The requirement is no doubt an artifact of the concern during the early years of the Republic that the President should have clear links to and loyalty to the new nation, and not to some European power.
It’s different because the Constitution says so. In fact, qualifications for office are one of the few areas where it tends toward the specific (though the qualifications for offices of the US are not exactly exhaustive):
[QUOTE=Article II]
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 fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[/QUOTE]
Compare Article I:
Article III doesn’t lay out any qualifications at all for the federal judiciary, even for members of SCOTUS.
McCain isn’t even the only candidate that has been born outside the USA, George Romney and Barry Goldwater were also born outside the US to US citizen parents.
With no objections raised.
Those guys and their commas. . .
“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. . . .”
You could almost make an argument that nobody is eligible if they weren’t around at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Goldwater was born in the incorporated territory of Arizona 1909. Although this was before Arizona gained statehood in 1912, he would have been subject to US jurisdiction at that time. George Romney was born in Mexico in 1907, out of both the “limits and jurisdiction of the US,” and thus unlike McCain eligible for US citizenship at the time of his birth.
The issue was mentioned during their candidacies, but neither case was really questionable, certainly not to the degree McCain’s is.
This is a reasonable interpretation, but bear in mind that no court has ever interpreted this provision, and thus there is no authoritative definition. Any answers offered here must necessarily be speculative.
I’m fighting the hypothetical, but I think that in the scenario described, the foundling would be deemed a native of the host country and turned over to local authorities, particularly given the possibility that one parent was native. In the current climate over international adoption, to do otherwise would in some countries lead to protests over baby-stealing.
If it did go down as described in the OP, though, the State Department would have issued the equivalent of a birth certificate showing US citizenship from the presumed date of birth. I expect that a court reviewing a challenge to the candidate’s status would likely defer to that determination and find natural-born citizenship.
Like Colibri mentions, a legal challenge may be unlikely in any event. I do think that another candidate may have standing to bring a challenge, but it’s so often politically disadvantageous to do so.
I have wondered if there is anything stoping Congress from defining a natural born citizen as someone who has been “naturalized for x years”. Perhaps SCOTUS might decline to review that based on the political question doctrine.
Doubtful. SCOTUS accords wide latitude to Congress and the POTUS in areas relating to foreign policy (including immigration issues) under the political question doctrine, because they are explicitly committed to those branches in the Constitution. However, the “natural born citizen” requirement arises only in the context of presidential qualifications - an issue not committed to the other branches. One duty that is committed specifically to the judiciary under the US Constitution is “to say what the law is” - meaning the federal courts owe no deference at all to Congress on matters of constitutional interpretation.
It’s worth noting that the “most successful” of the Taitz/birther lawsuits was dismissed on the basis of a different political question problem - that the federal court hearing the case had no constitutional authority to order the removal of a sitting president.
Sorry, I meant “born in the Canal Zone.”
Could somebody whose status as a natural-born citizen cannot be verified become US President?
I’m pretty sure the answer is no. I’m absolutely sure that it could not happen if the administration running the country at the time of the election is headed by the likes of Bush and Cheney, and the candidate in question is a Democrat.
Huh?
TonySinclair. I consider this a political comment rather than a factual answer to the OP. Try to keep from this in General Questions.
No warning issued.
samclem, moderator
Sorry, I found this thread by clicking on “New Posts,” and I didn’t notice it was in GQ.
However, while I would not have mentioned Bush and Cheney by name, I honestly don’t see why it isn’t a valid answer otherwise — at least pragmatically, if not legally.
Even if you flip it, and say a Dem is the current president and the Rep candidate’s citizenship is questionable, it is very difficult to believe that the presiding administration, with all its investigative resources, would not verify the candidate’s citizenship before assigning millions of taxpayer dollars worth of Secret Service protection to him, which IIRC happens no later than when he becomes his party’s nominee, i.e. several months before the election.
The only possible reason I can think of withholding such information is to wait until days before the election, and springing an “October surprise” that would leave the opposing party in disarray, but I can’t believe either party would let it go that far. And it is absolutely inconceivable to me that they would actually allow an unverified candidate to be elected.
I don’t understand. Are you saying that it is evident such a child would be eligible for presidentship? If so, why?
It would be a stretch to suggest the outgoing administration has the authority to determine who is qualified to replace it.
Nobody is claiming that they can decide whether he’s smart enough, or holds the correct opinions. But they certainly have the ability to verify his age and birth status, which are the qualifications specified by the Constitution. Not only the ability, but IMO the obligation.
Do you seriously believe that if Arnold Schwarzenegger had run, and was popular enough that he would get the majority of votes, that someone in the government wouldn’t have stopped him long before the election was held?
US Immigration law does address the issue of foundlings who are found within the United States. I do not think that with this language in the law that American citizenship would be conferred to a foundling as in the OP’s example.
I think JerrySTL’s comment is a joke. Or he’s a birther. I’m guessing it’s a joke. As in “well, Obama can’t be proven to be a natural-born citizen and he is the Prez, so clearly the answer to the OP’s question is yes” Ho ho.
ISTM that taking the OP’s question in its purest, most theoretical form, comes down to an onus of proof question. Leaving aside political practicalities, what happens if it just can’t be proven either way?
I would say that if it can’t be proved that someone has the qualifications to be President, then they are not eligible to be President. The same would apply if someone couldn’t prove themselves to be at least 35 years old, or to have been a resident for of the US for 14 years.