Can a person renounce their citizenship and later get it back? Can they still become President?
I’m not sure about the president, but can renounce your Texas citizenship, and still become vice president. 
In recent years, the US has made it much harder to play now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t with citizenship. What is likelier to happen is that there may be a ruling that your original renunciation was null+void so you stayed a citizen all along.
I actually wrote something to Ed Zotti about this recently, re: Cecil’s renunciation column.
The State Department on renouncing citizenship:
http://www.travel.state.gov/renunciation.html
A column on ways the laws have made it an even greater pain to renounce US citizenship:
http://www.globalassignment.com/4-22-99/renouncing.htm
In any case, though it may be construed as constitutionally doable, politically that candidate wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades unless he were running against, say, Charles Manson.
I think we need a Constitutional scholar to weigh in here…doesn’t the applicable portion read that the President must be “a natural-born U.S. citizen”? So if one renounced one’s citizenshhip, that wouldn’t negate the fact that one was still a natural-born U.S. citizen who had later simply changed his mind?
And since the U.S. has been getting some what more lax about dual citizenship, what if we had a President with dual citizenship? Would that be seen as a case of divided loyalties, even if, say, it was something like derivative citizenship through a parent or grandparent who was a foreign national? With current migration trends, this issue could pop up anytime now.
>> So if one renounced one’s citizenshhip, that wouldn’t negate the fact that one was still a natural-born U.S. citizen who had later simply changed his mind?
Being a “natural-born” (qualifier) citizen, implies being a citizen. If a person was a citizen in the past but is not a citizen today he does not fulfil the requirement.
And if he is a citizen through birth (as opposed to naturalised) the fact that he has a second citizenship should not be a legal bar from office although it could be a problem in getting votes.
Squink- there’s no such things “citizenship” in a state, so you can’t “renounce” your “citizenship” in Texas.
I am a citizen of the United States. I am a RESIDENT of Texas. I can move to another state any time I like. If I do, I will THEN be a resident of that state, but still a citizen of the United States. And in ALMOST all states, I become a legal resident the moment I move. Generally, I don’t have to live in that state for a month, or 6 months, or 7 years to become a legal resident- I need only move there and declare it my permanent residence.
There IS a rule that prohibits having a President and a Vice President from the same state. Now, I happen to think that’s a silly, outdated rule (presumably, it was written to prevent Virginia from dominating the Presidency, back when Virginia was the largest, richest state in the Union), but the rule stands. Back in 2000, George W. Bush was governor of Texas and Dick Cheney was living in Dallas, where he was a Halliburton executive. When the decision was made to add Cheney to the GOP ticket, Cheney went through the formality of quitting Halliburton, moving back to his old home state of Wyoming, and establishing residence there.
Was Cheney using a technicality to skirt the rules? Of COURSE he was. Did anybody REALLY care? Of COURSE not! The Democrats never bothered to make an issue of it, because even they knew the rule was silly and outdated.
I happen to think the rule should be repealed. If the Democrats want to nominate a ticket of Gray Davis and Barbara Boxer (both Californians), or the Republicans want to nominate Colin Powell and George Pataki (both New Yorkers), it shouldn’t bother anyone in the least.
astorian, do you have a cite for that rule? I’ve never heard of it (though I was aware of a policy of both major parties to run a geographically diverse ticket for practical reasons).
Eva Luna, I wouldn’t call myself a constitutional scholar but I do know that the courts do not feel beholden to a strictly literal interpretation of the Constitution when such an interpretation would clearly violate the spirit of the clause in question.
>> there’s no such things “citizenship” in a state
Have you read the Bill of Rights?
ruadh, the rule is from the 12th amendment to the constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am12
We’d be in deep trouble here if the constitution wasn’t intended to be open to new interpretation by each succeeding generation.
Well, I did say I wasn’t a constitutional scholar 
Thanks.
sailor the Bill of Rights is the first 9 amendments and that part they added between the 1st and 3rd amendment that they really didn’t mean.
>> the Bill of Rights is the first 9 amendments
Of course I am aware of that. For some reason I thought the text I was looking for was in the bill of rights and when I found it in the 14th I forgot to amend the post.
>> the Bill of Rights is the first 9 amendments
Of course I am aware of that. For some reason I thought the text I was looking for was in the bill of rights and when I found it in the 14th I forgot to amend the post.
Well, not quite. As Squink quotes, no elector can vote for a ticket comprising only candidates from his home state. A lawsuit was filed after the 2000 election trying to claim that the Texas electors couldn’t vote for Bush/Cheney. If Bush/Cheney hadn’t needed Texas’s 32 electoral votes, their residency wouldn’t’ve mattered.
This is the relevant passage:
So an individual who renounced his citizenship, and regained it, would be technically eligible. A person with dual citizenship would probably be eligible, since it is not prohibited and he would still be a citizen of the US, in addition to the other country.
Oh, I think I missed the gist of the question. As I understand now it is whether a natural born citizen who renounced his citizenship and later ragained it would still be considered to be a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen and so, become president or not. Man alive, can’t you think of a more contrived situation? Well, your guest is as good as my guest. I say yes, he is a “natural born citizen”. what the heck, let’s give it to him.