John McCain, Natural Citizenship, & Presidential Eligibility

John Woodman:
“Reading the referenced work by Tribe and Olsen that resulted in Senate Resolution 511, they didn’t conclude that John McCain was eligible to the Presidency IN PART because he had two US citizen parents — they found that he was eligible to the Presidency SOLELY because he had two US citizen parents.
They stated that it didn’t matter at all whether the Canal Zone was US territory or not, as “natural born” includes BOTH those born on US soil (alone) AND those born to US parents (alone).”

You’ve identified the heart of the matter.  After penning perhaps 100K words on the matter of Obama’s eligibility, it all boils down to a simple question; “What is the law (there is none) or principle by which John McCain is a U.S. citizen who is eligible to be the President?”  The answer is inescapable logical proof that Obama is NOT eligible, because they can’t BOTH be eligible.  Either McCain is and Obama isn’t, or vice versa.
McCain has been determined to be a natural born citizen via the principle of natural law and by that principle it is irrelevant where one is born, just as it’s irrelevant in nature.  Parentage is everything.  There’s no rational definition of NBC that requires birth on U.S. soil, but that is where 99% of Americans are born so it describes essentially all NBCs, with the exception of those born abroad.
They were intended to be eligible to the presidency by the framers because they would be born to true-blue American patriots such as those appointed as ambassadors to other nations.   The only other requirement they faced was minimum age and at least 14 years of life in the U.S. , implying the time period between age 21 and age 35.

The founders deliberately intended that such a possibility be allowed since such a citizen would be natural born.  McCain could have been born in any part of Panama, lived there all his life up until his mid-fifties, moved to the U.S., lived here 14 years, then run for President at age 72.  But that would be an extremely rare example.  AN

John Woodman
“Authorities have stated that “natural born” is really just the same thing as acquiring your US citizenship at birth — either by being born to two US parents, or being born on US soil and under the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not the child of an ambassador here in service of a foreign country). Or both.  Doesn’t matter.
Hence, John McCain, born abroad to two US citizen parents, is eligible. Barack Obama, born in Honolulu of one US citizen parent and one UK citizen parent, is eligible. Bobby Jindal, born in the US of two non-US-citizen parents legally residing here, is eligible.”

John Woodman, You’re conflating citizens-at-birth with citizens-by-birth.  Citizens-at-birth are not citizens by birth to citizen parents but are citizens due to the practical executive and 14th Amendment policy of granting citizenship to children born and raised  here to parents who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  All immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction so their children are citizens-at-birth via automatic naturalization under common law and 14th Amendment law.  But they are not *natural* citizens because they were born to foreigners and not Americans.  Only those born to American parents are natural citizens and therefore eligible to be the President.
There are NOT two types of natural citizens via two principles.  There is only one principle and that is extrapolated from nature.  In nature the place of a newborn’s birth is irrelevant to what species it is and it is the same in the political realm.   It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the word “natural” to ascribe place-of-birth to its meaning.

In the Natural realm reproduction does not depend on place of birth, but only on two things, which are; two parents of the same species.  It’s the same in the political realm.  A natural citizen only needs two things; namely, two parents of the same citizenship.
Anyone whose citizenship is dependent on their birth being in the United States is not a natural citizen but a statutory citizen covered by the 14th Amendment as embodied in the US Code Title 8 1401.  They are not eligible to be the President, that includes Marco Rubio and Jindal since they weren’t born to American citizens.

Location of birth is irrelevant to natural citizenship.  Parentage is everything.  That’s jus sanguinis.  It is the principle of natural membership in every group that man or animal is born into.
Location is only relevant under jus soli subjecthood, not parentage.  That is the principle derived from the Divine Right of Kings that justified the monarchy holding power over every soul born within its domain.

It doesn’t matter where McCain was born.  He was born of American citizens and therefore he was a natural American citizen.  Obama wasn’t.  Children born abroad to American Ambassadors, diplomats and consuls are natural citizens also and the framers of the Constitution intended that they be eligible to be President, that’s why they required only 14 years residency.  Born and raised abroad.  At  21 years of age moved to the United States.  Lived in the nation of their nationality for 14 years, at which time they would be 35 years old and eligible to be President.
Don’t contaminate the pure principle of jus sanguinis citizenship with the bastardized principle of jus soli subjecthood by dragging location of birth into the equation.  It’s irrelevant.   A.R. Nash

By the clear and irrefutable wording of Senate Res. 511 John McCain is a natural born citizen and is such due to a certain fact which met the requirement of a certain principle.  That fact is that he was born to citizens of America.  That principle is the only principle that produces natural citizens.

By that principle, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen but is instead merely a statutory citizen due to his connection to an American mother which allowed him provisional citizenship which became permanent citizenship at 18 yrs of age after living in the U.S. the required number of years.

But having a foreign father, -without an American father, his citizenship is not normal nor natural.  Nothing that is not normal is natural because that which is unnatural is not normal.
It is not normal or natural for a dog to produced off-spring with a cat, nor is natural citizenship produced by the union of two different nationalities.  The dual-nationality of the off-spring is not normal nor politically natural, it is a hybrid nationality.
By the principle by which McCain was unanimously recognized as being born a natural citizen of the United States, Obama should and can be recognized as NOT being a natural citizen because he lacked an American father, – his mother was married to a Visa card foreign student, not an immigrant.

His American citizenship is totally dependent on a U.S. statute that is the descendant of the Cable Act, a statute that has not yet been identified, [update: it’s finally been discovered and is the provisional pathway to citizenship for children of American mothers who moved back to the U.S. with their non-citizen child] by which he was allowed to assume the citizenship of his American mother.  Without that statute he would not be an American citizen under United States law, even though he would be considered as such by the erroneous policy adhered to by the ignorant U.S. State Department since 1898 assuming that Junior was born in the U.S.

Other pertinent questions are; “What is Obama’s native country?” -and “What is John McCain’s native country?”  The answer is that one’s native country is that of their father, or parents.  Since at the time the Constitution was written women lost their U.S. citizenship when marrying foreigners, one could only have one native country, and that is the country of the father’s nationality.  Thus Kenya would have been Obama’s native-country. AN

PR, You conveniently failed to note that not all dual-citizenship is identical. Foreign citizenship conferred upon a natural citizen of the United States by a foreign nation due to birth on their soil is irrelevant to the dual-citizenship that comes from having a foreigner for a father.  That form of dual-citizenship is impossible when both parents are Americans.

No natural citizen has ever had a foreigner for a father though millions of non-natural citizens have.  Their citizenship is by the acquiescence of the federal government via statutory, constitutional and judicial law, while the citizenship of natural citizens exists in the absence of any law whatsoever.  It requires no law because it is natural.

But the question at the heart of the eligibility question isn’t about the principle by which Obama is a U.S. citizen since there is no such principle, the question is “By what principle is John McCain a U.S. citizen?”  If you answer that question  then the problem of Obama’s ineligibility will be clearly revealed.

by Adrien Nash  march 2012;  updated July 2015

2 Responses to John McCain, Natural Citizenship, & Presidential Eligibility

  1. igno ramos says:

    Who is John Woodman? What authority does he have to interpret the law? Is he qualified to do so. If not he is just like any birther that expressed such opinion and is illegitimate and is inconsequential. It only an unqualified opinion of an individual and is irrelevant. In my opinion only the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified to rule on this issue. That is their job, to interpret the law.

    • arnash says:

      John Woodman is an author, researcher, and investigator of facts. I don’t recall what his profession is or was, -perhaps an academic. Most of what he has written is entirely accurate and illuminating, but he went off the rails when he wrote about natural citizenship because he, like everyone else, failed to grasp the simple, natural truth about natural national membership. Very unfortunate. Other than that, most folks would learn a good deal of new information from him.
      But you are correct that his opinion is irrelevant, as is that of the corrupt and treasonous supreme court. They have no authority to rule on the meaning of “natural born citizen” because it is not defined in the Constitution, so they cannot rule what the Constitution defines it to mean.

      What it means is derived wholly from the English language, and not British common law. No one has the authority to define the English language except the population that employs it. Words and phrases can shift in meaning over time, but the meaning of natural born citizen has never shifted because the meaning of “natural” has never changed.
      One can be a born citizen but that can include a tiny percentage of the population that are made citizens by law and are not citizens naturally. The have one or two foreign-citizen parents. But those born as natural citizens only have American parents.

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: