McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
WASHINGTON ‚Äö√Ñ√Æ The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming. Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office. Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
So, could it be possible that Sen. John McCain is ineligible to be President because he was not actually born in the US? And what does being a “natural-born citizen” actually mean?
Let’s be clear; John McCain is running for President, and this debate will ultimately turn out to be little more than an interesting intellectual exercise. It does raise an interesting question, though. Clearly, naturalized American citizens are ineligible to run for President. There was a time when perhaps Americans wanted to be certain that a President was not beholden to his birthplace. I think that time has long since passed, so why is this restriction still in place? Why not allow naturalized citizens to run for President? Isn’t it time that we allowed ALL Americans to pursue this opportunity if they’re so inclined? And aren’t we denying ourselves an entire class of leaders?
If you think about it, allowing naturalized citizens to run would open up a large talent pool of leaders. The first name that comes to mind is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who can be Governor of California, but not President. I’m not about to advocate for Schwarzenegger as a Presidential candidate; he is, after all, a Republican. Still, if he’s an effective leader, why should he not have the opportunity to lead this country if enough people will vote for him? He can lead one of the largest states in the country, but not the country itself? Surely, I’m not the only one who recognizes the hypocrisy and silliness inherent in this rule?
There may have been a time when being foreign-born may have been legitimate cause to question your allegiance. Given the global nature of today’s world, I see no reason why this would still be the case. If you can lead, you should have the opportunity to run for President. Isn’t America called the land of opportunity? Perhaps it could more accurately be described as the land of opportunity (minus one).
In the meantime, let’s not waste too much time arguing about John McCain’s “eligibility”. If he were to be disqualified, we’d be left with Mike Huckabee, which ought to scare the Hell out of any reasonable person. Then again, Huckabee would be the first one to tell you that Jesus Christ would be ineligible to run for President…because, if memory serves, He was born in Bethlehem.
