Posted on 06/12/2006 3:28:21 PM PDT by HAL9000
The phrase used is "natural born." Personally, I would think that anybody who was born a US citizen (which includes children born abroad of American parents) would qualify as "natural born."
I would think this argument would be weakened if the person automatically received the citizenship of another country at birth as well. But if the only citizenship a person received at birth was US citizenship, I would think that would definitely strengthen the claim to be "natural born" citizens of the USA.
I was just looking at this. There are more details to it, but that's the essence. I think there was a law around 1790 or so that explicitly stated that children born abroad of American parents were to be considered as "natural born." If you find more details and analysis, post 'em!
:-) Thank you.
This caused quite an argument in here a week or so ago. It turned out to be a touchy subject! Whoda' thunk it?
====================
"In 1789, the Constitution was silent on who is to be considered a citizen of the United States, but did empower the Congress in Article I, Section 8, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
A specific reference to citizenship was made, however, in Article II, which states that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have Attained to the age of thirty-five Years, and been resident fourteen Years within the United States".
This language is intriguing because it clearly implies that Americans would be living overseas.
3. When Was Citizenship First Defined?: When the First Congress enacted the first citizenship law in 1790, the question of the status of children born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent was explicitly addressed, and in the following terms:
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States". (Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103).
It is noteworthy that this first definition of citizenship and the naturalization process, enacted by the First U.S. Congress, specifically recognized the automatic acquisition of U.S. citizenship by children born abroad to a U.S. citizen father, provided only that the father had ever been previously a resident in the United States. Even more noteworthy is that all such children were to be considered "natural born" citizens at birth abroad.
Thus, while the Constitution was mute on the intent of the country's founders in terms of who is to be defined as a citizen at birth, a majority of the Members of the First Congress made it clear that such citizenship could be acquired both at home and abroad. Given that many of the Members of this First Congress were active participants in the deliberations for the drafting and adoption of the U.S. Constitution, there can be little doubt that what they were expressing in this first citizenship law was indeed the intent of the Constitution's authors themselves."
====================
Later, they changed the qualifications, allowing for mothers and so forth.
As far as I know, the children of two American parents born abroad have always been conferred US citizenship on birth. It can be a different situation, though, for children of one US citizen.
My guess (and it's only that): If a child was born abroad as the child of two US citizens living overseas, and received ONLY United States citizenship at birth; not the citizenship of another country as well; and has never been the citizen of any country other than the United States, then I would wager that person has a very strong case for being ruled to be a "natural born citizen."
I knew there was something more to comment on in here.
Let's pare this down:
If you consider that it's perfectly permissible for a person aged 70 or more to run for President, the Constitution allows that it's permissible for a candidate to have spent 80% or more of that candidate's life living outside of the United States.
By what kind of scenario? A 70-year-old candidate, who is a natural-born citizen but who moved to Canada immediately for the first year after birth, followed by 55 years living in Russia, for a total of 56 years of his life spent living abroad (80%!), but then returned to live in the US for the past 14 years, is not ineligible by these criteria to run for President, because:
he has Attained to the age of thirty-five Years, and
he has been resident fourteen Years within the United States.
Intent of the framers should also be relevant. I cannot imagine any intent for the "natural born" clause other than guarding the Presidency against undue foreign influence. If anybody else can, let me know.
Which it does imperfectly, by the way, because of the scenario above.
In any event, since the passage allows for eligibility for Presidential candidacy to be maintained in spite of previous lengthy stay abroad, it would be very reasonable to assume that merely being born abroad to two American parents who were temporarily residing overseas in no way rises to the level of foreign influence that the founding fathers were concerned about guarding against.
See my last post as well, for a few more comments.
It's still going to be an issue of concern though for whoever is the first Presidential candidate that was born overseas. And probably especially so if that candidate is a conservative.
Given the nature of typical liberal tactics (pull all stops to get a judicial ruling in your favor, regardless of whether it warps the law of the land or not), it's likely that a conservative candidate born overseas would have to face this challenge in the courts. And given the makeup of a court, it's not impossible to lose, regardless of whether you're actually right.
George Romney, governor of Michigan (and Mitt's father) was a serious candidate for the Republican nomination in 1968.
He was born in Mexico City, to US diplomat parents, and this was extensively discussed at the time.
Yes, a person who is "ineligible to the office" of President cannot be elected, or appointed, to the Vice-Presidency.
There is no question about that.
A person who is 33 years old, for example, could not be elected or appointed to the Vice-Presidency. A person who was born a citizen of another country could not, either. An expatriate who spent the last ten years in China as a legal resident of that country would clearly be out.
You, and others, would like it if the XXII Amendment said, "No person who has been elected twice to the office of President of the United States, or who has acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President and then been elected once to that office, shall be eligible to the office of President in the future".
I concur that the drafters of XXII did not imagine the Presidency in the hands of a man like Clinton, but they wrote what they wrote, which does not create "constitutional ineligibility to the office" but only a bar to election.
Thanks for this passage. Somehow, in my perusal (again) of the Constitution yesterday, I missed it. This takes away almost all of the wiggle room I was fearing.
I tend to agree with Luke SkyFreeper, that there still remains a small amount of legalistic opportunity, but I'm pretty confident that the USSC would likely strike it down based on this one passage. Without it, I wouldn't have placed a bet either way.
I agree with everything you said. Yes, it is up to the Supremes to decide. But at the end, any public groundswell for him becoming vice president still boils down to Bill Clinton's propensity to parse the language. And I doubt that Clinton will make the case directly, but he will have tons of proxies out there (for example, Lanny Davis) who will make his case the talk show circuit.
At the end, I don't see it happening, but then as long as the Clintons are on the scene, strange things will continue to happen. It may also serve as just sexy enough in the eyes of the media to sufficiently occupy the minds of the public in advance of the nomination. When we ought to be more concerned with deciding Hillary's true qualifications, we will be discussing the finer points of constitutional language and the frightening possibility of Bill Clinton working in the Oval Office again.
Wow! What a powerful statement .. I was looking through my pocket Constitution all day yesterday, and I didn't see that passage. Where is it found ..??
Of course, such a statement means nothing to the dems. They only cite the law when it benefits them.
I find it more than intereting that the dems want to go back there with all the scandals and such from the Clintons. And .. it does play into their myth that if Bill Clinton was just president, THERE WOULD BE NO TERRORISM .. because he hid it so well .. most of the moon-bats don't even know it existed back then too.
I saw Jim Lampley on PBS last night while I was channel surfing. I recognized him right away so I stayed with the program a few minutes to hear what he had to say. He was introducing some author who write hate books against the administration (I've never heard of the guy), and I was stunned to hear Jim say that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were "fraudulent" .. which garnered a mighty round of applause.
Well .. the Kennedy/Nixon election was fraudulent too .. but I don't recall the repubs acting the way the dems are now - running all over the country with their smarmy talk. Maybe we were too gutless, but maybe it was more important to keep the country together than it was to tear it apart like the dems are doing.
Well .. I want to see Hillary Clinton go down to a resounding DEFEAT. And .. then she can travel around and stir up trouble all over again .. but this time she will not have an audience - except for a few moonbats .. and we'll always have them.
You should have read post #130 - The 12th Amendment says - "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
So .. there is no frightening possibility!
I know the feeling-- I missed it several times yesterday too.
It's the last sentence of Ammendment XII.
I think this would keep the Dems from attempting what is broached by the MSM. This is likely just another example of wishful thinking and sensationalistic "what if" by the media.
Or maybe something like a trial balloon - which Clinton was famous for.
Plus, if Hillary is polling good (which I don't believe she is) .. it could be encouraging the jealous one to try to take over. Having Hillary in the WH will mean Bubba 24/7 on the TV.
Respectfully, Cyberant. You miss my point.
What I am trying to say is that the media will use this possibility to tickle the ears of the public and keep a distracting debate raging while we should be examining Hillary and debating real issues. The whole issue is a feint.
Even if she picks another stooge like Gore, remember what happened last time, "it's a bargain, two for the price of one".
That criminal POS would be co-president just like the POS wife was.
I've read it, many times.
You're reading something into it that it DOES NOT NECESSARILY SAY. Either that, or you're reading into the 22nd Amendment something that THAT Amendment does not say.
Here's the MEANING that YOU claim the 12th Amendment has:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to be elected to the office of President shall be eligible to be elected to that of Vice-President of the United States."
What the 12th Amendment SAYS:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
It may be that what the text means is the former, but not only have you presented ZERO evidence to support this view, you've made the bald assertion that your point of view is the ONLY acceptable one.
The fact is, the 12th Amendment appears to deal with SERVICE, and NOT ELECTION. And it's highly debatable whether the 22nd Amendment covers service in the office reached through the line of Presidential Succession, or (as is only specified in the actual text) is limited to dealing solely with the election process.
It is YOU, not I, who needs to (to use your insulting phrase) "RTFConstitution."
Moreover, you claim that this issue was settled already here at FR. Well, I looked it up. As far as I'm able to find, you have NEVER given any EVIDENCE or ARGUMENT to defend your POINT OF VIEW, which was CLEARLY A MINORITY ONE IN THE ONE THREAD I FOUND THAT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL
It is the Constitution, not I, which says that you are wrong. You owe the apology -- to the Constitution.
Wrong once again. It is YOU who owe the apology, for your rudeness and arrogance in advising me to "Read The F*****g Constitution."
I'm still waiting, Billybob.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.