Yeah, sure. I don't see why not. Why should birthplace automatically make your ideologies and potential to be a successfully president decline? If I agree with them the most, I absolutely would.
While that is likely to be true it has never been tested. It's being debated right now because Ted Cruz, a presumptive presidential candidate, was not born in the US. It does not make him ineligible to run, but if he were to be elected president
it would likely be challenged forcing the SC to give a legal definition to "natural born". We'd all presume they would not invalidate his victory, it's just that it has not yet been determined by law.
John McCain was born in Panama while his parents were working there and he was found to be qualified to run for POTUS. Obama's father was not American and he was found to be qualified to be POTUS.
Again I'm not saying that it isn't constitutional. My point is that it has never been given a legal interpretation. The term "natural born" has not been defined by the SC, one would assume they'd take it to mean born American, or of American parents.
Let's take, for example, somebody like my husband. Born in Germany. Came here at 5 years old. Became a citizen with his parents, as a young child. Raise as an American and never knew anything else. No living relatives abroad. Although ...
A natural born "citizen" *can* be born outside US: children born to military & diplomatic corps are "natural born citizens." Children born to American citizens not on USA soil are citizen. If that's kind of thing you are asking: yes. Otherwise: no.
The SCOTUS ruled on the definition of a "natural born citizen" in the 1800s. Mother and father must be US citizens. If we're talking about Obama, being born in Hawaii would make him a citizen, but not a "natural born" citizen.
Lol. Most people still argue the point. I think it's a reasonable requirement, if a president has close relatives that are foreign they might not put America's interests first.
If your mother goes on vacation, or on a business trip while pregnant, and births you in another country, you are still a full fledged, natural born citizen fully qualified (at least for in this respect) to run for President.
Maybe. Not someone who was born a foreign citizen then naturalized, but one who was a full US citizen at birth regardless of their place of birth, yes. Born to a US citizen serving in the military or as a diplomat overseas, for example.
The constitution uses the term "natural born citizen", not "born on US soil" or similar, so it seems clear that anyone who is a US citizen from birth would qualify.
A citizen born in the US to American parents, who moved with them overseas as a baby and didn't return until he was fully adult would qualify without question, yet might feel the same conflict.
No, as much as they may love America, since they were born, and probably spent part of their life, elsewhere, there is a conflict of interest. I definitely know what I'm talking about here ;)
Before you ask: I was born and raised in Germany, moved to America, love it, am meanwhile a legal resident but not yet citizen, and even if I were, I'd disqualify myself, and this comes from an immigrant.
@commonsense: I mostly agree, but do you think foreign born Arnold Schwarzenegger did a good job running California? I'd say yes, so political posts below potus ok, just not the whole nine yards.
Yup. My main argument is that a state governor doesn't have the conflict of interest I mentioned, because he usually doesn't deal in international affairs. The potus has to.
McCain was born to US citizens on a US military base in Panama. He is a "natural born citizen" by definition. Obama was born to a US citizen and a non-US citizen. He is not a "natural born citizen" even though he was born on US soil.
3gun, ANYBODY born on U.S soil is automatically a natural born us citizen. Bin laden could rape a 9 year old who then crosses the border and pops her child out in Texas, and that is a natural born citizen. Have you heard of anchor babies?
Comments: Add Comment