Could it have happened? Given Churchill’s mother was American ?
Could Churchill legally have been both Prime Minister of Great Britain and President of the United States ?
I am sure there are plenty of other problems but the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is strict in specifying that the President be a “natural born citizen”. I am pretty sure that Churchill wasn’t born a U.S. citizen as this requirement dictates and having one parent that is American doesn’t automatically make someone a U.S. citizen especially if the family lives abroad when the child is born.
Nor did Churchill ever live in the U.S.
Hard to figure how it would play out. Would the Supreme Court rule on his eligibility AFTER he won an election? The Supremes never give an advisory opinion. WOuld they disqualify a person who got the majority of the vote?
No person has ever been disqualified from running by this clause. Am I right in saying that Senator Whathisname (former Republican maverick, now toady) was born in the Canal Zone? Some other people who ran for Veep were born in US territories.
No cites. Must get coffee.
McCain was born in Arizona before it was a state, IIR my research C. George Romney (ran for the Publican nomination in 1960-ish, born to American parents in Mexico). Goldwater had a situation similar to McCain’s. So far, it’s never been an issue, as everyone who had that little question mark was defeated at some point along the campaign trail. Next year, might could be a different story.
McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but is also is eligible because he was born a US citizen due to the fact he was the child of two US citizens. There are some special provisions on citizenship pertaining to those born in the Canal Zone, but birth to US citizens would all that McCain would need, no matter where he was born.
You’ve mixed him up with Goldwater. McCain was born in 1936, 24 years after Arizona became a state. He didn’t move to Arizona until 1981.
Wouldn’t Churchill’s mother have lost her American citizenship (under 19th century law) when she married a foreigner?
Presumably, it would all be decided in the Courts long before that.
In each state, the Secretary of State has to approve the names on the ballot for that state. There are various rules (major party nominees, minor party nominees, nomination by petition, etc.), and they are different in the 50 states. Surely one of the 50 Secretaries of State would notice that Churchill did not meet the legal requirements of the Constitution, and so reject his nomination in that state. The Churchill Campaign Committee would promptly sue, and then the Courts would decide.
P.S. What makes you think Churchill would have won an election in the USA? Heck, he lost his election campaign in Britain just a few years after leading them thru WWII. He became Prime Minister in 1940 by appointment, not election, and no elections were held during the war. The first one after the war he lost. In his political career, he probably lost as many elections as he won. Churchill was NOT a great election winner.
Nitpick: The election was in early July 1945, not “a few years after … WWII”. Britain was still at war in the Far East, though the German war was over.
Under the 14th Amendment, and as decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Churchill was a natural-born US citizen. You only need one parent who is a citizen, and it doesn’t make any difference where you were born.
What law was that?
Heh. Obviously I didn’t recall my research correctly. My bad.
According to my uncle, it was the troops’ vote that did it - they were fed up
However Churchill got a landslide in the next election, a pity he was senile.
He still would fail the residency requirement, since he wouldn’t have been living in the US for 14 years.
Plus, after living in the US for 14+ years, I imagine his relevancy to British politics would be pretty much nil.
In general, the Supreme Court has taken a “Let the voters decide” attitude to these eligibility questions. This came up when Robert Kennedy ran for the Senate in NY. There was also a proposed VP candidate named Christian Herter in the 50s who was born abroad to a diplomat, as I recall. Two of my sons were born abroad, but they live in the US and presumably would be eligible.
Quite right.
I knew it was 1945, I don’t know why I said “a few years” – probably posting while not fully awake!
I have never heard that being born abroad matters at all. The “natural born citizen” clause just means that you have to have been a U.S. citizen the second you are born. It could aboard the space shuttle or in Anarctica but that doesn’t matter.
Always been a U.S. citizen = allowed
Had to convert to a U.S. citizenship in any way = ineligible for the office of the presidency forever.
More likely when she accepted the title of Lady Churchill. Americans aren’t allowed to accept titles, IIRC. (But I could be wrong).
Actually, it was Lady Randolph Churchill. Her husband was not a peer, merely the younger son of one.
It’s only US government employees that are prohibited from accepting a title; and even then, loss of citizenship is not the penalty.
A “Titles of Nobility Amendment” that would strip citizenship from those accepting titles was proposed in 1810 but never ratified.