Posted on 02/21/2016 12:18:51 AM PST by matt1234
To shed light on the Cruz birther issue, I researched the question: "Has a candidate NOT born in the US ever received electoral votes in a presidential election?" The answer is "yes." In the 1796 election, James Iredell, born in England, and Samuel Johnston, born in Scotland, both received electoral votes. I did not find evidence that these votes were invalidated by Congress, which they can do and have done; but I did not research that extensively. Links with evidence at post #1?
“This topic is broader than the constitution. For example, some on FR have claimed that the founders would never have considered someone born outside the US (or former colonies) as eligible for president. Clearly, early Americans, if not the founders themselves, did consider such persons eligible.”
You are using a strawman argument when you falsely claim “This topic is broader than the constitution . . . some on FR have claimed that the founders would never have considered someone born outside the US (or former colonies) as eligible for president.” The Constitution was written expressly to include persons who were not natural born citizens of the United States and were U.S. citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Constitution was written in this way due to the fact many of the foreign born U.S. citizens were responsible for creating and defending the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Their concern was for the destiny of what they created and ensuring a foreign born U.S. citizen in future years could not be in the position of President and commander-in-chief of the American army where the Republic could be most effectively betrayed by foreign influence. Furthermore, this natural born citizen clause was in no way unique except in its brevity. The prevailing law in Britain at the time the Constitution was adopted and in the prior centuries denied eligibility of a foreign born person for any governmental office ranging from the Privy Council down to the lowliest local officer. The authors of the Constitution decided to open up eligibility for the foreign born U.S. citizens for any office except the Vice President and the President of the United States. They did so in the Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which said:
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.
James Iredell and Samuel Johnston were both citizens of the colonies before and during the American Revolutionary War, were very prominent Patriots and leaders in the American Revolutionary War, were important contributors to the Constitution, and were citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. Accordingly, they were regarded as being proven trustworthy to safeguard the Republic alongside their fellow natural born U.S. citizens. Knowing the problems of allegiance and loyalty experienced during the American Revolutionary War by their own first hand experiences, they denied just those two offices to persons like themselves who were born after the adoption of the Constitution, just as prior British law denied virtually all government offices to foreign born persons. So, the Founders of the Republic made a one time exception to a legal tradition that was thousands of years old in various societies and hundreds of years old in English legal history.
Keep digging.
I’m as much an originalist in constitutional matters as anyone, but the “natural born citizen” requirement has really lost a lot of its relevance in an age when international travel and intermarriage between citizens and non-citizens has become so common.
That all makes natural born more important as the reason for it is attachment to the country. Being born elsewhere carries psychological attachments.
A better example would be Andrew Jackson. I don’t think there was much dispute over his qualifications to serve as President, but the reality is that nobody knows for sure where he was born. He grew up in the frontier area of western Carolinas, and in those days there were no birth certificates and a lot of people had limited literacy ... so there are no records to validate his place of birth.
I've seen some of those stupid "Black Lives Matter" and "Occupy Wall Street" protests in recent years. In every case I witnessed a bunch of American-born pathological malcontents shutting down public streets, disrupting the lives of ordinary working people -- including a disproportionate number of immigrants.
The way this country has declined over the last 50 years, I'd suggest that being "natural born" is more likely to be an impediment than a qualification.
Yes, by naturalization due to formation of the union. Same sort of effect occurs when a territory becomes a state, the citizens of the state become naturalized citizens of the union. In order to accommodate a "born citizen" clause, and to have a pool of eligible candidates for the office, the constitution also includes a clause that anyone a citizen at the founding (even those naturalized BY the founding) were eligible.
It was the founders argument.As it stands now, probably anyone in the world can run for American President if h fulfills the residency requirements.
You ave cited NO authority for this proposition. See SCOTUS cases that touch on the citizenship of those born abroad. Those persons, if they be citizens, are citizens by naturalization. Case law is 100% uniform on this point.
“Nobody who ran before 1824 could have been born a citizen of the United States.”
Actually, that is incorrect and an all too common misconception. The U.S. educational system has done an incompetent job of teaching U.S. history and thereby obscured one of the key causes for the American Revolutionary War. When the English colonies were established in North America, thy were established by a personal charter from the King of England and were thereby authorized to establish their own legislatures apart from the English Parliament and the English state. Thereafter, the colonies in the Americas underwent a number of changes in their legal status before the onset of the American Revolutionary War. In the beginning, the colonists were citizens of only their own colony. Later, the King of England reorganized his colonies and made the citizens of the colonies also citizens of the King’s North American colonies. It was this official King’s proclamation that made Canadian colonists into citizens of the same North American colonies which led to the rebellious United States of America to offer British Canada statehood in the United States of America. Upon the advent of the American Revolutionary War, those colonists who retained their loyalty to their revolutionary colonial legislature instead of the King retained their colonial and state citizenship and thereby their citizenship in the new United States of America. When the King and the English Parliament abrogated the colonial charters and the historical legislative independence and political separation of the North American colonies from the English state and the English Parliament, those usurpations of colonial authorities became the fundamental cause of the taxation controversies and the American Revolutionary War.
Persons born before 1824 were citizens of the United States, because the United States was established on 2-4 July 1776. Also, some persons who were U.S. citizens of the United States on 4 July 1776 were also citizens of the British North American colonies and their individual colony before 4 July 1776. The Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 only concerns itself with persons who were and were not U.S. citizens when the Constitution was adopted, and not when the United States or their predecessor colonies were established and their inhabitants acquired citizenship. The date of 1824 is significant only because that is when a natural born citizen born after the adoption of the Constitution could be old enough to become eligible as President.
Many argue that the 2nd Amendment has lost a lot of relevance in the modern age.
It’s become more relevant.
If I wanted to be “the united states of whoever happens to fly in on a business trip”, then I’d be okay with Angela Merkl running for US president.
I’m in favor of no one but a THIRD generation American being eligible. I want it tougher, not easier.
President Andrew Jackson was born in the Waxhaws region of either South Carolina or North Carolina. In either case he was a citizen of one of those two colonies by birth and a citizen of the British North American colonies until the advent of the American Revolutionary War. At some point he claimed citizenship in the colony of South Carolina and became a U.S. citizen upon South Carolina’s admission as a state in the United States of America. President Andrew Jackson was qualified by the Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 exemption to the natural born citizen requirement for those persons who were U.S. citizens when the Constitution was adopted.
What?
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;
It is very clearly states that citizens of the US at the time of adoption are eligible to serve as POTUS. You are just being obtuse.
“I’m as much an originalist in constitutional matters as anyone, but the “natural born citizen†requirement has really lost a lot of its relevance in an age when international travel and intermarriage between citizens and non-citizens has become so common.”
On the contrary, it has made the issue far more relevant than before, and consideration should be given to extend the prohibition to other governmental positions as was traditional in most legal history before the Constitution. The traditional prohibition against more than one allegiance and more than one nationality or citizenship should also be re-established and enforced. Otherwise, the concept of independent governance and constitutional limitations upon the delegation of powers from a sovereign citizenry is rendered moot.
Thanks for supplying a cogent, intelligent argument and analysis. This forum has been inundated with claims that are parrot talk of Donald Trump’s ‘dictate’ about Ted Cruz’s eligibility. It is understandable that Trump and Alan Grayson would pick this particular issue, as it has no legal precedent and is unprovable without going to court, which both know would not work. Grayson threatened because he is a liberal hack with no substantial moral ground; Trump is trying to win a nomination, so he knew it would be an emotional hook. Trump is a genius at promotion (listen to him for five minutes and it reminds you of any sales pitch that you have endured over the years.) Therefore, he is using the tools that have always been successful for him. It is surprising how emotionally attached so many people have been to his message, though, without taking the time or effort to research for the facts. Thank you for your time to do so.
Holy cow—have you not even read the phrasing in the Constitution?
Oh, well the, that will change everyone’s mind. Thanks for posting.
Of course, the constitution explicitly states they were eligible in 1796.
So, you prove nothing.
Thanks for playing.
//All sarc.
You don’t need to go back so far, McCain was born in Panama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.