none of them have questioned his eligibility to become president (the WaPo article is from before even his first campaign). If there was any mainstream thought that he wasn't eligible, the press (not to mention his competitors!) would have brought it up. They haven't. By consideration of WP:Undue weight, that means we need barely mention this issue in this article; the footnote reference we have is enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia:Footnotes? This is not a proper use of footnote as per Wikipedia:Footnotes. Footnotes should only be used to add additional info to a point not replace the point all together.

2) Notable? The US Constitution is notable.

3) WP:RS? I have made a dozen references to the US Consititution and current US law vs. the footnote's 1 reference to an op-ed column and 2 misused latin phrases.

4) WP:Undue weight? This is my argument ... all significant viewpoints are not being permitted.

5) Campaign? The campaign article is about events in the campaign not about it's validity.

6) Consensus? This is an open-source encyclopedia not a partisan website. You can not make false claims and then label them the will of the people -- you need to invalidate my sources and support the footnote's ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutcher (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You won't like hearing this, but your arguments about what the Constitution means are ruled out by WP:NOR. And read the first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." What this means here is that even if the mainstream, famous people say McCain is eligible and are wrong, and if you the non-famous person says McCain is ineligible and are right, your view here still means squat. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for moving the footnote anywhere; I'm only asking if "may have been assured" is weasel wording? I mean, it seems to be putting a spin on an unknown -- would it be better to remove the implied bias/weasel words?