Senator Mccain does not qualify to be president

Interesting website you posted. I would encourage anyone observing the round to check it out as the crux of my argument will come down to what it means to be a "natural-born citizen". We are not disagreeing that Mccain is a citizen. The debate is whether he is a "natural-born" citizen. 1. Legalese That 1790 law you posted was deemed unconstitutional by the Dred Scott case which was overtaken by the 14th amendment. That is the text we should be working from. The 1790 law was put back on the books in various forms but w/o the phrase "natural born". Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 393 (1856) Onto the Immigration and Nationalization act, you are correct that since Mccain's parents are citizens he is a citizen. However, the text is about citizenship AT birth not BY birth. This difference would be key to my argument except that the act was passed in 1952, after Mccain was born, hence it doesn't apply . Sec. 301. [8 U. S. C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. .. .. .. .. .. .. "Your reference to the statement by the US State Department is reffering to a scenario. .. .. ." My state department argument is straight copy and paste from the law. It applies to everyone. Here it is again so no scrolling is neccesary 7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States" (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95) c. 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 2. Qualification to Challenge This debate is complicated but it is about whether or not Senator Mccain himself meets the qualifications neccessary to become president. It is not about whether anyone can or will sue him for breaching the conditions. I do not know much about who can and cannot bring suit. I'd assume anyone can bring suit in this case as this scenario is capable of repetition and by the time the case is settled the action of electing someone to president has already occurred. I know this was the reasoning behind Roe V Wade being a reviewable case. I assume it applies here but either way, thats not what we are debating. 3. Panama At the time in question the Panama free zone was run by the United States and I'll even concede that it was controlled by the United States. It was not part of the United States though it can be considered part of America. It was an extraterritorial holding, much like Cuba, the Philippines, or Guantanamo This is key because as I'll explain below on the only way one can be a natural born citizen. 3. Natural Born Citizen I hope that in all of the information I have cited, I have tried to show what a natural born citizen means under the law and not under one's own mores. According to the relevant part of the 14th ammendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States " This creates two classes of citizens. Ones who are natural born and ones who are naturalized. One must be born in the states to be a natural-born citizen and one must be naturalized in the states to be a naturalized citizens. The states is key. Mccain was not born in a state therefore he cannot be natural born. The laws we have spoken of bestow naturalized citizenship on Mccain at birth, not by birth. The law I stated, 7 FAM 1116.1-4(c), stated that birth on a military installation abroad is not a part of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore Mccain is a naturalized citizen and not a natural born one.