| Author |
Message |
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:16 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:39:04 +0100, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
| Quote: | Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> wrote:
Don Aitken wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:13:37 GMT, Theodore de Bere
teddebere@earthlink.net> wrote:
Who was the first president of the United States of America
who was not born in that country?
Ambiguous. It depends on whether "country" means "geographical area"
or "political unit". In the former sense, they were all "native-born",
because the Constitution so requires. In the latter, those from
Washington to Jackson, plus W.H. Harrison, were not born "in the
country" because they were born before the Declaration of
Independence.
Here is the text of the relelvant paragraph in the constitution:
"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."
Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which later
became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue once:
candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
I'd forgotten that bit about "fourteen years a resident."
|
Any suggestion that Austria should become 51st state yet?
DC, be afraid, be very afraid.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Default User
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:13 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> writes:
As has been pointed out, George Washington was the first Pres not
born
un the USA.
If you don't count Samuel Huntington, John Hansen, Elias Boudinot,
Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, Nathan Gorman, Arthur St. Clair,
and Cyrus Griffin. With the exception of Huntington, all were
"president of the United States of America in Congress assembled".
Huntington was president of congress when the Articles of
Confederation were ratified.
|
I don't believe there's any such office mentioned in the Articles of
Confederation. What the Articles say is:
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint
a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A
Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each
State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may
be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States
under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside,
provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president
more than one year in any term of three years;
So the office is (if you must give it a title) President of A Committee
of the States.
It's pretty clear that the office is that of head of an executive
committee that runs things when Congress is not assembled. While no
doubt a significant office, said office has no specific powers of its
own, nor could it be considered President of the United States.
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nell
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:05 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: | Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> wrote:
Don Aitken wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:13:37 GMT, Theodore de Bere
teddebere@earthlink.net> wrote:
Who was the first president of the United States of America
who was not born in that country?
Ambiguous. It depends on whether "country" means "geographical area"
or "political unit". In the former sense, they were all "native-born",
because the Constitution so requires. In the latter, those from
Washington to Jackson, plus W.H. Harrison, were not born "in the
country" because they were born before the Declaration of
Independence.
Here is the text of the relelvant paragraph in the constitution:
"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."
Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which later
became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue once:
candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
|
It could become an issue again, for those born in Hawaii or Alaska
before statehood. Alaska became a state on January 3rd, 1959, Hawaii on
August 21st, 1959. No, I don't see anyone on the horizon who is
considered a serious candidate for 2008 or 2012 but the field is wide
open. Ya never know.
Nell
Nell
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:18 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
US Constitution:
# 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.
(ObAUE: Note that in modern usage the second comma would be an error.)
Donna Richoux:
| Quote: | Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which later
became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue once:
candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
|
"Nell":
| Quote: | It could become an issue again, for those born in Hawaii or Alaska
before statehood. ...
|
Statehood is irrelevant. Someone born in Guam, Puerto Rico, or Washington
(DC) is a US citizen, and satisfies the citizenship requirement. I *think*
"the United States" also legally includes such places, in which case so
they should also meet the residency requirement without having to move
to a state 14 years in advance.
If I am correct on the last point, this would also mean that two people
from Puerto Rico, say, could form a ticket without losing any electoral
votes. (If two people resident in Texas, say, run as a ticket, then they
can't have any electoral votes from Texas. Unless one of them pretends
to move to another state first.)
--
Mark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try
Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily
msb@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:
| Quote: | US Constitution:
# 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.
(ObAUE: Note that in modern usage the second comma would be an error.)
Donna Richoux:
Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which later
became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue once:
candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
"Nell":
It could become an issue again, for those born in Hawaii or Alaska
before statehood. ...
Statehood is irrelevant. Someone born in Guam, Puerto Rico, or Washington
(DC) is a US citizen, and satisfies the citizenship requirement.
|
Well, now, maybe, but I can see that it should at least be checked. What
if, for example, someone had been born in a place that only later became
a territory of the US, and then later a state?
I'm surprised that I can't easily find a summary or the law or much of
anything on the procedure by which territories become states. The
Constitution only has a sentence or two. There must be a Federal Act
about how to approve such requests. Is there some odd key word for this?
I suppose it's logical that Arizona, say, declared that all
(non-Indians?) born in the Territory were citizens under Territorial
law, and that, upon becoming a state, Arizona citizens were to become
citizens of the US. Under that reasoning, Goldwater could say he was a
"natural born citizen" of the US.
I did turn up on paper on "Equal Footing," which was an early concern
about how new states were to be
'on an equal footing with the original states in all
respects whatsoever,'- phraseology which has ever
since been substantially followed in admission acts...
Maybe "all respects whatsoever" includes eligibility of its citizens to
be president.
| Quote: | I *think*
"the United States" also legally includes such places, in which case so
they should also meet the residency requirement without having to move
to a state 14 years in advance.
If I am correct on the last point, this would also mean that two people
from Puerto Rico, say, could form a ticket without losing any electoral
votes. (If two people resident in Texas, say, run as a ticket, then they
can't have any electoral votes from Texas. Unless one of them pretends
to move to another state first.)
|
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
Donna Richoux filted:
| Quote: |
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:
Donna Richoux:
Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which later
became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue once:
candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
"Nell":
It could become an issue again, for those born in Hawaii or Alaska
before statehood. ...
Statehood is irrelevant. Someone born in Guam, Puerto Rico, or Washington
(DC) is a US citizen, and satisfies the citizenship requirement.
Well, now, maybe, but I can see that it should at least be checked. What
if, for example, someone had been born in a place that only later became
a territory of the US, and then later a state?
|
The opportunity for it to become an issue is swiftly receding into history, but
there was once a time when the Philippines was (were) a US Territory...I seem to
recall some older Filipinos who were considered US citizens, even after the
territory had reverted to soveriegnty, because of this fact...I suppose any of
them would have been eligible to run for president, although racial attitudes of
the time would have prevented them from winning an election....r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
R H Draney rakstija:
| Quote: | Donna Richoux filted:
Mark Brader wrote:
Donna Richoux:
Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which
later became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue
once: candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
"Nell":
It could become an issue again, for those born in Hawaii or Alaska
before statehood. ...
Statehood is irrelevant. Someone born in Guam, Puerto Rico, or
Washington (DC) is a US citizen, and satisfies the citizenship
requirement.
Well, now, maybe, but I can see that it should at least be checked.
What if, for example, someone had been born in a place that only
later became a territory of the US, and then later a state?
The opportunity for it to become an issue is swiftly receding into
history, but there was once a time when the Philippines was (were) a
US Territory...I seem to recall some older Filipinos who were
considered US citizens, even after the territory had reverted to
soveriegnty, because of this fact...I suppose any of them would have
been eligible to run for president, although racial attitudes of the
time would have prevented them from winning an election....r
|
My wife, a Filipina born in the early 'forties, is a US citizen by birth.
She didn't enter the USA until 1986. I, on the other hand, am a US citizen
by naturalization, but came here in 1949.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Seeliger
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:03 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
"Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2v4recF2g80l9U1@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: |
R H Draney rakstija:
Donna Richoux filted:
Mark Brader wrote:
Donna Richoux:
Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which
later became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue
once: candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
"Nell":
It could become an issue again, for those born in Hawaii or Alaska
before statehood. ...
Statehood is irrelevant. Someone born in Guam, Puerto Rico, or
Washington (DC) is a US citizen, and satisfies the citizenship
requirement.
Well, now, maybe, but I can see that it should at least be checked.
What if, for example, someone had been born in a place that only
later became a territory of the US, and then later a state?
The opportunity for it to become an issue is swiftly receding into
history, but there was once a time when the Philippines was (were) a
US Territory...I seem to recall some older Filipinos who were
considered US citizens, even after the territory had reverted to
soveriegnty, because of this fact...I suppose any of them would have
been eligible to run for president, although racial attitudes of the
time would have prevented them from winning an election....r
My wife, a Filipina born in the early 'forties, is a US citizen by birth.
She didn't enter the USA until 1986. I, on the other hand, am a US
citizen by naturalization, but came here in 1949.
|
So, basically, if you are ever to live in the White House, it's up to her? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:55 am
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
John Seeliger rakstija:
| Quote: | "Skitt" wrote:
R H Draney rakstija:
Donna Richoux filted:
Mark Brader wrote:
Donna Richoux:
Which leaves open the case of someone born in a territory which
later became a US state. That apparently has only been an issue
once: candidate Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.
"Nell":
It could become an issue again, for those born in Hawaii or
Alaska before statehood. ...
Statehood is irrelevant. Someone born in Guam, Puerto Rico, or
Washington (DC) is a US citizen, and satisfies the citizenship
requirement.
Well, now, maybe, but I can see that it should at least be checked.
What if, for example, someone had been born in a place that only
later became a territory of the US, and then later a state?
The opportunity for it to become an issue is swiftly receding into
history, but there was once a time when the Philippines was (were) a
US Territory...I seem to recall some older Filipinos who were
considered US citizens, even after the territory had reverted to
soveriegnty, because of this fact...I suppose any of them would have
been eligible to run for president, although racial attitudes of the
time would have prevented them from winning an election....r
My wife, a Filipina born in the early 'forties, is a US citizen by
birth. She didn't enter the USA until 1986. I, on the other hand,
am a US citizen by naturalization, but came here in 1949.
So, basically, if you are ever to live in the White House, it's up to
her?
|
Looks that way. Arnold may change that. Not soon enough for me, though.
Besides, I'm smart enough to stay away from politics.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Election-time riddle |
|
|
msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
| Quote: | (If two people resident in Texas, say, run as a ticket, then they
can't have any electoral votes from Texas. Unless one of them
pretends to move to another state first.)
|
Sure they can. What the Twelfth Amendment says is
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by
ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least,
shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they
shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and
in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,
So half the Texas electors could vote for the presidential candidate,
and the other half could vote for the vice-presidential candidate. Or
all could vote for the presidential candidate and none for the vice
presidential candidate.
In a close election, this could lead to the president and vice
president being from different parties, so they don't risk it. If
you're sure of controling the senate, though you could get away with
it, since the electors could cast all their votes for vice president
for a third candidate[1], which would cause no candidate to get a
majority and would throw it to the (incoming) senate to choose from
the two candidates with the highest number of votes.
[1] And I don't see any requirement that the electors actually vote
for somebody *running* in the election.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither
|Liberty nor Safety.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in