Replies

I think you’d be interested in this law journal note (it’s only 18 pages long), which analyzes all of the precedents and interpretations surrounding the Natural-Born Citizen Clause: http://yalelawjournal.org/2008/03/03/citizenship.html The article concludes that a person with the right to U.S. citizenship at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.

Of course, reasonable minds may disagree, but I would be shocked if federal courts ruled that someone that is a citizen at birth but was not born within the geographic U.S. was not eligible to serve as president.

Excellent find.

Note the publication date places the article squarely in the political debate time frame. Like the Olson legal opinion, the political origin of the views set forth influence the conclusion.

But, as you suggest, reasonable lawyers differ on this kind of issue on a regular basis. There is a law review article that reaches a semi-contrary conclusion in the Boston University Law Journal last year; together with a national publication article by John Dean (Nixon's White House counsel) to the same end; both suggesting that the issue presents a serious problem which should be corrected by Constitutional Amendment.

I would feel comfortable making the argument to the Supreme Court that the Natural Born test means born in the geographical territory of the states of the United States. Observe that if the citizenship statutes control, Congress can effectively amend the Constitution by statute. I don't think the Court will reach that decision.

“I would feel comfortable making the argument to the Supreme Court that the Natural Born test means born in the geographical territory of the states of the United States. Observe that if the citizenship statutes control, Congress can effectively amend the Constitution by statute. I don’t think the Court will reach that decision.”

So you would argue that had Barry Goldwater been elected president in 1964 that he could not have served because he was born in a U.S. territory, not a U.S. state? And ditto for John McCain if he gets elected in 2008?

If Article II says that one must be a natural-born citizen to be eligible for the presidency, and if a natural-born citizen means a citizen at birth, then logically one must look to federal law at the time the person is born in order to determine whether such person is eligible, but Congress isn’t “amending” the Constitution when it modifies the rules for citizenship at birth any more than it amends the Constitution when it admits a new state to the Union. Please note that by looking at the law in effect when the putative president is born it prevents Congress from passing retroactive laws so as to make Obama eligible or to make McCain ineligible.

BTW, the publication date of the note is 1988. What is the political origin of the views espoused?