————————-

Mr. Charlton replies: It is inaccurate to say that one born of 2 us citizens on a military bases is a natural born citizen. The base would have to be U.S. Territory, or, if it is on lease soil of a foreign country or in a stateless area, the child born would have to be born of 2 u.s. citizens, one of whom was in military service of the country. However, in the latter case, the birth does not have to be on a base. The notion of a natural born citizen born of a man or woman in military service of one’s nation, is a concept Vattel drew from the common opinion/tradition of natural and international law, in which those participating in military forces of a country, have a special relationship of personal inclusion in the jurisdition of that government, such that all their children born, are considered born in that country, even if actually born outside of the territory of that country.

For this reason, it does not matter where McCain was born, it matters only that his parents were U.S. citizens and that his father was on active duty. Which is why SR 511 confines itself with 2 citizen parents as a condition for being NBC for children of military personnel.

Yet it must be emphasized that this application of Vattel to the NBC question in U.S. Constitutional law, has never been made by the U.S. Supreme Court; nor any court for that matter, as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong).

And so here we have two nations (the US and Panama) each with a claim of citizenship on McCain at birth. Unlike a natural born citizen, whose citizenship at birth is 100% US, McCain’s citizenship at birth was split between two countries.

And Panama’s claim to McCain’s citizenship is no different than if the reverse situation had occurred. Imagine that we have a Canadian soldier stationed across the North Dakota border in Canada with a Canadian wife who is pregnant. Imagine they are out for a drive near the border and she goes into labor and the nearest hospital is across the border in the US. So they cross the border and she gives birth to a child in this US hospital. That child is therefore a US citizen at birth, despite being taken back to Canada a few days later, where his parents raise him as a Canadian citizen. But that child will always have had the status of being a dual citizen at birth.

—————————

Mr. Charlton replies: TexomaEd, whether the army is present for peaceful purposes or for beligerent ones, the principle remains the same, that where the military forces are there the jurisdiction of that country is. That is where they are as an army, not a multinational force. The Panama Canal Zone was an exclusive American Zone, where our Military exercised the full Jurisdiction of the American Government, even if the occasion of their being their and the nature of that occupation was a friendly determined by treaty. But the mere fact that a treaty has to specify that relationship, is premised upon the principle that otherwise, the presence of US Military as a US Miliary unit is the exercise of full jurisdiction.

The example you use about Canada is not similar at all: the wife is not a US. citizen; and the boundary is a international boundary.

For McCain the Panamal Canal Zone is not an international boundary, its a treaty-boundary; the treaty allows U.S. Military units in the zone in the service of full American Jurisdiction by postive law, yet with limited effects. Mc Cain was born of a father in service of his country. The fact that he went some miles outside of military camp does not change that. He lived off base with the consent of his military superiors.

His father was not a civilian, but on active duty; therefore the child had a special relationship to U.S. jurisdiction that no child born of civilians has or could ever have.

I think anyone who understands what the Miltary is, accepts that; if you merely want to dispute this, fine, but I think this thread is sufficient for the above article’s comment section, as is.

The situation in the Panama Canal Zone was very different. Our military was never at war with Panama and the territory they occupied was not conquered (although Colombia might dispute that!). The US paid rent to the Republic of Panama for all the land comprising the Canal Zone, including that of the military bases. Panama had always claimed sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

But the question of Panama’s sovereignty of the territory of the Canal Zone is really moot with regard to McCain. He was born in Colon, Panama which is Panamanian soil. Panamanian law states that all persons born on its soil are Panamanian citizens at birth, McCain was a Panamanian citizen at birth and also a US citizen because of his parents. Like Obama, McCain was a dual citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen.

—————————-

Mr. Charlton replies: Here I wil have to beg to differ. Vattel says that children born to soliders on duty are born in the country, because according to international law and natural naw, where a nation’s army is, that nation excercises jurisdiction in the highest manner, since the armed forces of the nation are the formal presence of that entire nation in that locale. So there is no question at all of being a dual citizen. In fact, no nation on earth, as a far as I have read, recognizes as citizens those born in the service of a foreign army on its soil. Its contrary to principle and to sovereignty.

As for the special contract or alliance between the USA and Panama, that does not change natural law or international law. It only changes the positive effects of the US Military presence in Panama. And since that treaty did not say that those born in US military service while stationed in the Canal Zone, whether born in or out of it, would not be natural born citizenz, I think Vattel’s princples hold.

In question of natural law, even positive legal agreements are not final: because a natural born citizen cannot be deprived of this right by any postitive law, since the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God trump all treaties and Congressional acts.

For that reason I believe that McCain has good grounds to claim NBC status, and that the Supreme Court would probably uphold such a claim. The same principles result in Obama being recognized never to have been a NBC of the USA.

I admit that for a long time I believed McCain was not a NBC. But upon reading Vattel, I have seen that I was wrong on that.

If we go after Obama on a subject of dual citizenship alone, and won, it would almost certainly be by a 5-4 decision somewhere, and the media and the losers would attempt to turn it all into a “they stole it” and the rioters would all be portrayed as the victims. (as in, “what else could they do?”) Now I’m not saying that we should avoid the issue because of the yelling, screaming, rioting that would ensue, I would say go ahead and riot and give the police their riot gear. I’m just saying that this country is full of people, and judges, who would vote against sound legal theory for exactly that reason. So, it’s another reason I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with it.

On the other hand, when and if we get our hands on his Real birth certificate, and it shows just what type of shenanigans he’s played, not only will the living constitution types have nowhere to hide, but all of the “they stole it” people and their media lackeys will look like utter fools trying to pull that crap.

————–

Mr. Charlton replies: And if the child has 2 citizen parents, and is reputed born in the country, since he was born in the arms of the state…then he meets the criteria for a Natural Born Citizen….for more on this ask Mario Apuzzo, who I believe was the first one to find this in Vattel.

Status update FYI…we are getting close on that Drudge initiative…hope to be coming through soon.

Great job with the H-DAG! I wonder, what does Gov Linda will have to say about this?

———————-

Mr. Charlton replies: This case is very promising; it might bring about grounds for Obama’s impeachment, after the 2010 elections. I say “impeachment” not because I believe he can be, but because perhaps that’s all the manliness Congress will have.