Question About Presidential Eligibility.

[DM72]

I just have a question. Do you have to have been born in America or just be an American citizen in order to be eligible for being the president? Why I ask is, what if your parents were in the military and you were born overseas? Would you be eligible?

[pjfootballer]

Yes you would be eligible. You are still a born US Citizen if you were born on a military base outside of the US and both your parents are US citizens by birth or naturalized. My former brother in law was born in Okinawa, Japan while his Dad was in the service.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm in the military and have a question: what if you were stationed in japan and had a child of base at a out in town hospital due to complications?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I just have a question. Do you have to have been born in America or just be an American citizen in order to be eligible for being the president? Why I ask is, what if your parents were in the military and you were born overseas? Would you be eligible?

That precise question has not been answered yet. The Constitution says you have to be a "natural born citizen." No one knows exactly what that means because no one's citizenship has been challenged with this clause yet, at least not remotely successfully.

What's likely is that in your example the SCOTUS would rule that that person is a natural born citizen because they were a citizen when they were born by virtue of your parents' citizenship at your birth, and therefore, you would be eligbile to be president, e.g. John McCain is probably eligible.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 01:46 PM ----------

I'm in the military and have a question: what if you were stationed in japan and had a child of base at a out in town hospital due to complications?

I would still say the same: eligible.

I don't think the fact that you were born on a military base is the key fact. I think the fact that your parents were American citizens is the key part.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Natural born citizen = citizen at birth.

[JMS]

I just have a question. Do you have to have been born in America or just be an American citizen in order to be eligible for being the president? Why I ask is, what if your parents were in the military and you were born overseas? Would you be eligible?

You do not have to be born in America. The term in the constitution is "natural born American". Which really has no strict definition as it has changed over the years...

Originally it meant born in the US. Then it was expanded to include kids of American service men born while on deployment like John McCain born in Panama. Then it was expanded to include civilian folks who were born overseas who had both parents as American citizens when Mitt Romney's father George Romney, ran for president in the 1970's. George was born and raised in Mexico where his polygamist parents lived after the United States outlawed Polygamy.

It has been theorized that even if a single parent was a US citizen, the child is natural born because that child is also born with citizenship; although this has never been tested in court yet.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 01:54 PM ----------

Natural born citizen = citizen at birth.

Not so much....

Currently if your mother or father is a citizen you are a citizen at birth regardless of where you were born. But those children do not universally have the right to run for president by current interpretation of supreme court law. Not unless both parents were American.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

JMS,

I don't think there's been a single decision as you explained this. I think there have been theories that have changed over time. My understanding is that there is one piece of case law from some time in the 1800's which made a passing reference to a natural born citizen in the context of immigration.

I don' think there's an "answer" to this question in that its not settled. I think its likely that if you have even just one American citizen parent, you are eligible to be president.

[Predicto]

Natural born citizen = citizen at birth.

This is the answer' date=' even though the Supreme Court has never taken a case on it (why should they?)

If you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen.

If you become a citizen some other way, you are a naturalized citizen.

Those are the only two categories any court has ever recognized, or ever will recognize.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 11:01 AM ----------

Not so much....

Currently if your mother or father is a citizen you are a citizen at birth regardless of where you were born. But those children do not universally have the right to run for president by current interpretation of supreme court law. Not unless both parents were American.

Whose "current interpretation?"

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Currently if your mother or father is a citizen you are a citizen at birth regardless of where you were born. But those children do not universally have the right to run for president by current interpretation of supreme court law. Not unless both parents were American.

What Supreme Court case gives that current interpretation?

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 01:12 PM ----------

You do not have to be born in America. The term in the constitution is "natural born American". Which really has no strict definition as it has changed over the years...

Originally it meant born in the US. Then it was expanded to include kids of American service men born while on deployment like John McCain born in Panama. Then it was expanded to include civilian folks who were born overseas who had both parents as American citizens when Mitt Romney's father George Romney, ran for president in the 1970's. George was born and raised in Mexico where his polygamist parents lived after the United States outlawed Polygamy.

How has it changed? Can you cite statutes, case law, or law review articles showing this "evolution?"

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is the answer, even though the Supreme Court has never taken a case on it (why should they?)

If you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen.

If you become a citizen some other way, you are a naturalized citizen.

Those are the only two categories any court has ever recognized, or ever will recognize.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 11:01 AM ----------

Whose "current interpretation?"

Not to quibble with you, because I think that's the logical interpretation. I don't know where my memory is getting this, but I think the terms in the Constitution are "naturalized citizen" and also "natural born citizen." I think from the fact that there are two different terms given, the idea is that they should mean different things.

Any idea where I'm getting that?

[JMS]

That precise question has not been answered yet. The Constitution says you have to be a "natural born citizen." No one knows exactly what that means because no one's citizenship has been challenged with this clause yet, at least not remotely successfully.

What's likely is that in your example the SCOTUS would rule that that person is a natural born citizen because they were a citizen when they were born by virtue of your parents' citizenship at your birth, and therefore, you would be eligbile to be president, e.g. John McCain is probably eligible..

There have been many court cases and many special laws passed to include certain groups. The reason the definition is still grey is because the definition process is reactionary, and thus not difinative. As different folks with different eligibility come forward the court passes judgement only on their claims. The following are some of the cases and laws which reflect this process, and deal with precident of eligibility and what Natural Born means..

To date folks born overseas to two americans both miltary and civilian both on us soil and off are eligible. One case not yet tested is if only one parernt were a US citizen. In such a case the child is definitely still an American citizen by birth, but it's unsure if he is eligible for president or "natural born".

• Christopher Schürmann (born 1848 in New York) entered the Labor primaries during the 1896 presidential election. His eligibility was questioned in a New York Tribune article, because he was born to alien parents of German nationality. It was stated that "various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such". But due to a lack of any statute on the subject, Schürmann's eligibility was "at best an open question, and one which should have made [his] nomination under any circumstances an impossibility", because questions concerning his eligibility could have been raised after the election.[48]
  
• The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: "Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."[49]
  
• Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.[43]
  
• George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney's grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[50][51]
  
• Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[52][51]
  
• John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station[41][53][54][55][56][57][58] in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact-checking organizations, but did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who wrote "a senior official of the McCain campaign showed me a copy of [McCain's] birth certificate issued by the 'family hospital' in the Coco Solo submarine base".[55] A lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander in 2008 alleged that McCain was actually born in a civilian hospital in Colon City, Panama.[59][60] Dobbs wrote that in his autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain wrote that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. "The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, now 96, has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club. The birth was announced days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper."[61][62][63][64] The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time,[65] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.[66] In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.[67] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[68] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[69] The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship.[70] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen […]".[71] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural-born status.[72][73] Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".[74] The urban legend fact checking website Snopes.com has examined the matter and cites numerous experts. It considers the matter "undetermined".
  

[Mickalino]

I just have a question. Do you have to have been born in America or just be an American citizen in order to be eligible for being the president? Why I ask is, what if your parents were in the military and you were born overseas? Would you be eligible?

Give it up, man. He's toast.

[Predicto]

Not to quibble with you, because I think that's the logical interpretation. I don't know where my memory is getting this, but I think the terms in the Constitution are "naturalized citizen" and also "natural born citizen." I think from the fact that there are two different terms given, the idea is that they should mean different things.

Any idea where I'm getting that?

From birthers - who want it to mean something different.

People can always claim that there is a open constitutional question if the Supreme Court has not ruled on an issue, but that is a silly way of looking at things - there are an infinity of possible legal questions and the Supreme Court only takes about 100 cases a year.

The fact is, 99.9 percent of legal scholars, judges and attorneys with a brain will tell you that "natural born citizen" means "citizen on the day you were born." The ones who quibble have an agenda to push, and have no chance of prevailing. However, they CAN say with a straight face that it is an "open issue" because the Supreme Court never ruled on it, and the media and places like Snopes will report that. But it is nonsense.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

JMS,

Those aren't decisions. Those are speculations. That's what I'm saying. There hasn't actually ever been a determination by the SC on this. And the SC's determination (and not the yahoos on the other side of the aisle on a Presidential campaign or the media) is the only one that matters.

So, what I'm saying is that there has been no evolution of the law because there has been no SC decision on this. At the same time, it is likely - to me - that the John McCains of the U.S. would be deemed constititutionally eligible to be President.

Edit:

Just to be clear, none of what you posted are "cases" or "laws." They are potential cases that did not get to the point of SC litigation.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 02:22 PM ----------

Give it up, man. He's toast.

I know you're having fun, but the Impregenator is definitely not eligible: not a U.S. citizen when he was born by any standard.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 02:25 PM ----------

From birthers - who want it to mean something different.

People can always claim that there is a open constitutional question if the Supreme Court has not ruled on an issue, but that is a silly way of looking at things - there are an infinity of possible legal questions and the Supreme Court only takes about 100 cases a year.

The fact is, 99.9 percent of legal scholars, judges and attorneys with a brain will tell you that "natural born citizen" means "citizen on the day you were born." The ones who quibble have an agenda to push, and have no chance of prevailing. However, they CAN say with a straight face that it is an "open issue" because the Supreme Court never ruled on it, and the media and places like Snopes will report that. But it is nonsense.

Perhaps that is where I got it.

I have noticed though that when any legal arguments come up, my side of the bench and yours seem to have different perspectives. I often feel like you tend to perceive that judges don't often get things wrong, whereas this lawyer here seems to feel like they get things wrong all the time. I guess that's just how the system works, but its interesting in this case because I don't presume that the SC would do the logical thing. That's the only reason I more strenuously argue that it actually is an open question.

[JMS]

What Supreme Court case gives that current interpretation?

Five Supreme court decisions frame the discussion.

1. The Venus' date=' 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)[/color'] - The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.
   
2. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
   In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
   
3. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
   The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
   
4. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
   In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
   At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
   On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States.
   
5. Rogers v. Bellei in 1971 - the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.
   

Read the whole article here.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

How has it changed? Can you cite statutes' date=' case law, or law review articles showing this "evolution?"[/quote']

By United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the definition used to mean people who were born here to citizens. Since 1898 that has morphed into anybody who was born in the United States to citizens or parrents here illegally. It has also morphed into people born to military and civilians outside the United States if both parents were US Citizens.... (John McCain, and Lowell Weicker . see above)

Still up in the air, only because they have not been tested in court are whether one would be natural born if they were born outside the US with only one US parent. Whether one or two not "naturan born" citizens could convey Natural born status to their child born outside the US? These questions have never come up.

combinations like that. Totally unknown.

As for case law.... In the John McCain case it's quite facinating... Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. So John McCain was not a citizen at birth for his first 11 months. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.

Just to be clear' date=' none of what you posted are "cases" or "laws." They are potential cases that did not get to the point of SC litigation

[/quote']

I think I have presented my case. Let me know if I have satisfied your concern with my previous statement. I will defer to you on this subject; because I believe you are a lawyer?, and I am of coarse as I have already stated merely very opinionated.

[Mickalino]

I know you're having fun, but the Impregenator is definitely not eligible: not a U.S. citizen when he was born by any standard.

I am aware of that, and yes, I was just having fun.

[btfoom]

I think that JMS and Predicto are both on the same 'side' of this, just looking at it a little differently (and I agree with both of their views).

Right now, the current wording in the US Constitution is very vague. It reads: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: 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.

So, the US Congress came up with a 'better definition', using US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401: Nationals and Citizens of United States of America:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

( a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

© a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or ( employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Again, there are still people who want to argue the definition of Natural US Citizen. In specific cases, the SCOTUS has ruled (some are listed by JMS, others are available via google), but these are specific cases and don't provide one, specific set of requirements. Instead, anyone meeting Title 8 is considered to be eligible, under current law, to run for President. At some point, there will probably be another case before the SCOTUS that will help to narrow this definition (for example, had President Obama and his specific case come to trial, there would have been a decision as to whether both or one parent need be a Citizen to make the child eligible to run for the Office of President). Absent that case, the current law interpretation isn't challenged, thus he is (and was) able to legally run for President.

[The Evil Genius]

Can you imagine being adopted and not being able to get your original birth certificate to prove eligibility?

I am surprised this hasn't become an issue.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I am aware of that, and yes, I was just having fun.

I just wanted to type "The Impregenator" one more time.

[JMS]

At some point, there will probably be another case before the SCOTUS that will help to narrow this definition (for example, had President Obama and his specific case come to trial, there would have been a decision as to whether both or one parent need be a Citizen to make the child eligible to run for the Office of President). Absent that case, the current law interpretation isn't challenged, thus he is (and was) able to legally run for President.

Yep, So clearly Obama being born in Hawaii to a US citizen makes him eligible for office. But more interesting was (1) Even if Obama were born in Kenya, to his mother a US citizen he still would have been eligible for office.

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(2)And even more interesting.. John McCain's, who was born 30 years prior to Obama, own eligibility is actually more faulty. The law which congress passed to grant "naturan born" status to the babies of service men born in the canal zone was passed 11 months after McCain's birth thus doesn't cover him. McCain's best case for eligibility legally speaking comes from a non binding resolution congress passed specificaly for this purpose in 2008.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the Constitution.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621

[Mickalino]

I just wanted to type "The Impregenator" one more time.

Maybe you should keep typing it a few more times - until you finally spell it correctly

[JMS]

Can you imagine being adopted and not being able to get your original birth certificate to prove eligibility?

I am surprised this hasn't become an issue.

Newt is in that boat.......

Worse can you imagine being Chester Author.. born to two Canadian citizens near the boarder, in a time where birth certificates were not widely used. To this day many historians believe he was actually our first Canadian President.

[Predicto]

JMS - you are quoting "ThePostandEmail" as a reliable source of information about this issue, the history and caselaw.

Do a little googling on who they are before you rely on them. They are the opposite of reliable. Actually, they are one person (Sharon Rondeau), and she is a birther and a nutter and a liar and a racist. Nothing she says is reliable.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 12:28 PM ----------

I think that JMS and Predicto are both on the same 'side' of this, just looking at it a little differently (and I agree with both of their views).

Right now, the current wording in the US Constitution is very vague. It reads: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: 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.

So, the US Congress came up with a 'better definition', using US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401: Nationals and Citizens of United States of America:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

blah blah blah

Again, there are still people who want to argue the definition of Natural US Citizen. In specific cases, the SCOTUS has ruled (some are listed by JMS, others are available via google), but these are specific cases and don't provide one, specific set of requirements. Instead, anyone meeting Title 8 is considered to be eligible, under current law, to run for President. At some point, there will probably be another case before the SCOTUS that will help to narrow this definition (for example, had President Obama and his specific case come to trial, there would have been a decision as to whether both or one parent need be a Citizen to make the child eligible to run for the Office of President). Absent that case, the current law interpretation isn't challenged, thus he is (and was) able to legally run for President.

You are exactly right. Congress has some control over who is a citizen at birth, but the fact remains that if you ARE a citizen at birth, you are eligilbe to run for President.

[JMS]

JMS - you are quoting "ThePostandEmail" as a reliable source of information about this issue.

Do a little googling on who they are before you rely on them.

Thank you for that. I wasn't using any of their analysis but rather just referring to supreme court cases where natural born definition was clarified and evolved..

Congress has some control over who is a citizen at birth, but the fact remains that if you ARE a citizen at birth, you are eligible to run for President.

I don't think that is true. If you are born to only one or two naturalized citizens abroad you are still a US citizen, but by our current interpretation of the law you may not be eligible to run for President.

[Predicto]

Thank you for that. I wasn't using any of their analysis but rather just referring to supreme court cases where natural born definition was clarified and evolved..

But they also misrepresent those cases and their signficance.

I don't think that is true. If you are born to only one or two naturalized citizens abroad you are still a citizen, but by our current interpretation of the law you are not eligible to run for President.

Whose interpretation?

Determinative for Obama was that his mother was a natural born citizen. If she had not been born here but only naturalized herself the law would not be determinative on eligibility to be president, but their would be no doubt of his citizenship.

Again, according to who? Only de Vattellist birthers think this. They made it up out of whole cloth. It's total crap.

Just because someone says it on the internet doesn't mean its a valid argument.