If the US were being formed in the current era, I’d bet we’d still end with something very much like the EC. Do you honestly think that if the 50 states came together this year to form a union, that you’d get them to agree to a popularly elected president? No way. Just look at the EU for an example of this happening in the modern era.
Anyway, I’m not up for another debate on the EC here. It’s been done to death, and I’ve said everything I have to say on the subject in other threads. I can hardly believe I even brought it up in this thread…
No, it should not be amended for that reason, and I second Athelas’ comments.
Also, as the US has grown bigger, wealthier and more sophisticated, so have other nations - ruthless, as well. We need to be as protective today as we were 200 years ago. Foreign countries appear to exercise influence all the time. Imagine what a boondoggle it would be to get your stooge elected president.
Also, let’s take the example of the 12-year-old Palestinian girl someone suggested above.
Then, God forbid, Israel makes a nuclear strike on Gaza.
I think, in order to avoid divided loyalties, the only people who should be eligible for the Presidency are nonreligious, unwed, childless, friendless orphans who’ve taken a vow of poverty, who’ve never been outside the country, who hate everything and everybody, and who have no corporeal form.
I think this was included in the Constitution to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being elected President. I do not support a change. Although I do admire Dr. Kissinger, I do not believe he should ever have been eligible for President. A quick scenario: Assume he ran and won in 1980. The Gdansk uprisings do not happen in Poland, but in East Germany. How might history have been different?
MBS:What’s the procedure in other countries about foriegn-borns citizens becoming president/prime minister/etc.
AFAICT, the answer seems to be “okay in some places, but rare and controversial.” Former Canadian PM John Turner was born in England. I think there was one foreign-born English PM but I don’t know who it was. Here in India, Italian-born Sonia Gandhi (daughter-in-law of late PM Indira Gandhi, widow of late PM Rajiv (I think) Gandhi) is being put forward as a possible PM, and although a lot of Indians have their dhotis in a twist about it I don’t think there is any legal or constitutional barrier. Anyone have any data on other countries’ policies?
d42:I think this was included in the Constitution to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being elected President.
Since we don’t go looking for our leaders among the relatives of hereditary monarchs so much anymore (having managed to breed our own political dynasties, on both sides of the ideological spectrum), I really don’t think the foreign-born prohibition makes a lot of sense these days. However, I don’t think that it’s an issue that will ever excite a large enough sector of the population enough to bring about a constitutional change, unless we get a really popular foreign-born potential candidate.
And that’ll never be Gov. Schwarzenegger, IMHO. (Putting on my liberal-partisan hat, however, I confess to being a little tickled to see various conservatives, including Sen. Orrin Hatch, diverting energy to this largely-irrelevant debate. Keep it up, guys! )
Of Canada’s 21 Prime Ministers, four have been born elsewhere (John A MacDonald and Alexander MacKenzie in Scotland, MacKenzie Bowell and Turner in England).
Does it even matter if this is changed? Just because someone is elligible doesn’t mean you have to vote for them. I’d suspect that most Americans would vote for an American born president anyway.
Fair enough – although I don’t blame you TOO much for bringing it up ;). I was just saying what my own priorities would be for amending the process for electing a president.
Do you honestly, seriously believe that’s how you’re perceived abroad? I’d wager that pretty much anyone from the Arab countries, just to take the most obvious example, would vehemently disagree, and say that the U.S. is strongly in favour of Israel and not at all neutral. Nor are you standoffish - have you seen maps showing how many troops you have abroad (not just in Iraq or Afghanistan)?
There’s no such requirment in France. Any citizen, except felons who lost their civil rights, can run for any office. So you could marry a frenchwoman tomorrow, become a french citizen two years later and run for presidency in 2007 (next election year).
Almost. To qualify for the presidency you must be at least 35, born a citizen of the US, have lived within the States for at least 14 years, and not have already served more than one and a half terms in that office. So you were very close. Any natural born American 35 or older can run for presidency so long as they have lived in the country for 14 years or more and are not Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton.
My belief is that we need none of those restrictions. Let the voters decide who is worthy and who is not.
*** MUST… Ignore… digression… on… Electoral College ***
I’m all in favor of such a constitutional amendment on its merits. Of course, if I were in charge I’d require that it apply only to those who became citizens after the amendment passed. Passing constitutional amendments purely to satisy the desires of specific individuals is a really, really bad idea.
Kimstu: *AFAICT, the answer seems to be “okay in some places, but rare and controversial.” *
Thanks for the info, folks; looks like I’m going to have to amend that answer to “widely permitted, not all that rare, but controversial as hell in India”.
