Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524
1500+ posts
1500+ posts
Offline
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524
Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution sets the requirements one must meet in order to become President:

1) They must be a natural-born citizen of the United States,

2) Thirty-five years of age and

3) A resident of the United States for 14 years.


We're fast approaching a time when otherwise-eligible parties could possibly be excluded using the first requirement. The first test-tube baby in the US will reach the age of eligibilty within 15 years, I believe. Using the above phrasing, would such a candidate be considered a "natural-born" citizen? Schemantics, I'm sure, but we're looking at a country where the former President argued the definition of "is"... [yuh huh]

Is this an issue waiting to happen? Should the wording be updated to allow for scientific advances in conception?

Just looking for some input on what's been a lively lunchtime discussion at work...

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
10000+ posts
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
Technically, there's already been one foreign-born President.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
Technically, there's already been one foreign-born President.

Who? As far as I know, all the founding fathers were born here. Otherwise they wouldn't have written that clause.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Without conducting any research on this, my gut instinct is that "natural born" refers to "native born" in the United States and not to any scientific or biological process whatsoever.

After all, the the Constitution was written, there was no other way to be born than the "union of a man and woman" way.

The only other possibility that I can think of would be that it is referenced this way due to adoptions.

Under the law, a child of an American citizen is automatically a citizen. And under adoption law, once a child is adopted, it is as if that child was born to the adoptive parents.

The framers put the part in about "natural born citizen" to prevent foreign powers (such as the royals in England) from getting a toe hold back into US government.

So perhaps they were concerned that someone loyal to the crown would adopt a member of the royal family (for example), obtain citizenship for the royal and that royal would be eligible for the Presidency.

Perhaps the theory was that, by requiring the president to be 'natural born,' that 'loophole' would be closed.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
 Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Why can't you be more tolerant of my intolerance?


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0