Return to Home Page
On October 5, 2004, the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate held hearings on
proposals to eliminate the natural-born citizen requirement in the U.S.
Constitution. The hearings were convened by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chair of
the committee, whose Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, S. J. Res. 15, would
make naturalized citizens eligible to run for President after they had been
citizens for 20 years (and met the other requirements in the presidential
eligibility clause). The same amendment was introduced in the House of
Representatives, H. J. Res. 104, by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who
testified at the hearings.
Several other proposals also were presented at the hearings. Representatives
John Conyers, Jr., Barney Frank, and Darrell Issa spoke about The President and
Vice President Eligibility for Office Bill, H. J. Res. 59, which would allow
anyone to run for President once they have been a citizen for 35 years. This
amendment, which was sponsored by Representative Vic Snyder and co-sponsored by
Representatives Conyers, Frank, and Issa as well as Representatives Ray LaHood,
William D. Delahunt, and Christopher Shays, is worded so that the citizenship
requirement replaces the age requirement. The 14-residency requirement is
retained.
This amendment was first introduced on 6/11/2003.
The key difference between these proposals is the time-of-citizenship
requirement. One of the witnesses at the hearing, Dr. Matthew Spalding of the
Heritage Foundation, urged the Senate to set of time-of-citizenship requirement
that would ensure the loyalty of a presidential candidate. I believe, and said
so at the hearings, that this approach is a mistake. A time-of-citizenship
requirement does nothing to ensure loyalty. It is neither necessary nor
sufficient for identifying a loyal candidate. Indeed, as I explain in my
testimony, the natural-born citizen requirement has exactly the same flaw, which
is key reason why it should be eliminated.
In my view, the best time-of-citizenship requirement
should be decided on the basis of fairness, not on the basis of the illusion
that a longer time is more likely to ensure loyalty. One approach, which seems
reasonable to me, is to say that a naturalized citizen should have to wait as
long as a natural-born citizen for the chance to become President. Because a
natural-born citizen must wait 35 years, from birth until he or she meets the
age requirement, this approach leads to a 35-year time-of-citizenship
requirement, as in H, J, Res. 59. Fairness arguments could also be made, no
doubt, for the 20-year time-of-citizenship requirement in the S. J. Res. 15 and
H. J. Res. 104.
Although elimination of second-class citizenship for all
naturalized citizens would require a constitutional amendment, full citizenship
for foreign-born adoptees, a subset of naturalized citizens, might be achieved
through the Natural Born Citizen Act, S. 2128, introduced by Senators Don
Nickles, Mary Landrieu, and Jim Inhofe.
This bill, which was defended by Senator Nickles at the Senate hearings,
provides a definition of a natural-born citizen that includes foreign-born
adoptees. If it were passed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore, it
would allow foreign-born adoptees, but not other naturalized citizens, to run
for President. It is not clear whether this approach would be accepted by the
Supreme Court.
More information on the hearings, including statements
submitted by the witnesses, can be found at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1326.
My written statement can be found at this site or
at
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/facfa/WrittenStatementOct_04.pdf.
My oral remarks can be found at