Subject says it all, really. Could an American president simply declare by an EO that Arnie is to be treated as a NBC and thus eligible for the presidency?
Well, he wouldn’t be a “natural born citizen” then by definition. Requirements are:
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’.
(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means–
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States–
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
Someone else can correct me, but I think the executive order would not be held up in court as it does not satisfy the definations above.
In short, no. The definition of a natural born citizen is set by federal statute. Executive orders can be used to execute and enforce existing statutes, but not create new ones.
Huh - So, if my wife and I adopted a child from Romania, the child would be considered a Natural Born Citizen when she reaches age 18? Or would that require an act of Congress?
Note that the correct spelling is Schwarzenegger.
No, the child would be considered a natural born citizen the day the adoption is finalized. The adoption must occur before the child turns 18.
So, can you be president if you’re from Guam or Puerto Rico? Would your parents be citizens under A, or are they something else? I am very ashamed that I don’t know the answer to this question.
The obvious solution is for an Act of Congress to grant American citizenship to Shwarzenegger’s parents.
Heh.
All citizens of Guam were made US citizens by the Guam Organic Act of 1950, and all citizens of Puerto Rico were made US citizens by the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917. Those statutes spell out the specific requirements, which can get complicated. In general, anyone born in Guam or Puerto Rico is a natural-born US citizen. There may be exceptions for children of foreign nationals born in those territories before the citizenship statutes were passed – but I have no particular desire to look that up.
OK, how is doing this by Executive Order any less possible than dozens of other things the current administration done by Executive Order?
Because that’s not what executive orders do? 
I don’t understand what you’re asking.
>I don’t understand what you’re asking.
I was asking rhetorically, that is, making a point and not really asking. What I was getting at was that what a President has the authority to do is surprisingly flexible - for example, he has the authority to extend his authority to new areas, and he has the authority not to comply with laws of his choosing. At least, this President is doing these things. If he can claim authority and then put it to use, get away with it so to speak, then I suggest it’s very difficult to speak with confidence about how far the power of Executive Orders can reach.
That’s exactly how I see it. :eek:
But they can’t extend beyond the executive branch unless the other branches recognize them. Let’s say Bush were to issue an executive order that Arnold is a natural born US citizen. Several things can then happen:
-
Congress can issue legislation overriding it, and Arnold could take his case to the courts. He would lose.
-
Someone could challenge the order in court (most likely someone who was running against him for president, if he did that) and that person would win.
Courts are very reluctant to set new precedents, and this one would be a wopper.
[ol]
[li] [/li][QUOTE=China Guy]
Well, he wouldn’t be a “natural born citizen” then by definition. Requirements are:
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’.
<snip>
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
[/QUOTE]
China Guy, what you’ve quoted there is Senate Bill S.2128 from February 2004 [108th Congress]. However, this bill never became law.
AFAIK, there’s no other current law that confers “Natural Born Citizen” status retroactively upon an adopted child. To be honest, I’m not surprised that it didn’t pass – it would seem to me to change the whole meaning of the “Natural Born” concept as it seems to be understood.
[li] In order for a child born outside the US (to at least one US citizen parent) to have US citizenship at birth, there are prior residency requirements for the parent(s) [i.e. he/she/they have to have lived for a certain number of years in the US prior to the birth). So, even if Arnold’s parents had become US Citizens before his birth, he would not have been a “natural born citizen”.[/li][/ol]
I thought Arnie was Austrian?
ASAIK, he does that under the cover of “national security” concerns.
I’d like to see the [del]spin[/del] explanation were Arnold’s citizenship becomes a national security concern.
I believe this question betrays a lack of understanding of the rationale the President has asserted for his authority.
When the President has made the type of claims I believe you’re discussing, he has generally cited his Art II authority – that is, the inherent authority he has under the Constitution to execute his powers. For example, to pick an absurdly drawn case as illustration, could Congress pass a law forbidding the President to meet privately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Could they say, “Because of the nation’s need for transparency in all government dealings and to ensure the public trust is being guarded, all meetings between the President and the JCS must be recorded and made publicly available within 24 hours of such meeting?”
No. Because the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. While the Constitution does not explicitly say, “And therefore the President may meet privately with generals and admirals,” the fact is that no remotely reasonable construction of “Commander-in-Chief” would allow for any other interpretation.
So if Congress passes a law that intrudes upon the President’s authority as outlined in the Constitution, this President has indicated he is not bound by such a law.
So when you say, “… he has the authority not to comply with laws of his choosing…” you miss the boat. Undoubtedly, if Congress were to pass a law that was unmistakeably solely in their bailiwick, the President would agree he must comply.
Of course, you may disagree that the President’s reasoning is solid; that’s a matter for GD. But to claim he’s asserting full-blown authority to disregard any law he doesn’t like is… factually incorrect.
Several of Bush’s signing statements have said that he’s felt that certain aspects of the bill he’s signing don’t apply to the President. A signing statement, of course, is a vastly different thing than an executive order, and it would be nice if someone were to mount a court challenge to them, so we could sort out if they’re actually legally valid or not, but that doesn’t seem likely.
Why is an executive order needed to enforced existing statutes?