If you thought Florida and Texas were wack...

I used to be concerned with gov agencies forcing one to have licenses/ID's etc etc for various objects.

But now that ridiculous amounts of data can be pulled on you by commercial companies without your knowledge... well, it's inevitable. The best I can do is fight against any "Real ID" proposals, it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I used to be concerned with gov agencies forcing one to have licenses/ID's etc etc for various objects.

But now that ridiculous amounts of data can be pulled on you by commercial companies without your knowledge... well, it's inevitable. The best I can do is fight against any "Real ID" proposals, it seems.

---

Don't go to an airport.

So I've thought a little more about this, and I do have a concern. There is some dispute about what it means to be a natural born citizen. There is basically no authority on the matter.

A court could theoretically hold that a natural born citizen includes the child of two US citizens born overseas. Natural born citizen might necessarily incorporate whatever federal law says about who is or isn't entitled to US citizenship upon birth. The Constitution assures birthright citzenship for those born in the United States, but it's the grey area that concerns me.

If natural born citizen includes people not born in the United States, then Arizona has to be careful with how it restricts ballot access. Arizona probably cannot make these kinds of determinations on its own without running afoul of federal law or the Constitution. The smartest thing to do, IMO, is adopt a very liberal construction if natural born citizen, which might allow an ineligible candidate ballot access, and then see what happens with court challenges.

In other words, I first want to know what a natural born citizen actually is.

If you're going to have eligibility requirements and not check them, why have eligibility requirements at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

If you're going to have eligibility requirements and not check them, why have eligibility requirements at all?

---

You can always use the eligibility requirements to check after the fact, via lawsuit. But yeah, I'd rather prevent that from happening altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

If natural born citizen includes people not born in the United States, then Arizona has to be careful with how it restricts ballot access. Arizona probably cannot make these kinds of determinations on its own without running afoul of federal law or the Constitution. The smartest thing to do, IMO, is adopt a very liberal construction if natural born citizen, which might allow an ineligible candidate ballot access, and then see what happens with court challenges.

---

AFAIK, natural-born citizenship requires either being born in the states, or born to ONE parent with US citizenship.

It just means you have to have citizenship from birth, IIRC... you can't run for President as a naturalized citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

A robust "political process" would have discovered how Obama could go through Harvard Law and run it's Review without ever publishing one legal article. One.

---

This one stuck in my craw a little, so I decided to write to the HLR to ask about Obama's obligations there as the head of the publication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harvard Law Review

In order to be an editor on the Review, a law student must take the writing competition at the end of their 1L year. You may read more about how 1Ls become members on our website at http://www.harvardlawreview.org/hlr_477.php. Students do not write essays for publication in order to become a members of the Review.

The Harvard Law Review Association does not have an editor-in-chief. The top administrative job is president— which is an editor-in-chief with extensive managerial and leadership duties— a job that includes three primary responsibilities: editorial, corporate, and community.

---

In other words, presidents of the review have no obligation to contribute, which jibes with this LA Times article from 9/4/08:

Quote:

---

As law review president, Obama is the last person to edit student articles, as well as longer pieces by accomplished legal scholars. The review publishes eight times a year and receives about 600 free-lance articles each year.

Referring to his fellow students at the review, whom he edits, he said: "These are the people who will be running the country in some form or other when they graduate. If I'm talking to a white conservative who wants to dismantle the welfare state, he has the respect to listen to me and I to him. That's the biggest value of the Harvard Law Review. Ideas get fleshed out and there is no party line to follow."

Obama spends 50 to 60 hours each week on law review business. The full-time volunteer job leaves little time for an additional 12 hours of class, plus homework. When it comes to choosing between the two, as it often does, Obama usually misses class.

One of Obama's most difficult tasks as editor in chief is keeping the peace amid the clashing egos of writers and editors.

"He is very, very diplomatic," said Radhika Rao, 24, a third-year law student from Lexington, Ind. "He is very outgoing and has a lot of experience in handling people, which stands him in good stead."

Tina Ulrich, 24, a third-year student, wrote an article for the review that went through several editors before her final draft landed on Obama's desk.

"When he sent it back, it had lots of tiny print all over it and I was just furious," she said. "My heart just sank. But it was accompanied by specific examples of how parts could be made better. He wound up getting an enthusiastic response from a very tired writer."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thed...-obama-ha.html

---

So, for the record, I don't see how the media let anyone down on this count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

AFAIK, natural-born citizenship requires either being born in the states, or born to ONE parent with US citizenship.

It just means you have to have citizenship from birth, IIRC... you can't run for President as a naturalized citizen.

---

That might be the case, but we don't know it to be the case. Point being, I don't think any court has interpreted the provision. It could be that whatever the federal law is at the time of birth governs whether someone is a natural born citizen; that is, a natural born citizen would include all those on whom Congress has granted birthright citizenship. Or it could be that the requirement was meant to restrict eligibility only to those who were born in the United States.

Anyway, so long as the Arizona law pertains solely to the disclosure of documents--and doesn't restrict ballot access to candidates complying with the requirement--I have no problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Yes.

---

At least you're honest about liking the taste of jackboots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

AFAIK, natural-born citizenship requires either being born in the states, or born to ONE parent with US citizenship.

It just means you have to have citizenship from birth, IIRC... you can't run for President as a naturalized citizen.

---

Taken with a grain of salt from the venerable folks at About.com, but it all sounds about right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedra Trethan is a freelance writer and a former copy editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper.

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president. John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president; he was 43 years old when he was inaugurated in 1961. There is no maximum age limit set forth in the Constitution. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president; at the end of his term in 1988, he was nearly 77.

Finally, one must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen. The Constitution is vague on this point. For example, it does not make clear whether those 14 years need to be consecutive or what the precise definition of residency is. So far, however, this requirement has not been challenged.

These are the only explicit criteria in the Constitution.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepre...resrequire.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

That might be the case, but we don't know it to be the case. Point being, I don't think any court has interpreted the provision. It could be that whatever the federal law is at the time of birth governs whether someone is a natural born citizen; that is, a natural born citizen would include all those on whom Congress has granted birthright citizenship. Or it could be that the requirement was meant to restrict eligibility only to those who were born in the United States.

---

Eh, I was relatively close. I forgot about the residency requirements... and both parents have to be US citizens. Per wiki...

Quote:

---

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.[10] Additionally, under sections 301–309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (restated in sections 1401–1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth".[11] The phrase "natural born citizen," however, does not appear in the current statutes dealing with citizenship at birth.
The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or two U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time.[12] Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," including (for example) all persons "born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s]."[13]
The definition of the "United States", for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands.[14] Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of "outlying possessions of the United States" (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. "nationality" but not U.S. "citizenship") is now restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.[15][16]

---

Here's an interesting tidbit...

Quote:

---

Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities 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 subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[17]

---

So if I was stationed in an overseas base when my child was born, he wouldn't be a natural-born citizen, as my wife doesn't have her citizenship yet. Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

At least you're honest about liking the taste of jackboots.

---

Nah. Too easy. I won't do it.

^ You're talking about "statutory" birthright citizenship. It's not at all clear that "natural born citizen" for purposes of presidential eligibility includes that.

Two different things.

In regards to the specificity of "natural-born" distinction, you're right Doobs, there's no clear ruling on whether a person has to be physically born in the States, in territories belonging to the states, or if it covers children born to US citizens overseas as well.

Edit: Maybe Arizona should cover this too? :)