# Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Presidency **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 2, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795 "2008-03-02T01:24:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/1 "2008-03-02T01:24:58Z")
If a majority of the electoral college was to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger and the joint session of Congress was to declare that he was the winner, would he be president despite his oblivious ineligibility? Is there anyone or any institution that has the power to prevent his assumption of the presidency? Would anyone have standing to challenge this in the courts? Would a court even hear the case or would it be dismissed as a political question? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/2 "2008-03-02T01:30:15Z")
Given that the Constitutional requires that the President be a “natural born” ctizen and Schwarzenneger is not, he could not be legally elected President if he got all the votes in the world. And since it’s a Constitutional issue, any citizen of the U.S. could bring suit to have the results overturned. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/3 "2008-03-02T01:57:22Z")
[QUOTE=kunilou] And since it’s a Constitutional issue, any citizen of the U.S. could bring suit to have the results overturned. [/QUOTE] Not true. The ACLU just had a case dismissed (ACLU v. NSA) because they did not have standing despite alleging constitutional violations by the NSA. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/4 "2008-03-02T02:00:30Z")
Right, this could not happen. We are a Constitutional Republic and the U.S. Constitution itself overrides any and all people or bodies. No non-natural born citizens can become POTUS without a Constitutional amendment and those are very hard to pass and not worth the effort on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/5 "2008-03-02T02:01:33Z")
The person with the second-most electoral votes would have standing. And while the SCOTUS says that it will not hear political questions, it has held that election questions are not necessarily political. see _Bush v. Gore_. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/6 "2008-03-02T02:33:01Z")
[QUOTE=Shagnasty] Right, this could not happen. We are a Constitutional Republic and the U.S. Constitution itself overrides any and all people or bodies. No non-natural born citizens can become POTUS without a Constitutional amendment and those are very hard to pass and not worth the effort on this issue. [/QUOTE] For the issue of Schwarzenegger being elected I agree it is not worth the effort. But in general it _would_ be worth the effort. We are a country built on immigrants, it has always seemed asinine to me that we deny immigrants the chance to run for our highest office. There are many great men from American history who were ineligible to our highest office despite spending many, many decades (in Arnold’s case, the bulk of his life) in our country. Now, many of the ones I’m thinking of probably were not politically that interested (like Einstein) but, still. ---
**Author:** ![hotcoldhot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@hotcoldhot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotcoldhot)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/7 "2008-03-02T04:39:17Z")
Well the SCOTUS itself decides what is poltical and not. And it has reversed itself on decisions this is why we don’t need an admentent for child labor. Because the SCOTUS decided it could hear cases on that. Whether or not it’s right for immigrants to be eligable for President isn’t a legal question, it’s a question for discussion. I hear this a lot on radio as to McCain being born in the Canal Zone which was then part of the US. Does the term natural born mean born physically in the USA or would it apply to a child physically born in France but to one or two Americans? Would a child born in France to a naturalized mother and naturalized father of the United States be a “natural born” citizen? He would be a citizen and I would suspect if that ever became the case the SCOTUS would take the position that in that case if the Amercian people voted for such a case that’s good enough for them. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/8 "2008-03-02T12:00:51Z")
[QUOTE=hotcoldhot] I hear this a lot on radio as to McCain being born in the Canal Zone which was then part of the US. Does the term natural born mean born physically in the USA or would it apply to a child physically born in France but to one or two Americans? Would a child born in France to a naturalized mother and naturalized father of the United States be a “natural born” citizen? [/QUOTE] Obama is co-sponsoring legislation so that McCain (the guy he is running against) can run without any legal ambiguities. > **[ToTheCenter.com is for sale | HugeDomains](https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=tothecenter.com)** > > 100% satisfaction guaranteed on every domain we sell. 30-day, no questions asked, money-back guarantee. Easy, fast and convenient shopping. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/9 "2008-03-02T13:51:03Z")
We already have a [thread on John McCain and “natural born.”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=453820) As for the OP: Standing would certainly be with the person who tallied the second largest number of votes. And it wouldn’t be a “political question” such that the Supreme Court would stay out of it, because that doctrine is used by the Court to avoid fights between the Executive and Legislative branches, not every dispute with political overtones. Of course, like most such questions, the concept is a bit ridiculous. If someone like Arnold were to run for office, it would be because the Constitution had already been amended to allow it. If not, the campaign would die for the fact that everyone would know that the Constitution would prevent his taking office. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/10 "2008-03-02T15:54:50Z")
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer] The person with the second-most electoral votes would have standing. And while the SCOTUS says that it will not hear political questions, it has held that election questions are not necessarily political. see _Bush v. Gore_. [/QUOTE] What does it mean for SCOTUS to say “we will not hear political questions?” What are some “political questions” that might plausibly have gone to SCOTUS but that SCOTUS will not hear? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/11 "2008-03-02T16:00:07Z")
I think saying only the person with the second number of votes has standing is ludicrous. In the real world, there would be an injunction filed for and awarded preventing Arnold’s name from being printed on any ballot in the first place. We wouldn’t hold the election first and then fight his election, he’d be knocked off the ballot well beforehand. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/12 "2008-03-02T18:02:50Z")
[QUOTE=hotcoldhot] Well the SCOTUS itself decides what is poltical and not. And it has reversed itself on decisions this is why we don’t need an admentent for child labor. Because the SCOTUS decided it could hear cases on that. Whether or not it’s right for immigrants to be eligable for President isn’t a legal question, it’s a question for discussion. I hear this a lot on radio as to McCain being born in the Canal Zone which was then part of the US. Does the term natural born mean born physically in the USA or would it apply to a child physically born in France but to one or two Americans? Would a child born in France to a naturalized mother and naturalized father of the United States be a “natural born” citizen? He would be a citizen and I would suspect if that ever became the case the SCOTUS would take the position that in that case if the Amercian people voted for such a case that’s good enough for them. [/QUOTE] Whats odd, over in the other thread we get dudes claiming that there’d nbe no suit or that the suit be thrown out as it’s political. Admittedly McCain has a decent case for being “Natural born”. But it’s not a slam dunk, and if McCains case would never be brought, why is everyone so sure Arnies case would be? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/13 "2008-03-02T19:37:52Z")
[QUOTE=zamboniracer] I think saying only the person with the second number of votes has standing is ludicrous. In the real world, there would be an injunction filed for and awarded preventing Arnold’s name from being printed on any ballot in the first place. We wouldn’t hold the election first and then fight his election, he’d be knocked off the ballot well beforehand. [/QUOTE] That’s not necessarily clear. Many courts would defer the issue, prefering to see what happens afterward, especially since there is not specific federal agency tasked with establishing what appears on any state’s ballots. Remeber, it’s not the candidate who is appearing on the November ballot, it’s the slate of pledged electors. It would, I think, be difficult to establish that a slate of electors, otherwise meeting all the rules for appearing on the ballot, should be prevented from appearing on the ballot solely because they pledge to vote for a candidate who is ineligible under the Constitution of the United States. Now, individual states might have statutes that cover this situation, saying something along the lines that the slate must be pledged to a candidate eligible under the Constitution, but I tend to doubt it, and, frankly, there would be some potential free speech issues implicated if they did. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/14 "2008-03-02T23:13:11Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] What does it mean for SCOTUS to say “we will not hear political questions?” What are some “political questions” that might plausibly have gone to SCOTUS but that SCOTUS will not hear? -FrL- [/QUOTE] The two hornbook cases: _Powell v. McCormick_ (1969) - Whether a congressional proceeding is adequate to impeach a member of congress. The court held that all it was qualified to decide was whether the member met the constitutional requirements for membership. _Nixon v. US_ (1993) (not to be confused with _US v. Nixon_ (1974)) - Whether an impeachment proceeding of a federal judge was legitimate. The court held that congress has the sole power to try such proceedings, and any involvement by the judicial branch would be dabbling in politics. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/15 "2008-03-03T02:49:17Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] That’s not necessarily clear. Many courts would defer the issue, prefering to see what happens afterward, especially since there is not specific federal agency tasked with establishing what appears on any state’s ballots. Remeber, it’s not the candidate who is appearing on the November ballot, it’s the slate of pledged electors. It would, I think, be difficult to establish that a slate of electors, otherwise meeting all the rules for appearing on the ballot, should be prevented from appearing on the ballot solely because they pledge to vote for a candidate who is ineligible under the Constitution of the United States. Now, individual states might have statutes that cover this situation, saying something along the lines that the slate must be pledged to a candidate eligible under the Constitution, but I tend to doubt it, and, frankly, there would be some potential free speech issues implicated if they did. [/QUOTE] I disagree. Assuming an independent candidacy, here in Ohio I think the Ohio secretary of state would have the authority to refuse to accept the nominating petition based on them being fraudulent, and if the petitions were accepted, then any elector in the state would have an action against the SOS for quo warrento. As I read the Ohio statutes, the relevant ones would be: > [@](#): > > ORC §3513.257 Independent candidates statements of candidacy and nominating petitions. > > ``` > Each person desiring to become an independent candidate for an office for which candidates may be nominated at a primary election, except persons desiring to become independent joint candidates for the offices of governor and lieutenant governor and for the offices of president and vice-president of the United States, shall file no later than four p.m. of the day before the day of the primary election immediately preceding the general election at which such candidacy is to be voted for by the voters, a statement of candidacy and nominating petition as provided in section 3513.261 of the Revised Code. ... Persons desiring to become independent joint candidates for the offices of president and vice-president of the United States shall file, not later than four p.m. of the seventy-fifth day before the day of the general election at which the president and vice-president are to be elected, one statement of candidacy and one nominating petition for the two of them. The prospective independent joint candidates' statement of candidacy shall be filed with the nominating petition as one instrument. > > The statement of candidacy and separate petition papers of each candidate or pair of joint candidates shall be filed at the same time as one instrument. > > The nominating petition shall contain signatures of qualified electors of the district, political subdivision, or portion of a political subdivision in which the candidacy is to be voted on in an amount to be determined as follows: > > (A) If the candidacy is to be voted on by electors throughout the entire state, the nominating petition, including the nominating petition of independent joint candidates for the offices of governor and lieutenant governor, shall be signed by no less than five thousand qualified electors, provided that no petition shall be accepted for filing if it purports to contain more than fifteen thousand signatures. > > ``` > > … > > ``` > All nominating petitions of candidates for offices to be voted on by electors throughout the entire state shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. No nominating petition for the offices of president and vice-president of the United States shall be accepted for filing unless there is submitted to the secretary of state, at the time of filing the petition, a slate of presidential electors sufficient in number to satisfy the requirement of the United States Constitution. ... > No petition other than the petition of a candidate whose candidacy is to be considered by electors throughout the entire state shall be accepted for filing if it appears on its face to contain more than three times the minimum required number of signatures. A board of elections shall not accept for filing a nominating petition of a person seeking to become a candidate if that person, for the same election, has already filed a declaration of candidacy, a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, or a nominating petition, or has become a candidate by the filling of a vacancy under section 3513.30 of the Revised Code for any federal, state, or county office, if the nominating petition is for a state or county office, or for any municipal or township office, for member of a city, local, or exempted village board of education, or for member of a governing board of an educational service center, if the nominating petition is for a municipal or township office, or for member of a city, local, or exempted village board of education, or for member of a governing board of an educational service center. When a petition of a candidate has been accepted for filing by a board of elections, the petition shall not be deemed invalid if, upon verification of signatures contained in the petition, the board of elections finds the number of signatures accepted exceeds three times the minimum number of signatures required. A board of elections may discontinue verifying signatures when the number of verified signatures on a petition equals the minimum required number of qualified signatures. > > Any nonjudicial candidate who files a nominating petition may request, at the time of filing, that the candidate be designated on the ballot as a nonparty candidate or as an other-party candidate, or may request that the candidate's name be placed on the ballot without any designation. Any such candidate who fails to request a designation either as a nonparty candidate or as an other-party candidate shall have the candidate's name placed on the ballot without any designation. > > ``` > > … and > [@](#): > > ORC §111.24 Refusal of documents for filing or recording. > > ``` > (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Revised Code, if a person presents a document to the secretary of state for filing or recording, the secretary of state may refuse to accept the document for filing or recording if the document is not required or authorized to be filed or recorded with the secretary of state or the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe the document is materially false or fraudulent. This division does not create a duty upon the secretary of state to inspect, evaluate, or investigate a document that is presented for filing or recording. > > (B) If the secretary of state, pursuant to division (A) of this section, refuses to accept a document for filing or recording, the person who presented the document to the secretary of state may commence an action in or apply for an order from the court of claims to require the secretary of state to accept the document for filing or recording. If the court determines that the document is appropriate for filing or recording, it shall order the secretary of state to accept the document for that purpose. > > (C) If the secretary of state, acting under this section in a manner that does not subject the secretary of state to personal liability under section 9.86 of the Revised Code, improperly refuses to accept a document for filing or recording, the secretary of state shall not be personally liable on account of the improper refusal and the sureties that issued the bond shall not have a right of subrogation against the secretary of state on account of a claim made on the secretary of state's bond as a result of the improper refusal. > > ``` The fraud being the candidate is ineligible for the office, so his candidacy is a fraud. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2008, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/16 "2008-03-03T03:03:00Z")
Fraud requires a material misrepresentation of fact. What material misrepresentation of fact would you propose exists in such a petition? The answer, of course, comes by [looking at the petition.](http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/forms/3-A.pdf) Assuming that the person has no possible legitimate claim to being “natural born,” then the misrepresentation would be apparent on the face of it. If the person has a colorable claim, then it would be up to the Secretary of State to decide if she was going to reject the petition and force the prospective candidate to go to the courts to force acceptance and placement on the ballot. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2008, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/17 "2008-03-03T03:09:56Z")
Interestingly, it isn’t clear that a candidate to be President, nominated by one of the main parties, is required to file anything other than a consent to be first named choice of elector candidates. Hmmmm. See [the Ohio Secretary of State’s Election Information page.](http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/OhioElections.aspx?Section=2628) ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2008, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/18 "2008-03-03T03:13:34Z")
Madeleine Albright was in the same boat as Arnie back when she was the flavor of the day. She was born in Prague a Czech national. Being fourth in line to the presidency, there was some concern about her ineligibility to be president in the event of some catastrophic occurrence wiping out everyone ahead of her. There was also talk of her running for president if only that constitutional impediment could be changed. Myself, I’m against changing it and will always vote against doing so. Yes, I’m fully aware we’re a nation of immigrants blah blah blah, but I feel it is only good policy to allow born Americans to be president. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/19 "2008-03-03T03:17:23Z")
[QUOTE=hotcoldhot] I hear this a lot on radio as to McCain being born in the Canal Zone which was then part of the US. [/QUOTE] As I mentioned in the other thread, although the Canal Zone was under US jurisdiction, it was not a part of the US but officially part of Panama. Being born in the Canal Zone did not in and of itself confer US citizenship, any more than being born in Costa Rica would. McCain’s claim to natural-born citizenship rests on the fact that his parents were citizens; the detail that he was born in the Canal Zone is essentially a red herring. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795/20 "2008-03-03T03:44:04Z")
> [@](#): > > As I mentioned in the other thread, although the Canal Zone was under US jurisdiction, it was not a part of the US but officially part of Panama. Being born in the Canal Zone did not in and of itself confer US citizenship, any more than being born in Costa Rica would. McCain’s claim to natural-born citizenship rests on the fact that his parents were citizens; the detail that he was born in the Canal Zone is essentially a red herring. Exactly. If the fact that a region is under American jurisdiction was enough to confer citizenship, then everyone born in Japan between 1945 and 1952 would be an American citizen. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-the-presidency/439795.md?page=2)