Constitutionality Questions

[Del Tachi]

1) Is a person born in a state during a “time of secession” (i.e. The Civil War) eligible for election to the United States presidency?

2) Was a person born in “the Republic of Texas” (1836-1846) eligible for election to the presidency sometime after Texas is admitted to the Union?

3) Let’s say, hypothetically, the United States of America annexes Canada in 2015 as part of a bilateral agreement between the two nations.  In the agreement, all Canadian citizens are declared “natural citizens” of the United States.  Can Stephen Harper run for president in 2016?

4) In an election, no candidate reaches the necessary 270 electoral votes and thus the Electoral College is unable to elect a president.  The election of the president would be left up to the House of Representatives. 

First question:  Which Congress, the outgoing “lame duck” Congress or the newly elected Congress has the responsibility of electing the President? 

Second question: To elect a president, does the House have to reach a majority of simply a plurality?

Third question: If no decision can be reached by the Congress before January 20th, is the Speaker of the House (who would be the first non-vacated office in the Presidential Order of Succession) entitled to serve as the President for the wholeness of the term (four years)?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1) Is a person born in a state during a “time of secession” (i.e. The Civil War) eligible for election to the United States presidency?

The Union fought the war under the theory that secession was not possible, so yes.

In particular, John Nance Garner was considered eligible to be Vice President (and thus eligible to be President) despite have been born in Texas between the date of Texas' attempted secession, and the readmission of its representatives to Congress.

2) Was a person born in “the Republic of Texas” (1836-1846) eligible for election to the presidency sometime after Texas is admitted to the Union?

Reply hazy, try again

3) Let’s say, hypothetically, the United States of America annexes Canada in 2015 as part of a bilateral agreement between the two nations.  In the agreement, all Canadian citizens are declared “natural citizens” of the United States.  Can Stephen Harper run for president in 2016?

This is really the same question as before.  Elizabeth May certainly would be eligible as she is a natural-born citizen of the United States already.  While the question is debatable, I would say that anyone who was a natural-born citizen of one of the provinces of Canada at the time of annexation would become natural-born citizens of the United States since they are natural born citizens of one of the 60 States.  As for those born in the Canadian territories, the example of Vice-President Charles Curtis who was born in the Territory of Kansas would seem to indicate yes, if such territory were to be incorporated into the United States instead of being unincorporated territory.

4) In an election, no candidate reaches the necessary 270 electoral votes and thus the Electoral College is unable to elect a president.  The election of the president would be left up to the House of Representatives.  

First question:  Which Congress, the outgoing “lame duck” Congress or the newly elected Congress has the responsibility of electing the President?

In the past, prior to the XXth Amendment, the lame duck Congress did so.  It had to in order for the election to be held before the start of the President's term.  Current law specifies the incoming Congress, but there is no Constitutional bar to having the lame duck Congress do so.

Second question: To elect a president, does the House have to reach a majority of simply a plurality?

A majority of the States represented in the House, not a majority of the members of the House.  For example, look at the congressional election of the president in 1801 that followed the electoral college tie of 1800.  For 35 ballots, the result was 8 States for Jefferson, 6 States for Burr, and 2 States with no result.  (Maryland's delegation was split 4-4 and Vermont's was split 1-1)  The fact that the Representatives as a whole were 55-49-2 in favor of Jefferson on the 1st ballot was of no import.

Third question: If no decision can be reached by the Congress before January 20th, is the Speaker of the House (who would be the first non-vacated office in the Presidential Order of Succession) entitled to serve as the President for the wholeness of the term (four years)?

In the unlikely event that the Senate is also unable to choose a Vice President, then the Speaker of the House would take the duties of President, but if at any time the House were to select a President or the Senate a Vice-President, they would take over for the remainder of the term.

[Cincinnatus]

2) Was a person born in “the Republic of Texas” (1836-1846) eligible for election to the presidency sometime after Texas is admitted to the Union?

The closest example I can think of that comes close to this situation is Barry Goldwater being born in Phoenix before it was a state.  However, it was considered a territory (As originally declared by Jefferson Davis and subsequently accepted after the civil war).  Not exactly the same situation but, there doesn't seem to be much precedent to compare with.  Suffice to say, I have no definite answer.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2) Was a person born in “the Republic of Texas” (1836-1846) eligible for election to the presidency sometime after Texas is admitted to the Union?

The closest example I can think of that comes close to this situation is Barry Goldwater being born in Phoenix before it was a state.  However, it was considered a territory (As originally declared by Jefferson Davis and subsequently accepted after the civil war).  Not exactly the same situation but, there doesn't seem to be much precedent to compare with.  Suffice to say, I have no definite answer.

First off, other than having the same name, the Confederate Territory of Arizona had little to do with the later Federal creation.  It didn't even have the same boundaries.  Confederate Arizona was the half of the then Territory of New Mexico south of 34 N. The Federal Territory of Arizona (first proposed in 1858) was the half of New Mexico west of the current Arizona/New Mexico border.

Secondly, as I pointed out already, Vice President Curtis is a far stronger example for determining whether a person born in U.S. territory that is not yet a state is a natural-born citizen than Goldwater ever would be.  He was not merely a candidate, Charles Curtis actually served in a position that had the natural-born citizen requirement.

[Cincinnatus]

2) Was a person born in “the Republic of Texas” (1836-1846) eligible for election to the presidency sometime after Texas is admitted to the Union?

The closest example I can think of that comes close to this situation is Barry Goldwater being born in Phoenix before it was a state.  However, it was considered a territory (As originally declared by Jefferson Davis and subsequently accepted after the civil war).  Not exactly the same situation but, there doesn't seem to be much precedent to compare with.  Suffice to say, I have no definite answer.

First off, other than having the same name, the Confederate Territory of Arizona had little to do with the later Federal creation.  It didn't even have the same boundaries.  Confederate Arizona was the half of the then Territory of New Mexico south of 34 N. The Federal Territory of Arizona (first proposed in 1858) was the half of New Mexico west of the current Arizona/New Mexico border.

Secondly, as I pointed out already, Vice President Curtis is a far stronger example for determining whether a person born in U.S. territory that is not yet a state is a natural-born citizen than Goldwater ever would be.  He was not merely a candidate, Charles Curtis actually served in a position that had the natural-born citizen requirement.

Thanks for the history lesson

[The Mikado]

So, people born in US territories are eligible.  (Puerto Ricans, for example)  Would this have applied to someone born in the Philippines prior to 1948?

[WillK]

So, people born in US territories are eligible. 

If they are born a citizen -- see John McCain.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, people born in US territories are eligible.  (Puerto Ricans, for example)  Would this have applied to someone born in the Philippines prior to 1948?

No.  nor 1946, when they obtained independence, nor 1935, when they attained a Commonwealth status more like what the Northern Marianas or the other parts of the old Trust Terrirtory have today than what Puerto Rico has.

Puerto Rico is incorporated territory that is considered part of the United States, the Philippines were unincorporated territory that was considered to be owned by the United States, but not part of the United States.  The only populated unincorporated territory of the United States today is American Samoa and people born there are not US citizens unless one of their parents is.

[tpfkaw]

So, people born in US territories are eligible.  (Puerto Ricans, for example)  Would this have applied to someone born in the Philippines prior to 1948?

No.  nor 1946, when they obtained independence, nor 1935, when they attained a Commonwealth status more like what the Northern Marianas or the other parts of the old Trust Terrirtory have today than what Puerto Rico has.

Puerto Rico is incorporated territory that is considered part of the United States, the Philippines were unincorporated territory that was considered to be owned by the United States, but not part of the United States.  The only populated unincorporated territory of the United States today is American Samoa and people born there are not US citizens unless one of their parents is.

Although the US congress still saw fit to destroy the economy of American Samoa by instituting the minimum wage there and therefore driving off its one major source of employment (tuna canning).