Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[(poco) Sforzando]

"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."

The clause states that EITHER a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the US (and presumably a naturalized citizen is still a citizen, as stipulated in the 14th amendment) is eligible. But what about the "at the time of the adoption of this constitution," which was 1787? Would that not disqualify anyone born or living in other than the original 13 states? Take that, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln!

[Todd]

"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."

The clause states that EITHER a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the US (and presumably a naturalized citizen is still a citizen, as stipulated in the 14th amendment) is eligible. But what about the "at the time of the adoption of this constitution," which was 1787? Would that not disqualify anyone born or living in other than the original 13 states? Take that, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln!

The portion "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" of course means that all citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were eligible to be President.  Anti-Hamilton sorts argue that the language "or a Citizen of the United States" was used specifically so that Hamilton could be President.  My beef was with the original author's fastidiousness regarding interpretation early in her piece, but her less fastidious closer.

Congress could solve this problem, if it's a problem, by passing legislation that once again defines what a natural born citizen is.  Since we've gone since 1795 without a statutory definition, it may not be the most pressing matter.  Unless you're Ted Cruz.

[Brian]

"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."

The clause states that EITHER a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the US (and presumably a naturalized citizen is still a citizen, as stipulated in the 14th amendment) is eligible. But what about the "at the time of the adoption of this constitution," which was 1787? Would that not disqualify anyone born or living in other than the original 13 states? Take that, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln!

I diagram this sentence as

No person shall be president except
1. a natural born citizen, OR
2. a citizen at the time of the adoption

[(poco) Sforzando]

I diagram this sentence as

No person shall be president except
1. a natural born citizen, OR
2. a citizen at the time of the adoption

It depends on whether you read "at the time" to modify Citizen or the United States. But if your reading is correct, then option 2 is a moot point and only natural-born citizens are eligible. Where does that leave Ted Cruz? or for that matter John McCain?

[Todd]

Where does that leave Ted Cruz?

Brian's reading is correct.  Where it leaves Ted Cruz was the whole point of the original article, and several other articles.  If Cruz wins the White House, his holding of office could be challenged in court.  Of course, Congress could pass legislation between election day and inauguration day specifically defining what a natural born citizen is.  As dysfunctional as Congress can be, I would have to think that would happen, especially given current Republican control.  (Filibusters may not sound so bad now, to some.)

McCain was in a somewhat different position since he was born to two US citizens.  I believe he was born on a military base over which the US exercised sovereignty.  It would be very surprising to see any substantive challenge to such a person becoming President.

The 1790 Naturalization Act, since partly repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, did include the following language:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

However, the laws also contained literal paternal components, and Cruz's father was not a citizen when Ted was born.

Interesting, Barry Goldwater also had issues since he was born in Arizona before it was a state.  What is it with Republicans born someplace else?

[(poco) Sforzando]

(1) Brian's reading is correct.  Where it leaves Ted Cruz was the whole point of the original article, and several other articles.  If Cruz wins the White House, his holding of office could be challenged in court.  Of course, Congress could pass legislation between election day and inauguration day specifically defining what a natural born citizen is.  As dysfunctional as Congress can be, I would have to think that would happen, especially given current Republican control.  (Filibusters may not sound so bad now, to some.)

(2) McCain was in a somewhat different position since he was born to two US citizens.  I believe he was born on a military base over which the US exercised sovereignty.  It would be very surprising to see any substantive challenge to such a person becoming President.

The 1790 Naturalization Act, since partly repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, did include the following language:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

However, the laws also contained literal paternal components, and Cruz's father was not a citizen when Ted was born.

(3) Interesting, Barry Goldwater also had issues since he was born in Arizona before it was a state.  What is it with Republicans born someplace else?

(1) May well be, but given the vagaries of 18th-century punctuation, the alternative reading is not implausible.
(2) I am inclined to agree. He was born in the Canal Zone, and his eligibility was never challenged.
(3) Don't forget, Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And he's a Muslim.

[mc ukrneal]

This article will perhaps lay out the possibilities for you: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/07/ted-cruz-constitutions-natural-born-citizen-clause/

[Todd]

This article will perhaps lay out the possibilities for you: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/07/ted-cruz-constitutions-natural-born-citizen-clause/

The article references Tribe holding an opinion that Cruz is natural born, but Tribe has stated that Cruz's eligibility is unsettled.  It also indicates that Trump could file suit, but that may not be accurate.  Cruz is not President, nor has he won the nomination, so it is likely Trump has no standing.  Cruz would at least have to be the nominee, and one Congressman (Alan Grayson, a Democrat, so no partisanship is involved) has already pledged to file suit if Cruz wins the nomination.  Even then it's unclear if the Congressman would have standing because the President must be a natural born citizen, but the nominee of a party does not have to be.  But, as usual, there's too much focus on the courts.  Congress literally has the power to resolve this.

[Karl Henning]

Howard Kurtz: Could Bernie Sanders pull this off?

[drogulus]

Howard Kurtz: Could Bernie Sanders pull this off?

     Yes, if Sanders comes close in S. Carolina or wins he has a real shot. Hillary has wide, thin support that depends on inevitability, that is until she gets the nomination. Before that, though, I sense a fragility in her campaign, a lack of a substantial "true believer" core. The true believers, the ones who wanted Warren, moved to Sanders. I still think that's not enough for him, even if his appeal is wider than anyone, including me, thought when he got in.

[Karl Henning]

I do feel that Sanders has a better chance (a much better chance) than the punditocracy give him credit for;  but I am shy of sounding that note too often, lest I seem to echo the Trumpistas.

[Daverz]

Howard Kurtz: Could Bernie Sanders pull this off?

Howie Kurtz?  A "media critic" who loses his other gigs one by one and finally lands at Fox?  You expect me to click on that?

[Karl Henning]

Howie Kurtz?  A "media critic" who loses his other gigs one by one and finally lands at Fox?  You expect me to click on that?

As one may wish, of course.

[Karl Henning]

He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure

[Karl Henning]

He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure

[Karl Henning]

He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure

[Sergeant Rock]

He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure

He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure

He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure

What I tell you three times is true 

Sarge

[Daverz]

What I tell you three times is true 

Sarge

The Henning posts go in, the Henning posts go out; you can't explain that.

Seriously, Karl, I worry about what your web reading is doing to your soul.

[Karl Henning]

What I tell you three times is true 

Sarge

Tapatalk went higgledy-piggledy.

[Sergeant Rock]

Tapatalk went higgledy-piggledy.

Don't you just hate it when things go piggledy? 

Sarge