The Electrol College still has a (debatable) function in that it protects smaller states from the larger states. Its not a slam dunk, and there are pro’s and con’s on both sides. Would you care to say what function not allowing foriegn born citizens from running for President still serves today?? I don’t really see the parallel here.
BTW, YOU might not have thought of this as an issue before, but its always rankled to those of us born in another country. I know I will never be able to run for president…but it seems unfair that no matter what, I am barred to even considering it. Perhaps you could go into how this is fair…or even a good idea in todays America.
As long as he runs as a Republican, he’ll be safe – the compliant media will give him a free pass, and Karl Rove won’t sic his legion of Political Flying Monkeys of Doom™ to destroy 'im.
I’d say it’s about time. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want the Terminator for our president (although I’d take him over Bush any day), but I just don’t think it’s fair to treat foreign born citizens as different from other citizens. An American citizen is an American citizen.
The prohibition against foreign-born citizens becoming president serves the same pupose now that it always has: it is an attempt to protect the country from having a president with potentially mixed loyalties. A good pupose, and if that means we have to miss out on having the occasional Schwarzenegger or Granholm as president, oh well.
No, you are correct. There is no blanket prohibition against foreign born citizens becoming president. They must only be a natural born citizen. The legitimate child of an American couple is certainly a natural born citizen. I think there are more restrictions where there is out of wedlock birth or a foreign parent is involved. In some of these cases, the kid can acquire citizenship but they are not natural born.
There is hope for xtisme yet, depending on his circumstances.
I disagree. An international perspective might benefit this nation as much or more as it might harm us and I believe it is hubris to subjugate the judgement of the voters to your own. If enough voters agree that the foreign born shouldn’t be president then they won’t get elected even without the ban.
I also question calling this provision “anachronistic”. Saying so implies it once made sense. That it didn’t should have been obvious at the federal convention since several of its members weren’t born here. Had there not been an exemption for the foreign born who moved here before Independence then Alexander Hamilton, perhaps America’s most brilliant politician ever, would have been ineligible.
But it did make sense at one time. After fighting the British and winning independence, there could have been a danger of a British subject coming to the U.S. and reversing what the rebels had fought for. Whether this would ahve been good or bad is a topic for another debate; but I think this is the reason – and it made sense at the time – why the prohibition was written into the Constitution.
That argument is ironic considering that those who consolidated power under the new constitution, the Federalist Party, were Anglophiles. Their policies were are as pro-British as they could get away with given the strong and widespread antipathy toward the former motherland. Hamilton was apparently stoned when he tried to defend Jay’s Treaty before an angry crowd in New York.
Given the popular anti-British prejudice what could any president, foreign born or not, have done to undo the Revolution? The provision only makes sense if you don’t trust the people to reign in the excesses of their leaders. Unfortunately the antidemocratic feeling was strong in the federal convention.
Heck, simplify the eligibility to anyone who has been an American citizen for 35 years. Native-borns become eligible at age 35. Children born to American parents are American citizens, even if their mothers happen to deliver on foreign soil, so they’d be eligible, too. Schwarzenegger would become eligible in 2019, just in time to deal with the replicant crisis.
Actually no, the constitution specifically exempts people living or born in the colonies at the time of the constitution. Many of those people clearly still thought of themselves as British subjects. I think it made sense at one time because there was serious discussion about how close to a monarch the President was. Remember that the title Mr President was adopted by Washington. He could have chosen from a lot of other titles. If you think of it in that context, it makes a sort of sense. The requirement to have lived in America for the last 20 years is simply to make sure that he is aware of the local politics. Again, this has to be viewed in the context of the times. It could take years to aquaint oneself with the local nuances of politics in as large a country as America.
Personally, I would not mind seeing the restriction going away. We could simply change it to American citizen and keep the 20 year resident requirement. We might need to add a clause requiring that his citizenship be for a certain number of years, but I’m not that concerned about it.
IMHO 35 American citizen is good enough. Everything else can be vetted by the Electoral college. That’s what we pay their tuition for.
Dude. Calm down and put your constitution hatred away for just a second. No one is proposing that any individual be allowed to decide who can run and who cannot. Also, your statement can be reversed. If enough voters agree that foriegn born citizens should be allowed to run, then they will be.
Of course. It’s not completely undemocratic. The disagreements come up more often because this is a debate board and not an echo chamber like the Free Republic.
I 'm quite calm, thanks. Allow me to suggest that your energies might be better spent attempting to comprehend what I have been saying rather than speculating about why I might say it. No individual gets to decide but the government does. You and the others believe the government should place ( what seem to you to be reasonable ) limits on who the people may choose to represent them. I believe the people should have the freedom to decide for themselves.
I believe that the US Constitution should be changed so that it no longer discriminates against naturalised citizens of the US standing for President.
However, I can see why the provision was brought in, i.e. to avoid foreign influences on US presidential politics. So you Americans might want to look at section 44 of the Australian Constitution:
Since the Australian Prime Minister must be a member of Parliament, this means that he/she cannot be a foreign citizen.
Oddly enough, at present to President of the US could be a foreign citizen if he/she were born a dual citizen, or if he/she were born a US citizen and became naturalised as a foreign citizen without losing US citizenship.
(And this section of the Australian constitution has had real effects: a dual UK/Australian citizen elected to the House of Reps has been declared ineligible to hold office.)
You meen running the risk of electing a commie mole as prez? How very cold warish of you.
And as opposed to electing an American born person [insert name of choice] who betrays the country? There have been those too, you know.
Here’s a thought, offered for pure entertainment value: The Democrats agree to a horse trade: They’ll support an amendment that lets Arnie run, in exchange for the Republicans supporting a repeal of the 2-term limit, so that Bill Clinton can run again!
