Senator John McCain, the current Republican Party nominee for President, was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. The circumstances of his birth raise the question of whether he is a "natural born citizen" as required by Article II, section 1 of the Constitution. The symposium contributors explore both the substance of this issue and the methods used to resolve it.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.

The enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a “natural born citizen” was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a “natural born subject” in English law—a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of “citizens” and not “subjects,” introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.

The 2008 election cycle has been a busy one for legal disputes over the qualifications of presidential candidates, with federal cases having been filed to challenge both major candidates’ eligibility under the “natural born Citizen” clause. These cases unquestionably present vital questions of constitutional law, touching on matters of self-evident national importance. It is doubtful, however, that they are justiciable in lower federal courts. Standing requirements and the political question doctrine make it unlikely that a federal court will reach the merits in cases of the type filed to date.

Many things may obstruct John McCain’s path to the White House, but his citizenship status is not among them. The question of his eligibility, given the circumstances of his birth, has already been resolved. That outcome has been produced by actors outside the courts. . . . If non-judicial actors—including Congress, editorialists, leading members of the bar, and the People themselves—manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it. In cases such as this one, at least, that seems to be an acceptable method of constitutional determination.

Senator John McCain was born a citizen in 1936. Professor Gabriel J. Chin challenges this view in this Symposium, arguing that McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone (while his father was stationed there by the Navy) fell into a loophole in the governing statute. The best historical evidence, however, suggests that this loophole is an illusion and that McCain is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president.

The new President in 2009 will follow an administration which has not been seen as proactive in developing environmental policy to address issues of climate change, alternative energy, and sustainability. Environmental organizations, legal and policy academics, and industry officials are beginning to debate the necessary focus of that next administration as it endeavors to develop sustainable environmental policies. As the nation’s major environmental laws were enacted three decades ago, when the country faced very different environmental problems, this symposium proposes a fresh legal and policy approach to climate change, alternative energy, and sustainability for the next presidential administration to follow.

The Bush Administration squandered eight years denying the reality of climate change and delaying action on it. Nevertheless, the president who comes into office in January will face two happy realities. First, whatever the Bush Administration has done (through obstruction or inaction) on climate change can easily be undone due to its legal and scientific flimsiness. And second, statutes now on the books provide plenty of legal authority for swift action on the most important environmental issue of our time.

The U.S. system for regulating appliances—which account for a huge percentage of the nation’s carbon emissions—is a mess. Since the federal government began regulating appliance efficiency in the 1970s, the process has been characterized by frequent delays and foot-dragging, followed by lawsuits and legislative overhauls. Amidst the turmoil, a number of states have attempted to assert leadership in setting appliance standards but have often faced federal roadblocks in doing so.

Climate change is an environmental problem of global dimensions, but we lack a system of international law that can impose a coordinated response. Bilateral agreements between key nations may present a solution. A partnership between the United States and China to develop technology for carbon capture and sequestration offers hope for mitigating the climate impacts of China’s rapidly growing number of coal-burning electric power plants.

By any interpretation of sustainability, additional public and private investment should be made to protect and restore watersheds and their incorporated landscapes as sources of ecosystem services. This investment may require reducing current consumption but is justified because it will enhance the well being of the present generation and also enable future generations to enjoy a quality of life equal to our own.

Not since President Carter's impassioned speeches in the 1970s, which warned Americans that their country's dependence on oil was "likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century," has there been serious attention to the role conservation should play in addressing environmental issues such as climate change and sustainability. The next presidential administration should highlight the importance of individuals taking action in their homes and communities in order to decrease the unsustainable demand for natural resources.

The international Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming—negotiated in 1997 and ratified by nearly all signatory countries except the United States and Kazakhstan—will expire in 2012, at the end of the upcoming presidential term. Whichever candidate the American people select to lead our nation for the next four years will face two great challenges to confront global climate change: what direction to take the country within the international community as the world decides how to replace Kyoto, and what policies to implement domestically to help curb this impending crisis.

Recent outbreaks of diseases such as measles, mumps, and pertussis, which have mostly been eradicated in the United States for decades, have called attention to the increased use of personal belief exemptions (sometimes called philosophical exemptions) to childhood vaccination requirements. Twenty states, including Michigan, allow personal belief exemptions, in addition to the medical exemptions allowed by every state. Since the 1990s, parents have increasingly used these personal belief exemptions, often related to an unproven belief that vaccines are linked to autism and other disorders. An outbreak of the disease can sicken not only children who are unvaccinated, but also children who have received the vaccine. While in the past, unvaccinated children were more likely to be low-income, increasingly more are higher-income and their parents well-educated. With the increased risk that the use of personal belief exemptions will limit the effectiveness of vaccination, this symposium addresses whether parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be liable in tort to individuals who are infected and injured by the unvaccinated children.

A parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease. Should an individual harmed by an infection transmitted from a child whose parents chose to forgo vaccination have a negligence claim against those parents? While I do not hold a legal degree and therefore cannot speak directly to issues of law, as a physician and ethicist it seems to me that the basic elements that comprise negligence claims—harm, duty, breach of duty, and causation—are met in some cases where parents forgo vaccination.

Should a parent who takes advantage of a personal belief exemption to avoid vaccinating a child be held liable if that child infects other people? No, because there are valid medical reasons for choosing this exemption and tracing direct transmission of these illnesses from an unvaccinated child to another person is virtually impossible.

The increasing availability of personal belief exemptions from state vaccination requirements is a growing concern among proponents of vaccination. Holding parents of non-vaccinated children liable to those they infect is among the responses proposed to maintain high vaccination rates. Even if motivated by a sincere desire to maximize the benefits of vaccination throughout society, such a step would be inadvisable, further entrenching opponents of vaccination and adding to the atmosphere of confusion and unnecessary alarm that has become increasingly common among parents of children for whom vaccination is recommended.

Public health agencies and citizens should employ legal approaches to hold parents accountable for refusing to vaccinate their children. The judiciary would craft an effective response to defeat the threat posed by these parents. Public-nuisance law may offer a legal mechanism to hold vaccine objectors liable for their actions.

The health and wellbeing of the public is, in part, a function of the behavior of individuals. When one individual’s behavior places another at a foreseeable and easily preventable risk of illness or injury, tort liability can play a valuable role in discouraging that conduct. This is true in the context of childhood immunization.

Imposing tort liability on parents who fail to vaccinate their children would not serve the public health and public policy interests that drive childhood immunization efforts. The public policy goals of vaccination are to slow the spread of disease and to reduce mortality and morbidity. Our country’s public health laws already play a substantial role in furthering these goals. Although application of tort law may be an appropriate response to some of the problems that result from vaccination noncompliance, there also is a need to cultivate public understanding of the connection between individual actions and collective wellbeing. It is doubtful that the imposition of individual tort liability will achieve this goal.