US Presidential Citizenship Verification

[ParanoiA]

Well all of the McCain conspiracy crazies I know are all up in arms about Obama's citizenship status. So I've been playing backboard with their accusations and questionables, and in the process I noticed that I have no idea how a president's citizenship is actually validated.

 

It would appear to rely on public forces to challenge citizenship in our courts, which appear to simply throw out these cases with what amounts to "it's not my job".

 

So, what is the process by which we validate presidential candidate's citizenship? What about the legislative branch; how are they verified? I've been trying to search on this subject, but I keep getting Obama related articles that don't really talk about the method in general.

 

To be clear, I have no doubt in Obama's citizenship and would hate for the thread to go that direction. My concern is in the process. Are we opening ourselves up for a dangerous scenario one day in our future?

[iNow]

Have you had any luck drowning out the political noise by looking here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law

 

or here:

 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

 

 

A quick .pdf:

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf

[bascule]

So, what is the process by which we validate presidential candidate's citizenship?

 

In the case of Obama, it went to court, and the judge dismissed the suit:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79086

 

Obama also posted his birth certificate on his web site for anyone to see.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, none of those talk about the process of validating an office seeker. They talk about the laws, but I'm not finding anything that defines how a candidate proves their citizenship. I would think it would be a requirement played out during the nomination process. That would seem to make the most sense; to present for verification your citizenship status, among other things, to an official or body of some sort in order to qualify for nomination.

 

Otherwise, you could actually have a candidate spend public funds on campaigning, only to find out they're not a citizen based on some technical requirement, let alone to gain the presidency.

[Pangloss]

The Berg v Obama suit was dismissed for good reason -- it was a stupid, partisan thing. It wasn't dismissed because the process is perfect, Bascule.

 

That doesn't mean the question of citizenship verification isn't a good one to ask, or that the process doesn't have holes in it. If the case pointed as discrepancies in the system, then they should be investigated and sealed.

 

That says nothing about the current president-elect. It does not undermine his authority because we have moved on from that question.

[Sisyphus]

It seems you're pretty much right. The method for validating citizenship is clear, but it looks like there's no specific "validator." It's just never been an issue, since no major candidate's eligibility has ever been seriously in question, and I doubt someone who couldn't demonstrate citizenship would get very far. I suppose the Supreme Court would intervene, if, somehow, a non-citizen convinced half the electoral college to cast unconstitutional ballots, but that's so far down the hypothetical "breakdown of the system" road that it's hard to tell what would happen.

[ParanoiA]

In the case of Obama, it went to court, and the judge dismissed the suit:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79086

 

Obama also posted his birth certificate on his web site for anyone to see.

 

See, that's exactly the point. First, let's just drop Obama from the specifics; he's obviously qualified and there's plenty of conspiracy boards and nutcase sites for that conversation.

 

The process though, is disturbing. From the article:

 

A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.

 

Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

 

Ok, so the legislature could empower citizens to do the policing of eligibility requirements, but who currently does?

 

Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.

 

I'm just as uncertain about how we enforce the requirements. Who does this? What's the process?

 

I suppose the Supreme Court would intervene, if, somehow, a non-citizen convinced half the electoral college to cast unconstitutional ballots, but that's so far down the hypothetical "breakdown of the system" road that it's hard to tell what would happen.

 

I didn't think they could intervene. They would seem the most appropriate legitimator of such a thing, I'm just not familiar with the mechanism that gives them the intervention. I think you're right though, that it hasn't been an issue in the past so it hasn't needed testing. I think this barrier we've broken with the presidency increases the probability we'll be testing this in the future.

Edited November 5, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

To the above two posts: Exactly. This was the point I tried to make a few times during the (current) Bush administration, in talking about how sometimes it was worth it to challenge something so that it would play out and put us where we need to be. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, and military tribunals being the prime examples. I don't like them, I don't think they are right, but I'm glad they were "played out" so that we can get this country down on paper as standing against them, instead of having this crazy situation where nobody knows what's right and what's wrong.

 

I don't think that's ALWAYS the way to go, we shouldn't *invite* trouble, but once trouble was upon us (9/11) it was a good idea to do make these things happen. In a sense we're "learning" from this "failed" Bush administration, and it's an important lesson. The lesson is NOT "don't vote Republican". It's not even "don't be evil". It's specific lessons on specific issues.

 

(I'm a big fan of the concept of learn-through-failure, and see no reason why it can't be applied to countries. Why do things have to always be perfect? Just because we put a man on the moon we can never make mistakes? Nonsense.)

[ParanoiA]

This was the point I tried to make a few times during the (current) Bush administration, in talking about how sometimes it was worth it to challenge something so that it would play out and put us where we need to be. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, and military tribunals being the prime examples. I don't like them, I don't think they are right, but I'm glad they were "played out" so that we can get this country down on paper as standing against them, instead of having this crazy situation where nobody knows what's right and what's wrong.

 

That's a great point. We're still a rather young nation in the grand scheme of things, and I think we forget that. Perhaps, we need to play these things out to mature our document.

[swansont]

What paperwork do you have to file to be put on a ballot? Does that include proof of meeting the credentials? One doesn't need to focus solely on citizenship — what would happen if a 32 year-old tried to run for president?

[Pangloss]

It's funny you ask, because ABC News' John Stossel, who is known for his libertarian views, did a piece for 20/20 a few weeks ago about how the Dems and Repoobs have more or less locked things down. The piece was mainly about campaign finance reform but it also had some interesting bits about how difficult the two parties have made it to enter a race as an independent.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/

 

The main problem is not so much the filing paperwork but the laws (mainly regarding contributions) that you have to follow once your campaign is in place.

 

In terms of your question about a 32-year-old running for President, that one is specifically written into the Constitution so the paperwork would (I presume) just be rejected. If for some reason various authorities decided to allow it to pass, the question would be put before a court and rejected there. Even the Supreme Court couldn't grant that person permission to run for that office. The only legal remedy would be an amendment to the constitution, ratified by the states (2/3rds?). You hear that talked about with regard to Arnold Schwarzenegger sometimes (hey cool, Schwarzenegger is in Firefox's spelling dictionary, rofl).

[swansont]

It's funny you ask, because ABC News' John Stossel, who is known for his libertarian views, did a piece for 20/20 a few weeks ago about how the Dems and Repoobs have more or less locked things down. The piece was mainly about campaign finance reform but it also had some interesting bits about how difficult the two parties have made it to enter a race as an independent.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/

 

The main problem is not so much the filing paperwork but the laws (mainly regarding contributions) that you have to follow once your campaign is in place.

 

In terms of your question about a 32-year-old running for President, that one is specifically written into the Constitution so the paperwork would (I presume) just be rejected. If for some reason various authorities decided to allow it to pass, the question would be put before a court and rejected there. Even the Supreme Court couldn't grant that person permission to run for that office. The only legal remedy would be an amendment to the constitution, ratified by the states (2/3rds?). You hear that talked about with regard to Arnold Schwarzenegger sometimes (hey cool, Schwarzenegger is in Firefox's spelling dictionary, rofl).

 

Both the age and citizenship requirements are in the Constitution. The question here is does anyone check, and how do they do so? Do they card you when you announce?

[ParanoiA]

Both the age and citizenship requirements are in the Constitution. The question here is does anyone check, and how do they do so? Do they card you when you announce?

 

Yeah, that's exactly it. I would like to see an obvious 14 year old run for president as a 35 year old man, just to see what mechanism executes to stop him, if any.

[Pangloss]

The Federal Election Commission is responsible for certifying candidates. The charge at the moment is that the process is insufficiently thorough. I.E. they didn't actually inspect Obama's birth certificate (Berg charged that an image on a web site was insufficient and too easily faked -- his flaw of course being that he offered no evidence that this was the case, which is why I say the case was dismissed for lack of evidence, not because his claim was disproved).

[npts2020]

A birth certificate is usually sufficient proof of citizenship. It is concievable someone could fake a birth certificate but I would have to see pretty good evidence for it. IMO it shouldn't matter anyway, you either agree with what he wants to do and help out or you disagree and try to push for something else. I would be in favor of a 5 year old Martian for president if they had the best ideas for using government to advance all of humanity rather than just some of humanity, like most current pols.

[doG]

So, what is the process by which we validate presidential candidate's citizenship?

 

Alexander Hamilton wrote of the Electoral College in Federalist #68:

 

The Mode of Electing the President

 

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system' date=' of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.E1

 

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. [b']This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.[/b]

 

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

 

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

 

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

 

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

 

The electors of the Electoral College, chosen on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, should do as they were intended and vet the candidates through their own deliberations, investigation and analysis of qualified information presented to them for the purpose. Information free of the media's slant by which the people have used in choosing such electors. Should the electors do they job that was intended for them to do before casting their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December we would not need the courts to settle such issues as a candidate's citizenship status for that should be a vetted piece of information at their disposal for completing the task for which they were appointed. If we used the Electoral College as it was designed and intended to be used we would end up with better qualified Presidents than those chosen by a population informed by nothing more than the hearsay of today's slanted media and biased internet spam.

[ParanoiA]

Ok, so how does that work with a divided electorate? It's not exactly in the interests of the victors of the popular vote to vet thoroughly. It would seem the majority party would simply overlook such things and elect the candidate in the face of disqualified attributes. Unless I'm still not understanding the mechanism of the electoral college...

[john5746]

The electors of the Electoral College, chosen on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, should do as they were intended and vet the candidates through their own deliberations, investigation and analysis of qualified information presented to them for the purpose.

 

I think we should either have a straight up popular vote or have the electoral votes of each state determined by %, not winner take all. It made the democratic primaries better, gave more voice to minorities, IMO.

 

Information is much easier to obtain by the common man than it was back then and the common man is better educated. Sure, we have stupid people that believe stupid things and vote based on biased information - but I see no evidence that selecting a few people to deliberate will bring a better result. I think it would be just as biased and more susceptible to corruption.

[doG]

I think we should either have a straight up popular vote or have the electoral votes of each state determined by %, not winner take all. It made the democratic primaries better, gave more voice to minorities, IMO.

 

Why? The President is NOT a representative, he/she is the executive. Why should the President be the result of a popularity contest decided by a poorly informed public?

[john5746]

The commander in chief is the most powerful person in the country, he has the largest effect on all of the people. His customer is the American people, not a select few.

 

Selecting reps can fall victim to redistricting to game the system or corruption of this select few.

 

Having an all or nothing system in each state eliminates the intended votes of millions who are stuck "blue" or "red" states.

 

Who selects the electoral rep? I find the public, including myself, to be more informed about presidential candidates than local candidates.

[John Cuthber]

Why? The President is NOT a representative, he/she is the executive. Why should the President be the result of a popularity contest decided by a poorly informed public?

 

Last time I checked, that was called democracy

Anyway, I must be missing something here. Who cares if he's from Mars? He was voted in.

[Pangloss]

Anyway, I must be missing something here. Who cares if he's from Mars? He was voted in.

 

So you'd be okay with an American running for your Prime Minister?

 

If so I applaud your consistency but I don't think the majority of your fellow countrymen would agree. At any rate it's a moot point -- it's written into the constitution, so we can't elect an outsider even if we want to.

[doG]

Last time I checked, that was called democracy

 

And the U.S. IS NOT a democracy, it is a Constitution-based federal republic.

[Pangloss]

That is one of the ways "democracy" is defined in this day and age.

[John Cuthber]

So you'd be okay with an American running for your Prime Minister?

 

If so I applaud your consistency but I don't think the majority of your fellow countrymen would agree. At any rate it's a moot point -- it's written into the constitution, so we can't elect an outsider even if we want to.

 

I'd be perfectly happy with an American as PM. I'm not sure if our rules permit it but that's not important, we could alsways change the rules.

I agreee that not all my countrymen (and countrywomen and those from the other 3 countries involved) would accept it so it's not going to happen any time soon but that's democracy for you. What the people want they get (Doesn't always work of course, but that's the idea).

 

At the moment, the PM is not actually from my country, it doesn't bother me at all.