That's just to hdwallpaperfree.info win the election you have to convince state and federal senators . To be President of the United States, one must fulfill three constitutional. Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth. .. shall be eligible to the office of President: nor shall any Person be elected to. This is a list of qualifications that potential candidates must possess in order to stand for election as president Section 55 requires that to be elected Senator, one must "have attained to the age of 30 . Article 58 of the Constitution sets the principle qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of the President.
Wong Kim Ark, citing both the common law and numerous legal precedents in the United States, explained in that a child born of alien parents within the country and subject to its jurisdiction that is, whose parents are not diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or troops in hostile occupation is considered a "natural born" citizen in the United States or subject in England58 as that term has been used over the centuries in England and the United States: It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. Court of Appeals, relying on the "Insular cases," found that birth in an unincorporated territory or possession of the United States, such as the Philippines, did not grant Fourteenth Amendment or common law citizenship as being born "in" the geographic area of the "United States," even though under the British common law one may have been a natural born "subject" of the crown when born within the far-flung dominions ruled by the British Empire.
Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court, in examining an immigration question not dealing specifically with the meaning of the presidential eligibility requirement, provided a lengthy examination of the English common law of citizenship at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and whether such citizenship was obtained by the place of birth jus soli only, or also by descent jus sanguinis. As noted above, the Court found that the common law of England was that of jus soli, that is, derived from the feudal notion of the reciprocal responsibilities of allegiance and protection of an individual that was established in England by the place of that person's birth; and that the latter principle of citizenship by descent because of the citizenship or nationality of one's father—jus sanguinis was, as a general matter, the law in England by statute, and thus not necessarily as part of the "common law," even though there existed a long-standing statutory recognition since of the rights of "natural-born subjects" who were born abroad to British parents or a British father.
It has sometimes been suggested that this general provision of the statute of 25 Edw. See Bacon, arguendo, in Calvin's Case, 2 How.
But all suggestions to that effect seem to have been derived, immediately or ultimately, from one or the other of these two sources: The one, the Year Book of 1 Rich. The other, a note added to the edition of of Dyer's Reports, a, stating that at Trinity term 7 Edw. Justice Harlan was, that at common law the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government Charles Gordon, who was then general counsel for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, explained in that in addition to recognizing birthright citizenship as to the place of birth jus soli"the consistent practice over several centuries, in England and the United States, [was] to recognize citizenship status by descent.
But those doubts were eliminated by statutes enacted in England before the American Revolution, which became part of the body of law followed in England and passed on to this country. It can be argued Dicey states in that treatise that "'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth," which expressly includes those born abroad whose British nationality passes to the child by descent.
The common law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted, only that portion which was applicable to their situation. Common Understanding in 18th Century of the Term "Natural Born" Citizen In addition to examining the common law meaning of the term "natural born" as it related to citizenship, there are other interpretive analyses that might be employed in an attempt to understand the "meaning to the framers" of the term "natural born" citizen when the term was adopted in the Constitution in It is, of course, always a somewhat speculative exercise to attempt to discern the "common understanding" of a group of individuals who may be geographically, professionally, and politically diverse, particularly during a period many years removed from the current time.
That being said, however, one might argue that there existed what might be called a "common" or "general understanding," or at least common "usage" of the term "natural born," as it related to those who were considered "natural born" subjects of England in the American colonies at the time of independence, and "natural born" citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
The "state of the law" in colonial America concerning who was a "natural born" subject of England under English laws, both common law as well as statutory laws, was certainly known to the framers since, as noted by the Supreme Court, "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.
List of presidential qualifications by country - Wikipedia
For example, more than a decade before John Jay had employed the term in his "hint" to General Washington at the Convention ofthe First Continental Congress of the American colonies, meeting in Philadelphia beginning in September ofadopted a resolution asserting that the common law of England was fully applicable to the colonies in America, as were such statutory laws of England as would be relevant to their circumstances, and expressly included in the resolution an assertion of the rights of their ancestors to be considered "natural-born subjects within the realms of England.
Of relevance to any meaning and "common understanding" of the term "natural born" within the American colonies and at the time of the drafting of the Constitution is the legal treatise on the laws of England referred to as "Blackstone," for its author William Blackstone.
Published inthis treatise was not only available, but was widely known to the framers at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Concerning specifically the issue of children born abroad of English subjects, Blackstone explains clearly that such children are then in considered under the law of England as "natural born" subjects, and have been considered as such for most purposes since at least the time of Edward IIIbecause of the development of statutory law in England to "encourage also foreign commerce.
As noted by Nelson and pointed out by othersa more restrictive meaning to include only those born within the boundaries of the United States would mean that John Jay, who may have recommended the precise term to the Convention, would have intended to exclude from eligibility his own children who were born in Spain and France while Jay was representing the United States abroad: The provision for "natural born Citizen" probably was aimed at immigrants, although the term is so unusual as to be vague In medieval times it had embodied the doctrine of jus soli: But with increased commerce and travel, Parliament, starting inseemed to expand the definition of natural born to incorporate the doctrine of jus sanguinis.The Qualities and Qualifications of the President
Now babies born of British citizens abroad or at sea were included as well. One can presume only that Jay and the delegates meant to apply the evolved, broader common law meaning of the term when they included it in the presidential qualifications clause.
Certainly Jay did not mean to bar his own children born in Spain and France while he was on diplomatic assignments, from legal eligibility to the presidency. Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States One author has noted that of the "Committee of Eleven," which first proposed to the Convention of the eligibility requirement of being a "natural born" citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term "natural born" by statute by the Congress.
As noted by the Court, an act "passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, Corwin, has explained that "natural born" citizens eligible to be President clearly include all of those born "on the soil" of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, under the common law principles of jus soli applicable in the United States, but also would appear to include those born abroad of U.
Corwin noted that Congress has the authority as the legislative body of a sovereign nation "to determine who shall and shall not be admitted to the body politic": But who are "natural-born citizens"? By the so-called jus soli, which comes from the common law, the term is confined to persons born on the soil of a country; and this rule is recognized by the opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares to be citizens of the United States "all persons born or naturalized within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
List of presidential qualifications by country
The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States; provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. By succeeding legislation the general clause of this provision has been continued in force to this day.
The question arises, whence did Congress obtain the power to enact such a measure? By the Constitution the Congress is authorized to pass "an uniform rule of naturalization," that is, a uniform rule whereby aliens may be admitted to citizenship; while the provision under discussion purports to recognize a certain category of persons as citizens from and because of birth.
Qualifications for the Office of President
The provision must undoubtedly be referred to the proposition that, as the legislative body of a nation sovereign at international law, Congress is entitled to determine who shall and who shall not be admitted to the body politic. Should, then, the American people ever choose for President a person born abroad of American parents, it is highly improbable that any other constitutional agency would venture to challenge their decision Constitution, did not actually use, either in the original French or in English interpretations at that time, the specific term "natural born citizens.
Although it appears that there is one single reference by one delegate at the Federal Convention of to Vattel in reference to several works of different authors to support an argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congressthere is no other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal Convention ofand specifically there is no reference or discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers, or in any of the state ratifying conventions.
Constitution the framers would disregard the specific and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using, without comment or explanation, a contrary, non-existent English translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international law.
In a state case cited with approval by the U. Supreme Court, an extensive legal analysis of the question of natural born citizenship under the law of the United States by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in New York infound that the laws in all of the American colonies, and then in all of the states after independence, followed the English common law principles of jus soli, that is, that birth in the territory governed citizenship at birth, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one's parents.
Addressing specifically the question of the use of the term "natural born citizen" in the federal Constitution as one of the qualifications for President, Vice Chancellor Sandford found the following: It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States.
Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle that prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood.
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section that defines the qualification of the President. The only standard which then existed, of natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution?
The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long-established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object.
James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," expressly explained in the House of Representatives in the First Congress, inthat with regard to citizenship the "place" of birth, and not "parentage" was the controlling concept adopted in the United States.
This common understanding and usage has continued up until this day as the term "natural born" citizen has entered the popular, legal lexicon as defined as: Case Law and Interpretations The evidence of historical intent, general understandings, and common law principles underlying American jurisprudence thus indicate that the most reasonable interpretation of "natural born" citizens would include those who are considered U. This general historical understanding and interpretation is supported, as well, by specific federal case law in the United States, and in official legal opinions of U.
Legal Background and Historical Cases Although the Supreme Court has not needed to rule specifically on the presidential eligibility clause, as discussed in more detail below, numerous federal cases, as well as state cases, for more than a century have used the term "natural born citizen" to describe a person born in this country and under its jurisdiction, even to parents who were aliens in the U. Some of the legal arguments based on American jurisprudence forwarded by those who support an alternate and highly exclusionary reading of the term "natural born" citizen including reading into the Constitution a requirement for one to have two U.
In so doing, the Court fashioned a very exclusive understanding, eventually rejected and overturned by later Supreme Court decisions, of who were "citizens" of the United States, even if one were born to emancipated slaves in this country.
The opinion of the Court, written by Chief Justice Taney, noted that the status of those "whose ancestors were negroes of the African race … imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves" was that of non-citizens.
Sandford, one Justice cited to Vattel's discussion of citizenship and "natural born" citizen as later interpretations into English had expressed the French usage in his treatise, Law of Nationsnot specifically with regard or intent to define "natural born" citizenship in reference to presidential eligibility, but rather to support his opinion that Negroes brought to America as slaves, as well as their progeny, could not be citizens of the United States.
It is general knowledge that the Dred Scott decision has widely and commonly been described as the "worst" and most vilified Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States.
United States presidential eligibility legislation - Wikipedia
In seeking to derive consistent exclusionist principles from an ambivalent legal tradition, Taney could only succeed by distorting history and making "bad law. In making national citizenship exclusively the effect of naturalization or pedigree, he disregarded volumes of judicial precedents emphasizing place of birth without regard to ancestry.
Taney's opinion rested instead on the social fact of prejudice and discrimination. The formal opinion of the Attorney General concluded that those who were "natural born" citizens were those who were U. We have natural-born citizens, Constitution, article 2, sec. And this class is the large majority; in fact, the mass of our citizens, for all others are exceptions specially provided for by law.
As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves, and become citizens of another nation. For we have no law, as the French have, to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth, or by the legal process of adoption The Constitution itself does not make the citizens; it is, in fact, made by them.
It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born; and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign born As far as I know, Mr. Wikisource has original text related to this article: Had this bill been enacted into law, it would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of to require candidates for the Presidency "to include with the [campaign] committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate" plus supporting documentation.
His initiative was strongly criticized by Florida Democrats, who accused Posey of trying to "fan the rumors on the extreme fringe of the Republican Party" and "pandering to the right wing". He also stated that there was now "no reason to question" that Obama is a U. John Campbell CaliforniaRep. Bob Goodlatte VirginiaRep. Dan Burton IndianaRep.
Marsha Blackburn Tennesseeand Rep. The resolution, containing language recognizing Hawaii as President Obama's birth state, passed by a vote of to 0. Alabama[ edit ] Legislation introduced in April by state Senator Slade Blackwell would require any candidate running for an office with an age requirement to present their birth certificate.
The rider passed the Arizona House of Representatives on a 31—29 vote, with only Republicans voting in favor and some Republicans joining with Democrats to oppose. Ash stated that he believed President Obama was an American citizen, but there has been "a lot of controversy over the issue". Cooper then likened the people who believe there is a birth certificate controversy to people who believe the moon is made of cheese and asked Ash if he knew the moon was not made of cheese without investigation.
Ash responded in the affirmative. Such proof could be either a long-form birth certificate or at least two other forms of accepted proof, such as an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate or hospital birth record. Michael McLachlan introduced legislation that would mandate presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates for their names to be placed on the ballot. Crowe and state Representative Alan Seabaugh would require candidates for federal office to file a birth certificate.
A certificate of live birth would not be accepted.