http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html

Let’s say that, against all odds, McCain achieves a majority of electors in the electoral college - would their decision be trumped by the constitution, or would McCain need to be sworn in before legal action could be pursued? Would we end up with the VP being promoted at the inauguration?

I think it raises some interesting problems, and makes McCain’s VP choice even MORE important. Already we know he is likely to expire within four years, but this would make his VP the ‘unelected’ president (that would make three in a row, for those of you counting).

Bottom line? It doesn’t matter, because there is no way McCain will win this election. Interesting, though!

(a) 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.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

So, regardless of whether he is QUALIFIED to be President, he certainly is eligible.

Although it is not legally binding, the US State Department says: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

This would appear to make McCain’s citizenship the result of his parents (jus sanguinis) and not the right of the land (jus soli).

I’m not constitutional expert, and experts seem to think that this issue is rather tricky and in no way clear-cut.

Since the factcheck.org article is missing over 50% of the facts/argument, I think it isn’t worth much. In addition, they are frequently wrong.

But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a Congressional Act stated in 1790 and another reaffirmed in 1795:

Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_can_panamanian-born_mccain_be_elected_president.html

I could be wrong, but it seems to be straight forward.

Thus, the law that would have kept this a clear cut case ended up coming about twenty years late.

As the situation stands, he was born in US controlled territory, but the clarification as to the status of children born in that area wasn’t in place at the time, so we cannot, without significant legal argument, determine where we’re at.

So mccain is stuck and not eligible until a constitutional ammendment is done which takes forever

Interestingly, if Obama had been born 2 years earlier, we could have had the same convo about him.

But, yes, some of law does need to be changed, because it does not automatically make someone a natural citizen who is born at, say, a military base in England.