In their latest effort to discredit John McCain, The Times ran a little piece 'wondering' if McCain was really eligible..because he was born while his Navy father was on duty in the Panama Canal Zone and thus not a natural born citizen:
"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.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
No precedent? How about these gentlemen?
John Quincy Adams
William Henry Harrison
Every one of them was born a British subject in the colonies!
All that aside, is anyone really going to tell serving officers of the United States that if they take an overseas posting they can forget about any children born on the base hospitals ever aspiring to the presidency? I don't think so!
You have to really wonder at the New York Times' desperately grasping at straws like these.