WI:Nixon chooses Kissinger instead of Ford

Something I thought of today.

What if instead Nixon went with Henry Kissinger for VP instead of Gerald Ford?

What are some minor and major changes?
 
you have to be born in America (or to American parents some argue), and have lived in the united states for 15 years in the lead-up to you election
 
I thought you had to be a US citizen for 15 years?
No. No one born outside the US to both parents who are not US citizens at the time of birth can take the oath of President. Anything that disqualifies you from being president automatically disqualifies you from being the VP. With one POSSIBLE exception- having been President for two terms, this disqualification has never been definitively applied to mean an ex-pres cannot be a VP, and it cant ever be answered until it actually happens. Then the case can make it to SCOTUS, though who would be harmed and therefore have standing... it may have to wait until the new VP actually performs his duty to break a tie in the Senate, then there could be someone with standing.
 
you have to be born in America (or to American parents some argue), and have lived in the united states for 15 years in the lead-up to you election
It isnt "some argue". It is undeniable fact incorporated into law since the 1790s that all you need is 1 parent to be a US citizen at time of birth or be born in the US (for this purpose "the US" doesnt include American Samoa after 2015, you can complain to Congress instead of arguing with me). The Constitution gives Congress the right to define natural born citizen. It can be whatever Congress wants and is not subject to review by SCOTUS since the Constitution explicitly gives Congress discretion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
It isnt "some argue". It is undeniable fact incorporated into law since the 1790s that all you need is 1 parent to be a US citizen at time of birth or be born in the US (for this purpose "the US" doesnt include American Samoa after 2015, you can complain to Congress instead of arguing with me). The Constitution gives Congress the right to define natural born citizen. It can be whatever Congress wants and is not subject to review by SCOTUS since the Constitution explicitly gives Congress discretion on the matter.

I stand corrected, and thank you for actually clearing that up for me.
 
you have to be born in America (or to American parents some argue), and have lived in the united states for 15 years in the lead-up to you election

No; in fact, George Romney and Ted Cruz were not born in the US and were only able to run for POTUS because their parents were citizens.
 
No; in fact, George Romney and Ted Cruz were not born in the US and were only able to run for POTUS because their parents were citizens.

True. But this is still null in Kissinger's case since both of his parents were German citizens.
 
The rules are this:

You have to be at least 35 years old, have lived in the US, a resident of the US for at least 14 years, and a "natural-born citizen." The last one isn't defined in the Constitution, but it is generally understood that if your parents are citizens of the US at the time you were born then you are a natural-born citizen. Kissinger meets the first two, but since he was born in Germany to German parents he isn't a natural-born citizen by any stretch of the imagination. Thus, if Nixon even suggested him everyone in the room would laugh at him and the idea would be quickly abandoned.
 
The rules are this:

You have to be at least 35 years old, have lived in the US, a resident of the US for at least 14 years, and a "natural-born citizen." The last one isn't defined in the Constitution, but it is generally understood that if your parents are citizens of the US at the time you were born then you are a natural-born citizen. Kissinger meets the first two, but since he was born in Germany to German parents he isn't a natural-born citizen by any stretch of the imagination. Thus, if Nixon even suggested him everyone in the room would laugh at him and the idea would be quickly abandoned.
Ugh! NOT "generally understood"!!! Actual US law defines it as such. It isnt something that is abstractly assumed and for courts to "maybe" decide. US Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to decide the issue. Congress did in late 1790s. Hasnt decided to change since.
 
I think what we have here is a conflation of two things. Who is and is not a U.S. citizen and what a "natural born citizen" is. Congress is indeed empowered to determine citizenship which is typically either to be the offspring of a U.S. citizen or is born on U.S. soil (like the so-called "anchor babies" of refugees). Some legal opinions hold that U.S. citizenship and "natural-born" citizenship are the same thing. Other opinions state to be natural-born you must be born on U.S. soil though not necessarily the continental U.S. For example you could be born on the grounds of a U.S. embassy or in the Philippines while they were a U.S. possession. You would also be eligible if you were born on Guam, American Samoa or Puerto Rico (U.S. territories). I'm not sure, but if you were born at sea on a U.S. flagged ship or on a U.S. flagged airliner you might count as naturally born under this interpretation.

Given that you are a U.S. citizen after being born on U.S. soil without having a U.S. citizen parent I personally think the later interpretation would be held as correct based on that precedent.

Ultimately the issue would have to be finally settled by the Supreme Court by someone with standing to bring suit. I suspect you could be nominated by a major party for the issue to really be addressed though.
 
Top