With all the recent talk 'bout Arnold, the topic came up at the office concerning qualifications to be president of U.S. I know that one must be born in the states but what about this scernario--U.S. citizens are on vacation,in a foreign country, lady is pregnant and unexpectedly baby is born early there. This baby is a U.S. citizen because its parents are but could he/she ever be in the running? What if the baby was born on a foreign U.S. military base?
Also what about the other side of the coin--someone is born here and then his/her family relocates to another country for 40 years. Could this person come back and run in a presidential race?
+++++++++++++
08-09-03, 07:44 PM
frankvan
Here's what the constitution has to say about it:
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.

08-09-03, 07:47 PM
honilov
Very good questions, Kelleygirl. I don't know for sure, but it seem that your first example would be, yes, they would qualify for president.

However, in the second example, if a person is gone for 40 years, and come back to run for president, they shouldn't be qualified.

Just my opinion..maybe someone will have facts. Wink

08-09-03, 08:47 PM
billmasters
It shouldn't matter where you were Born, what should matter is how devoted a candidate is to the country. Especially if you have lived most of your life as an American, but was raised beyond it's borders. What difference does it make? An American is an American no matter where they were born or have lived, as long as the people are willing to let that person run, than what's the problem.

The problem is when we let our system allow loopholes that allow presidents to take office that weren't democratically elected, regardless of where they are from.

08-09-03, 10:43 PM
FredPuli
A shyster writes: I think that the words 'natural born' could exclude children adopted by American citizens,but not those who just happen to be born abroad.The child's domicil ( its status for International Law) would be the US because the father was American.Its nationality would be American too,though there are some strange examples of people suddenly becoming stateless through bureaucracy and historical accident combining !

If the child were born at sea you'd have to discover what flag the ship was flying under, were the rule otherwise. So ,if it were born on the QE2 it would be British, by that logic.We wouldn't call it that but, nonetheless, it could always run for King/Queen (always assuming it wasn't Roman Catholic, of course). We don't go in for truly British monarchs; our present one is some German woman married to a Danish Greek. One predecessor was imported from Holland as a late replacement when we sacked the incumbent.Several didn't speak English; one was only here when on vacations ( he preferred foreign cooking).

So when the late Bob Hope, born in London, said that he'd left when he found out he couldn't be King he was displaying the ignorance of the constitutional law of both countries that you expect from a 4 year-old ( as he was, when making the fateful mistake).Even after 96 years he still couldn't be Pres.

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 08-09-03 at 10:53 PM.]

08-12-03, 02:41 PM
Lighteningrodd
We need to remember when the Founding fathers put together the Constitution, there was a reason for each and every provision. Some of these provisions do spark controversey from time to time. Such as with the qualifications for President being a born or naturalized citizen. Also the electorial college has been a controversial matter.

Obviously Arnold Schwartenegger cannot run for President. One person whose name would come under controversey would be Colin Powell, if he were ever to decide to run. Being born out of the country, you can believe his background would be checked out to the fullest. It would be a situation of the Constitution being put to the test.

As for the Electorial College, this has been a part of the way we elect our President since the begining of our country. It has been modified along the way. And there have been times in history it has been tested. The popular vote does not always win the election, as we seen in 2000.
************
This is pretty clear. A child born to US citizens is a citizen himself, regardless of his place of birth, and is eligible to become president, if he meets all the other criteria. George Romney (father of current Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney) was born in Mexico, of US parents. He was one of the Republican contenders for the presidential candidate in 1968, losing to Richard Nixon. There was nothing really said about his eligibility at the time. He was actually the front-runner until, speaking about his return from a trip to Vietnam, he claimed to have been "brainwashed" by the US position that stopping the Communists in Vietnasm was necessary to the safety of US interests. This was a bit too much for the US public to take, coming just a few years after the movie "The Manchurian Candidate".

Colin Powell is another matter. He was born in Harlem, in the United States, and certainly meets the Constitutional requirements for becoming President. - DG

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

We need to remember when the Founding fathers put together the Constitution, there was a reason for each and every provision. Some of these provisions do spark controversey from time to time. Such as with the qualifications for President being a born or naturalized citizen. Also the electorial college has been a controversial matter.

Obviously Arnold Schwartenegger cannot run for President. One person whose name would come under controversey would be Colin Powell, if he were ever to decide to run. Being born out of the country, you can believe his background would be checked out to the fullest. It would be a situation of the Constitution being put to the test.

As for the Electorial College, this has been a part of the way we elect our President since the begining of our country. It has been modified along the way. And there have been times in history it has been tested. The popular vote does not always win the election, as we seen in 2000.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,