That's consistent with what I heard (many years ago) in college and law
school about the origins of the provision. It may also have seemed logical
to the Framers because they would have known about the many many attempted
legal exclusions of foreign -born royalty from succession to various
thrones through the centuries. I'm not saying it always worked, I'm just
saying that one sees many expressions of fear that the sons of a royal
daughter married off to a foreign prince might eventually try to lay claim
to the English throne (or the French throne or whatever). Indeed, the most
recent examples the Framers could point to would have included the
succession of the Elector of Hanover, who spoke no English, as George I.
Before that there would have been James VI of Scotland who succeeded
Elizabeth I. Thus, many royal marriage contracts contained provisions that
specified that one of the parties (usually female) gave up any rights
she might have to the throne of her father. The Salic Law that the French
government adopted is an example of a successful attempt to keep a foreign
born prince (Edward III) off the throne of France, even t hough it
eventually had to be validated by a long term war. The notion that a
foreign born ruler might lead the new Republic in a direction it didn't
want to go was certainly understandable and it coincided with nascent
notions of nationalism (how's that for alliteration?)
Christine Corcos
Associate Professor of Law
Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Associate Professor, Women's and Gender Studies Program
LSU A&M
W325 Law Building
1 East Campus Drive
Baton Rouge LA 70803
tel: 225/578-8327
fax: 225/578-3677
home page: faculty.law.lsu.edu/ccorcos
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Sheridan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
INK.NET> cc: (bcc: Christine A
Corcos/ccorcos/LSU)
Sent by: Discussion Subject: Re: Natural born citizens
list for con law
professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
v.ucla.edu>
10/09/2003 12:10 PM
Please respond to
Discussion list for
con law professors
The prohibition of Art. II, Sec. I, Cl. 5, against anyone other than
'natural born' citizens or a citizen of the U.S. at the time of
adoption of the Constitution from serving as President stemmed, I
understand, from the fear of some at the 1787 Constitutional Convention
that others favored the installation of a monarch, particularly the Duke
of ?, a brother to King George III.
That reason having disappeared through passage of time, it would make
sense to eliminate the provision, which makes me wonder why no time
limit or sunset provision was included in the first place.
An 1808 time limit or moratorium was placed on legislation to prohibit
slave trading ("migration or importation of...persons". See Art V,
referring back to Art. I, Sec. 9, Clauses 1 & 4.)
rs
sfls
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Mylchreest
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Natural born citizens
I am thinking of events after 1971. Pundits and consultants were casting
around for a vice president after Agnew resigned. Many were skeptical
of Ford's ability in foreign policy and the issue became more urgent as
it seemed increasingly likely through 1973 and early 1974 that Nixon
might be forced out. Kissinger had sold many in the press on the idea
that he was the real brains of the operation as National Security
Advisor and Secretary of State. His shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East
and reconfiguring of the Cold War with detente and the trips to China
gave him real charisma beside the other contenders who might be
nominated as Ford's Vice President. I don't think this ever got beyond
the pundits and others who follow the play-by-play of Washington
politics. TIME, for example, did a big story on it, while Ford was
casting about for a VP, and Hugh Sidey was enamor. One letter writer
replied that the natural born requirement should not be changed, citing
the example of Weimar Germany whose constitution did not prevent an
Austrian-born corporal from becoming chancellor in the 1930s. In its
18th century context, I think, the natural born requirement was not so
much anti-immigrant, as it was a safeguard against great powers trying
to impose by war and diplomacy a chief executive whose real allegiance
was to that great power. Great powers commonly used this kind of
manipulation to create allies and empires for themselves.
Ian Mylchreest
on 10/9/03 9:03 AM, James C. Ho at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you have any documentation that it was Kissinger that motivated
> amendment talk during that era?
>
> Here's the information I have on that front:
>
> H. J. Res. 795, 90th Cong. (1967) [Matsunaga] Naturalized Citizens
(15
> Years)
>
> No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, or a
> naturalized citizen of the United States for at least fifteen years,
> shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person
> be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of
> thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the
> United States.
>
> 8/17/1967 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
>
> S. J. Res. 161, 92nd Cong. (1971) [Fong, for himself and Baker,
> Bible, Hollings, Humphrey, Metcalf, Muskie, and Proxmire] All
U.S.
> Citizens
>
> Notwithstanding the provision of clause 4 of section 1 of article II
> of the Constitution, a person who is a naturalized citizen of the
> United States shall be eligible to hold the office of President if he
> is otherwise eligible under such clause to hold such office.
>
> 9/28/1971 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
>
> Ian Mylchreest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Speaking of boomlets of interest, during the Watergate crisis and its
>> immediate aftermath when Henry Kissinger appeared to be the anchor of
>> the Nixon White House, there was also talk of amending the
>> Constitution to
> allow
>> him to run for the Presidency. Of course, nothing came of it.
>>
>> Ian Mylchreest
>
>
> James C. Ho
> Chief Counsel
> U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Property
> Rights U.S. Senator John Cornyn, Chairman Dirksen Senate Office
> Building Room 139
> (202) 224-7840 (office)
> (202) 228-2281 (fax)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
