Natural Born Citizens
Normally, I think politics should be discussed only with family members and really close friends. If the conversation sinks to shaken fists and name calling, everyone still can kiss and make up later. That said, I’m going to wade in and talk about what it takes to be president.
I’ve got a book due out next month, Eyes of the World. It’s a political thriller involving the reelection campaign of the first woman president. One of the unexpected parallels between the book and the current race for U. S. president involves John McCain, the apparent nominee on the Republican side.
McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. Both of his parents were U.S. citizens. (His father was in the Navy and later became an admiral.) Do the somewhat unusual circumstances of his birth disqualify him from serving as president?
The Constitution provides that "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 the President . . ." Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "natural born Citizen" defined. It is clear that any person born inside the United States is qualified to serve as president. It’s equally clear that any person born outside the U.S. whose parents were not U.S. citizens is not qualified (sorry, Arnold Schwarzenegger).
So what about John McCain–born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents? Most people who have studied this issue say the best place to look for an answer is the federal statutes that define citizenship. There McCain finds solid authority for the position that he’s constitutionally qualified for the presidency. Two long-standing statutes (for legal obsessive-compulsives, that’s 8 U.S.C. 1401(c) and 1403) classify him as a citizen at birth. Congress seems willing to accept this. There’s a resolution now before the U.S. Senate that would deem McCain qualified to serve as president; it’s likely to receive unanimous approval.
But this issue doesn’t end with John McCain.
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, also was a candidate for the White House in this cycle. Richardson’s father was from Boston. His mother was Mexican. The family was living in Mexico City at the time, but his mother came to California to give birth to Bill. By all traditional standards, Richardson’s U.S. birth qualified him as a "natural born Citizen." Still, when he announced his run for the presidency, bloggers cried foul, squawking "anchor baby, anchor baby!" (That’s a pejorative term used by anti-immigrant forces to describe kids born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents.) Naughty bloggers. Wash their mouths out with soap.
It gets even more weird. An article in the March 5 edition of Hawaii Reporter argues that Barack Obama may not be a citizen because he was born outside the U.S. Wait–Obama was born in Hawaii, right? Sure, but (so the article claims) Hawaii isn’t a U.S. state. It’s a sovereign nation under military rule from Washington. That argument may draw a smile from the ghost of Queen Lilioukalani, but I doubt it would gain even one vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even Hillary Clinton has faced a challenge to her qualifications. A man in Nevada has filed a federal lawsuit to bar her from the Nevada ballot. His theory? The Constitution uses the words "he" and "him" when laying out the powers and duties of the president. Thus only men are qualified for the job. That reminds me of one of my schoolmates in junior high, a guy named Oscar. Whenever he’d raise his hand in social studies class, the teacher would cover her eyes and mutter, "Oh, Lord, what now?" I think Oscar eventually went into the telephone solicitation business.
All this leaves open the basic question: what should be the qualifications for president? Patience and a thick skin are at the top my list. Oh, and add in a sense of humor. And this "natural born Citizen" stuff? I don’t worry too much about that, though I would draw the line at Arnold Schwarzenegger. The movie Commando was enough to disqualify him.
I’ve got a book due out next month, Eyes of the World. It’s a political thriller involving the reelection campaign of the first woman president. One of the unexpected parallels between the book and the current race for U. S. president involves John McCain, the apparent nominee on the Republican side.
McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. Both of his parents were U.S. citizens. (His father was in the Navy and later became an admiral.) Do the somewhat unusual circumstances of his birth disqualify him from serving as president?
The Constitution provides that "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 the President . . ." Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "natural born Citizen" defined. It is clear that any person born inside the United States is qualified to serve as president. It’s equally clear that any person born outside the U.S. whose parents were not U.S. citizens is not qualified (sorry, Arnold Schwarzenegger).
So what about John McCain–born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents? Most people who have studied this issue say the best place to look for an answer is the federal statutes that define citizenship. There McCain finds solid authority for the position that he’s constitutionally qualified for the presidency. Two long-standing statutes (for legal obsessive-compulsives, that’s 8 U.S.C. 1401(c) and 1403) classify him as a citizen at birth. Congress seems willing to accept this. There’s a resolution now before the U.S. Senate that would deem McCain qualified to serve as president; it’s likely to receive unanimous approval.
But this issue doesn’t end with John McCain.
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, also was a candidate for the White House in this cycle. Richardson’s father was from Boston. His mother was Mexican. The family was living in Mexico City at the time, but his mother came to California to give birth to Bill. By all traditional standards, Richardson’s U.S. birth qualified him as a "natural born Citizen." Still, when he announced his run for the presidency, bloggers cried foul, squawking "anchor baby, anchor baby!" (That’s a pejorative term used by anti-immigrant forces to describe kids born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents.) Naughty bloggers. Wash their mouths out with soap.
It gets even more weird. An article in the March 5 edition of Hawaii Reporter argues that Barack Obama may not be a citizen because he was born outside the U.S. Wait–Obama was born in Hawaii, right? Sure, but (so the article claims) Hawaii isn’t a U.S. state. It’s a sovereign nation under military rule from Washington. That argument may draw a smile from the ghost of Queen Lilioukalani, but I doubt it would gain even one vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even Hillary Clinton has faced a challenge to her qualifications. A man in Nevada has filed a federal lawsuit to bar her from the Nevada ballot. His theory? The Constitution uses the words "he" and "him" when laying out the powers and duties of the president. Thus only men are qualified for the job. That reminds me of one of my schoolmates in junior high, a guy named Oscar. Whenever he’d raise his hand in social studies class, the teacher would cover her eyes and mutter, "Oh, Lord, what now?" I think Oscar eventually went into the telephone solicitation business.
All this leaves open the basic question: what should be the qualifications for president? Patience and a thick skin are at the top my list. Oh, and add in a sense of humor. And this "natural born Citizen" stuff? I don’t worry too much about that, though I would draw the line at Arnold Schwarzenegger. The movie Commando was enough to disqualify him.
posted by Rob at 5:38 AM
1 Comments:
I actually read once that Barry Goldwater's candidacy could have been challenged because although he was born in Phoenix in 1909, Arizona did not become a state until several years later (1912 or 1914, I think). The point became moot obviously when he lost all but six states.
However, given the high stakes nature of the election and the money invested on both sides to secure this high office, I wouldn't be surprised if every possible legal artifice weren't used to undermine a person's qualifications. Perhaps the Supreme Court will have another election to decide in re Obama vs. McCain!
Post a Comment
<< Home