The Constitution requires that in order to be president of the United States one must be "a natural born Citizen." US Const. art II, § 1, cl. 4. What exactly does "natural born Citizen" mean? Sen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was under U.S. administration but not sovereignty. (Art. II, www.bartleby.com/43/47.html) As such is he eligible to be president of the US?
NOTE: Before telling me I'm an idiot kindly check the link at the bottom of my diary. Thanks
The short answer is Yes, he's probably eligible. But the longer (and far more interesting answer) is no one knows for sure.
Practically, this question is unlikely ever to be opined upon by the Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore (531 U.S. 98 (2000)) notwithstanding, the federal courts are not going to enjoin a president-elect from ascending to the presidency. So long as the American people nominate and elect someone, that person's eligibility will probably be regarded as a political question that is inappropriate for judicial scrutiny. Analysis of this question, however, is an interesting exercise in evaluating theories of the constitution that has relevance to other questions of who can serve for federal constitutional offices--for example could Bill Clinton have been John Kerry's vice-president?
As mentioned in the lead to this diary, Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 says that only a natural born citizen (or a citizen at the time of the constitution's adoption, but that one's moot at this point) may be elected president. According to a textualist constitutional theory the proper way to read the constitution is to use the text of the document along with authoritative dictionaries of the time. However, the terminology, natural born citizen was not widely in use when the Constitution was adopted. As a result one can look to Amendment XIV; unfortunately, this amendment uses different language "All persons born... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..."
Now Sen. McCain is clearly a citizen of the United States by birth, as early as 1790, Congress extended citizenship to persons born abroad to American citizens. But this actually could suggest that McCain is not eligible to be president. That argument would be as follows:
The 14th Amendment establishes Constitutional birthright citizenship. Congress is able to extend birthright citizenship by statute. "Natural birth" citizenship is a constitutional category that is not under the power of congress, ergo only the constitution can define it, which would mean 14th Amendment Citizenship.
There is a Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), about whether an individual born to Chinese nationals in the US which states:
"The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.’ Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 478, 8 Sup. Ct. 569...
in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: " British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. ‘Permanent’ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes ‘temporary’ allegiance to the crown. *‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.'*
Definitive answer, yes? Actually the answer is no. Even though the Supreme Court seems to define the meaning of "Natural born" they don't. The only part of a decision that is binding precedent is the part that is necessary to the ruling. This ruling deals with citizenship under the 14th Amendment, not Article II. Specifically, it dealt with whether one was a citizen if born in the US. Thus, the court’s opinion about "natural born citizen" is not binding (which is called dicta). The other problem is that the source the cite to postdates the Constitution by over a century, which raises the possibility that the British Common Law understanding of "Natural Born" citizen, may have developed after the constitution was adopted.
Unfortunately, there really is no way to know definitively who in the gray area of citizen by birth but not unambiguously natural born citizen, is or is not qualified to be president. The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions, thus the case is only "ripe" when someone who's natural birth is questionable is president-elect. Now, the odds are, that the Supreme Court would not hear a challenge at all, but that if they did that they would say McCain was eligible. Unfortunately, even that would still leave a lot of questions open. What about someone who is a citizen by birth, but is not a citizen for part of their lives (someone with an American father who is born abroad becomes a citizen retroactively by birth if sponsored by their father before the age of 18), is someone who is ineligible to be elected president still eligible to be president (could Bill be Hillary's vice-president), what about people born in the Canal Zone to non-US parents (they are citizen by statute, but the Zone was not US territory)?
For a similar analysis of this story see McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out