vnatale wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 am
Article II is also clear: “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.”
I know this will be heresy to those who treat the Constitution as though it was handed to the founding fathers by Jesus Himself, but if it weren't so poorly drafted, it wouldn't be subject to so much bickering and controversy.
For example, the first sentence could be interpreted to literally say that anyone not born or naturalized at the time of Adoption is not eligible, therefore nobody is eligible to be President. I know, I know, that's absurd. But comma placement makes it less than totally clear.
However on a more serious note, and maybe to Libertarian666's point, none of the terms are defined.
So what is a natural born Citizen for purposes of this Article? Since terms are not defined, it's not truly clear.
What if natural born means born in the geographical US to one (or two) Citizen parents? Or what if natural born simply means born in the geographical US with no other conditions applied? And what if natural born for purposes of citizenship is different than natural born for purposes of eligibility for President?
When McCain ran, there was a little bit of noise as to whether being born on a foreign located US military base made you a natural born Citizen, but the question was never adjudicated, and of course there's a clear indication of how most people would like the question to be answered, but that's not the same thing as a legal adjudication.
George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico on a Mormon settlement where his parents had settled when they fled the US to escape prosecution for polygamy. He ran for President in 1968 and the question of his eligibility was only casually raised. Had he defeated Nixon in the primaries, maybe the question would have developed more legs.
If the question ever does get formally adjudicated at the SCOTUS level, I would not bet money one way or the other as to which way the decision will go. I think it will have more to do with politics and the political leaning of the Court at the time, more than clarity in the law or Constitution (back to the sacrilege of poor drafting). I suppose the question could also be resolved legislatively by Congress.
BTW, I agree that a decision that retroactively takes away citizenship would be a radical, unlikely development. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a decision on eligibility for the office of President which would not remove anyone's citizenship, only make them ineligible to be President. These are two different things.