It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by clay2 baraka
reply to post by SIRR1
The whole issue is murky and the lack of precedent on the issue leaves both sides without a strong case. The issue lies with the lack of definition of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the constitution. The definition was left up to Congress who never really got around to laying it all out (it states the laws must be consistent).
I am afraid this is one of those constitutional matters that would be referred to the Supreme Court. It would be an enormous slap in the face to whomever loses which probably is why you have not seen the issue pressed. The stakes would be really high if McCain or Hillary were to lose that gamble.
US constitutional definition
The United States Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen"; however, it does confer on Congress the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
“ 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. ”
Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government;
And to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
Originally posted by roadgravel
He was born in Hawaii in 1961, which became a state in 1959. Seems like he is a natural citizen so he can be president.
My take was that the article was citing info for someone not born in the USA.
the law states that the Presidential candidate must be "natural born," but if you are born to American parents outside of the US, you can still be considered "natural born." legally, it's possible, but most obviously, holding dual citizenship with another country is a political liability, and thus, most candidates for political office will opt to renounce their dual citizenship before seeking office.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national.
My father was from Kenya, and a lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn't practice Islam. Truth is he wasn't very religious. He met my mother.
US Law very clearly stipulates: "…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."