Calvin Massey, Eugene Volokh, and Jim Lindgren among others, have been blogging about whether McCain is a natural born citizen for the purposes of Presidential eligibility under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The general view seems pretty consistent: he is good to go. But between 1971 and 2001, over 265,000 children were adopted from abroad – and that number continues to rise. What about these kids, born to non-citizens and adopted by citizens. Can they become President? The general view seems to be that naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger, naturalized as adults, are ineligible. And the LA Times thinks that rule extends to children adopted from abroad. I know that there isn’t a definitive answer, but is there a good case to be made for allowing these citizens to serve? It seems to me that the policy concerns – if any exist – don’t apply to children who have grown up from a tender age as children of citizens. We know that children born abroad to US citizens are typically treated as citizens at birth. 8 USC 1401 And I’m not convinced that the answer is as simple as for the typical adult, or even teen, who becomes a naturalized citizen.
In some respects, this is precisely the type of Constitutional interpretation best left to voters. Let the other Presidential candidate(s) run on the "she’s not Constitutionally competent" platform and see how the electorate interprets the document.
In some respects, this is precisely the type of Constitutional interpretation best left to voters. Let the other Presidential candidate(s) run on the "she's not Constitutionally competent" platform and see how the electorate interprets the document.
Let me stipulate – I think the Natural Born Citizen Clause is anachronistic and probably due for a repeal.
However, given that it still exists, isn't its purpose to prevent the citizenry from doing exactly what you suggest? If the clause is really to prevent foreign inflitrators from becoming president (and thereby hijack the country, or something) it is reasonable to assume that the drafters believed that the citizenry would not be able to determine whether the candidate is consitutionally capable, or loyal, or whatever. So leaving it up to the voters (aka invoking political question doctrine) totally defeats the purpose of the clause. I think this is precisely NOT the type of Constitutional interpretation best left to voters – it's is probably among the worst, by its very design.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why would you distinguish between immigrant children adopted from abroad by US citizens and immigrant children who immigrated with their non-US citizen parents? (Or do you not mean to be making that distinction?)