The Smoking Gun? Perhaps.

I'm still not convinced that John McCain has a legitimate claim to be running as a United States Presidential Candidate. Mitt Romney challenged him on his citizenship status and the Democrat nominee will too. Read the following articles: John McCain- Is He An American Citizen Eligible For Office Of President? and "No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of President"John McCain was born August 29, 1936 in Panama Also. blogger "JJ" #16's entry, draws the two comparisons together and finishes the argument with facts.

Here's what he said, JJ says:
February 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

This is not an issue now but it will be a huge issue if McCain tries to take office. He will be challenged, and so far all the evidence points to the GOP and McCain losing this argument, and the election.

The Constitution doesn’t say that you have to be a citizen, it says you have to be a natural-born citizen, and that means your citizenship in this country must be derived purely from your birth, and not from any legislation or naturalization. Citizens born in territories get their citizenship from legislation. Citizens born in military hospitals in foreign bases are not, repeat, _not_ natural born citizens. Children born in foreign countries can claim citizenship through legislation. It is not automatic.

From the State Dept web site:
a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth - Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316, 9th Cir., 1928.

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are __not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment__. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and __does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth__.

Children born in foreign countries on land currently being used by the US government or military are not natural-born citizens. The argument bears plenty of weight and you can rest assured it will be brought up in the courts. The Panama Canal Zone was never a territory of the US — it was leased land. That you rent something does not make it yours, you should know that by now. The exact text of the treaty:

“The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, __if it were the sovereign of the territory__ within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.”

Not only does the treat explicitly say that the US is not the sovereign of the land in which the Zone is located, it explicitly says that it only grants the rights as “if it were the sovereign”.
In 1906, Pres. Theodore Roosevelt explicitly declared that there was never any intent of creating a sovereign territory of the United States in the Canal Zone, only a tract of the land owned by Panama and managed by the United States __as if it were a territory__.

You can’t even use as an argument the 1790 law that declares children born of US citizens overseas as natural-born citizens, because the Supreme Court decision that validated that, Dred Scott, was struck down. The law of the land as it stands now is the 14th Amendment, which specifically makes a distinction between people born in the United States, and everyone else, considered citizens by naturalization, automatic or otherwise.

Do republicans want to continue to support a candidate who has a 99.999% chance of being prohibited from taking the oath and becoming president because he is not a natural-born citizen? This is no different than Arnold’s case. He is not a natural-born citizen, and neither is McCain. It is _that_ simple. Proceed at your own peril, republicans. You already stand a pisspoor chance of winning the election — this won’t help you one bit.

John McCain has refused to open his POW documents to prove or disprove this question of citizenship and will have a hard time explaining this without the facts.