Who can run for president (non American just curious)

[bcla]

Running for president and taking the oath of office as per constitution are very separate actions with numerous steps in between. Every state controls their balloting process. If one wishes to primary for either of the majority parties, there are likely additional guidelines from state party leadership or established ruling documents. The electoral college adds additional elements of intricacy.

It's up to the states (technically their legislatures) to decide how to apportion electors. There were many ways to do it, and what we have just sort of became the way it is today. There are a couple of states where electors are won for each Congressional district but the overall state popular vote winner gets two electors based on the Senators. There's nothing that specifically requires that there be a popular vote. A state legislature could pass a law granting the Governor the power to appoint electors. They could allow each of their members of the House to select an elector. A state legislature could require a majority rather than a plurality, along with a runoff if there's no majority. Early in the history of Presidential elections, some states appointed electors who were free to choice whoever they wanted.

But the real irony was that there was never really a thought that the Electoral College would consistently choose a President and Vice President. It was supposed to go into chaos, and then Congress would pick a President and Vice President in a contingent election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election

 

[PrincessShmoo]

My wife used to tell people "good news, I can never be President". Her dad was stationed at a U.S. Air Force Base in France where she was born, but the base had no hospital, so she was born in a French hospital. Both her parents were U.S. Citizens. And she has Naturalization papers, that she got when she was 3. She has since learned that she was considered a U.S. citizen at birth because of the circumstance. So bad news, she could be President!

Me, too. Dad was in the Army, and I was born in the "local" hospital. It was a German hospital, but used by the military. I'm going to guess that what your wife got is a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. It basically says, in spite of being born abroad, this person is a US citizen.

 

[bcla]

My wife used to tell people "good news, I can never be President". Her dad was stationed at a U.S. Air Force Base in France where she was born, but the base had no hospital, so she was born in a French hospital. Both her parents were U.S. Citizens. And she has Naturalization papers, that she got when she was 3. She has since learned that she was considered a U.S. citizen at birth because of the circumstance. So bad news, she could be President!

I've heard of a few cases where kids got naturalized even though they should have been eligible for citizenship at birth. The parents weren't really aware and went through the naturalization process, although it's pretty trivial for children.

There are two ways to document US citizenship at birth when born overseas. It can be the Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which has to be obtained at a US consulate or embassy before the person turns 18. When one arrives in the US they can apply for documentation via a Certificate of Citizenship. I've also heard of some parents just apply straight for a US passport for their child. The main problem with that is that it doesn't necessarily establish when someone because a US citizen, although I'd think the State Department would have that information in their files. That requires pretty much the same documentation needed for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or a Certificate of Citizenship in that situation (documented where citizenship begins on the DOB).

When a US citizen parent and noncitizen child are physically present in the US, that child automatically becomes a US citizen even if statutory law didn't provide citizenship at birth. This can happen when a parent brings a child to the US, or once a parent naturalizes. Also happens with an adopted child. However, that's generally not considered natural born citizenship for Presidential eligibility. That also gets documented with a Certificate of Citizenship, although the date the child becomes a citizen won't be the date of birth.

Also - an overseas US military base isn't considered US territory for citizenship purposes. Neither is a US embassy or consulate. There's this common myth that someone born in a US embassy is born on US soil and thus automatically a US citizen regardless of parental citizenship. This was pretty well established as official policy, but I can't really find it any more. This do go to an appeals court recently. I saw a brief from the Justice Dept, but I don't believe the Supreme Court accepted the case.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1710350.html​

The commentary by these scholars supports our conclusion that the military base where Thomas was born was not “in the United States” for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.​

 

[bcla]

Me, too. Dad was in the Army, and I was born in the "local" hospital. It was a German hospital, but used by the military. I'm going to guess that what your wife got is a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. It basically says, in spite of being born abroad, this person is a US citizen.

However, that's the requirement whether or not one is born on a base or not. Some other basis is needed to establish US citizenship at birth.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html​

c. Birth on U.S. military base outside of the United States or birth on U.S. embassy or consulate premises abroad:​

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth;​

(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).​

The Consular Report of Birth Abroad (or older docs with different titles) isn't the only way. I noted that one can't be issued one when over 18. If a parent can get the child into the US, it's possible to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship with all the information that would establish that citizenship began on the date of birth.

Some parents don't want to pay for a CRBA or a Certificate of Citizenship and just apply for a US passport in lieu. They're going to need to get a passport anyways in order to bring the child into the US. Several US embassy and consulate websites mention this.

https://ca.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/child-family-matters/birth/​

(Note: It is not necessary to obtain a CRBA. If it is more convenient, you may apply for a passport in lieu of a CRBA. In Canada, please consult the Apply for a Passport section of this website. In the United States, you may apply at any passport acceptance agency. Consult the State Department website to find the passport acceptance agency closest to you.)​

 

[monsterkitty]

I was quite irritated when one President's Day my daughter came home from school with a fact sheet erroneously claiming that someone needed to be born in the USA to be President, especially since it was not that long since John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone) ran for President. (And more recently, the Canadian-born Ted Cruz was a primary candidate).

My SIL would tell her middle DD that she was the only one of her girls who could be president because she was the only one born in the US. Her DH was in the Air Force and DD1 and DD3 were born in Germany and France. We just stopped trying to tell her she was not correct, that all three girls could run if they wanted.

Its not circular at all.
The 22nd says a two term president cannot be elected to office, therefore they are “constitutional ineligible” for Presidential office.
The 12th amendment says anyone not constitutionally eligible for the presidency is not eligible for VP. You cannot have someone in the VP role (whose entire purpose is to assume office in the event it’s needed) that could not legal assume the role under their own eligibility.

The entire framing of the 22nd was to limit presidential terms and prevent another FDR situation from serving more than 2 terms (10 years). You can’t circumvent the intent of the framing through word play (ie ”elected”) to allow a former president from repeatedly assuming the presidential office through a VP role.

My step-dad and my DH agree with you. SD had his doctorate in US History and was a professor at Denver University before his death. DH is a social studies teacher with his Masters. Not bragging, just pointing out that I know two highly educated individuals on the subject. The things I learned listening to the two of them at family dinners!

 

[manning]

Senator John McCain was born in Coco Solo Panama to Parents who were US citizens. His father was in the Navy stationed there.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I don’t believe George Romney did. He was born in Mexico but his family fled back to the US when Mormon communities trying to maintain polygamy weren’t quite so welcome any more. And if he didn’t renounce his Mexican nationality it could pass on to Mitt.

With Ted Cruz there’s also the possibility that he was a triple national with the US, Canada, and Cuba. Worrying about who another country considers their nationals can be problematic. Anyone with Italian ancestry after unification can be eligible for Italian citizenship. How many Presidential candidates had at least some Italian ancestors?

Australia was interesting because their Constitution goes back to when they were a British colony. At various times an immigrant from the UK, NZ, Canada, India, or parts of Africa would still be British subjects. Independence changed that dynamic.

I’ve been interviewed for jobs where clearance is required or strongly suggested. I was advised that dual nationality might be considered when clearance was considered. I looked up several nationality laws relating to my ancestry and I think I’m in the clear.

That’s not unique to Australia. Many Commonwealth nations including Canada . British citizens immigrating did not apply for citizenship as we were a colony.

 

[bcla]

Senator John McCain was born in Coco Solo Panama to Parents who were US citizens. His father was in the Navy stationed there.

His is an interesting case. His birth was legally in the Panama Canal Zone and there's an interesting claim made about whether or not he was a US citizen at birth. US territories are in a gray area where laws on birthright citizenship outside the United States may not apply. There's usually a law that applies such as the Jones–Shafroth Act for Puerto Rico. There was a law that declared anyone born in the Panama Canal Zone to a US citizen parent to be a US citizen, but it went into effect after John McCain III was born. This is something that gives legal scholars tons to talk about. There's also some really weird stuff in that law that still on the books. The Panama Canal Zone doesn't exist any more, but the law also says that anyone who is a US citizen working for either the US government or the Panama Railroad Company (or its successors) passes on US citizenship to a child born in Panama regardless of any other requirements to pass on citizenship.

I personally believe he was eligible for the Presidency because there shouldn't be a case where the a child born to two US citizen parents should not be a US citizen at birth and the laws on overseas birth were obviously meant to cover all other situations.

 

[bcla]

That’s not unique to Australia. Many Commonwealth nations including Canada . British citizens immigrating did not apply for citizenship as we were a colony.

I looked at the specifics. Most of their Constitution goes back to 1900 when Australia wasn't independent. The law in question was Section 44(i):

44. Any person who -​

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:​

​

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.​

So pretty much a "foreign power" didn't include any British colony. At least not until Australian independence.