That is, unless. it also includes amendments that would make that illegal. Amendments can override what was previous text.
And, while it might be tenuous, that would seem to me to be the argument here. We already use the Fourteenth Amendment to ban employee discrimination based on immigration status. In no other job can you not hire someone because they are a naturalized citizen. That violates equal protection.
I propose that would be the most likely avenue that someone might pursue to try and overturn the natural born citizen requirement. They would be arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment overrides that part of the Constitution.
I’m not saying this isn’t a long shot. It most definitely is. Not only is there not an explicit repeal in there, but there’s not really any political momentum behind it. There’s no popular candidate people wish could run. There’s not a groundswell of people who think it is important to overturn. And the current SCOTUS is quite conservative.
But technically it would be possible for the Court to say that the natural born citizen requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment. But they’d have to want to get rid of it.
I would argue that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” indicates that there is a difference, however small, between born and naturalized citizens, and that we cannot derive an intent in the drafters of the amendment to make foreign-born citizens eligible to be president, since European powers were still engaged in colonial aspirations in Mexico and Central America and it wasn’t completely unfeasible that some third-born Hapsburg heir might get sent west to infiltrate and conquer.
Politician is a profession. Joe Biden is an experienced and capable politician. He’s also shown that he can defeat Trump in a free and fair election. He’s also the incumbent, which is a huge advantage in a general election. Biden hasn’t been perfect, but he’s exceeded my expectations and is quite obviously good at the job. As a democrat, why on earth would I not support him for a second term?
Who is Uygur? Some guy with a podcast? I would no more support him than I would Joe Rogan. You want to be the top politician in the land? Get a job in politics. Prove yourself.
Are you really a 2nd class citizen if the restriction is from a single job?
If the same does not apply to any child born here? Obama’s father wasn’t even a US citizen and he was eligible for the office of President in our system. Our current VP, a heartbeat away from “the job” is the daughter of two immigrants. She is 100% eligible and only 1 heart beat away. Pretty amazing.
I see nothing wrong with the rule. I see no need to change it.
An amendment is the constitution. It’s a distinction without difference. There is a method for changing the constitution. Once it’s changed that is now the constitution.
The natural born citizen requirement is clearly spelled out in the constitution. To override it would require an amendment. Outright discrimination would be constitutional if it were in the constitution.
I agree. With one asterisk. The Supreme Court could rule that “natural born citizen” doesn’t mean what everyone thinks it does. Highly unlikely, but that’s one way it could happen.
President Madeline Albright
President Issac Asimov
President Albert Einstein
President Henry Kissinger (ugh)
President Ayn Rand (oog)
President Zbigniew Brzezinski
President Nikola Tesla
President Vladimir Nabokov (interesting)
President Isabel Allende
President David Byrne
President Flea
President Johnny Rotten (I’d vote for that)
President Hannah Arendt
President David Ortiz
Second-class citizens, every one. None ever ran for president. How many would have?
I picked a bunch of famous names from Wikipedia, names you might recognize; surely there are many others you wouldn’t who would have been more or less suitable. Regardless whether you think any individual on the list would have been a good or terrible president, none deserved to be excluded from contention based on where they were born.
Do you think Barack Obama feels like a second class citizen because the Constitution doesn’t allow him to run for President again? Because if we’re going to say “Fuck the Constitution” in order to get a candidate that can beat Trump, that’s the one I would go in with.
This Uygur guy couldn’t even break 10% when he ran for Congress. That’s not a good sign.
Frankly, I think that restriction is dumb, too. If you can convince a majority of people to vote for you (or rather win the Electoral College), have at the White House.
Hopefully none of them. I don’t vote for entertainers to run the country for the same reason I don’t vote for Chuck Schumer as “Hottest Boy” at the Teen Choice Awards.
Yet Cenk, who’s by no means a fool, is pursuing this.
For purposes of this argument, and not fighting the hypothetical, I’ll agree he’s not a fool, and that he’s pursuing this.
Seems he thinks he can get something out of it. Might simply be that by making a stink, he can get attention" [snip]
Ah-hah! The lightbulb goes off. Of -course- he can get something out of it. He’s a lesser known political commentator, who is nowhere near even the also-rans. He is almost certainly ineligible (from a legal standpoint) and his chances of overcoming this, the current candidate, and Republican obstruction as well as the lawsuits (see Colorado vs. Trump as an Insurrectionist) are nearly unimaginable.
Side: If we’re talking about justice, how is not equally clear, and equally unfair that a 30 year old CAN’T run for Pres? I think the age restriction is a whole lot worse than the status of citizenship!
So what is he gaining from talking about a possible run? Attention, money, influence, possibly even setting themselves up for future political runs for any office not barred constitutionally or after an amendment is passed. Nothing -wrong- with that. Let me be clear, I am not attacking them, but when I’m considering someone’s motivations, I’m going to apply Occam’s razor unless I have ample evidence of better considerations.
[continued quote from the above] maybe he wants to see if he can goad the right into doing something stupid like defending the indefensible (they’re good at that).
And here I think your argument fails completely. From the point of view of the MAGA party and the remaining rump Republicans, this is throwing meat to the base. It isn’t indefensible to their base that a person from what Trump would probably refer to as a “shit-hole country” (a feeling I do not endorse, just characterizing by MAGA standards) - it’s proof positive that the Democrats are trying to replace them. They’d turn out in DROVES to vote against that rather than the half-hearted attacks on Sleepy Joe. I mean come on, Sleepy Joe is the best that Trump can do - it’s hard even for him to dredge up really biting attacks on Biden, mostly that, oh wait, he’s a puppet for them scary foreign types like his Veep who will replace him!
Look, you make good and VALID points about the current issues in the Democrats current choices and efforts. Cenk Uygur isn’t wrong in much of his analysis, and it’s absolutely better that we start addressing the issues now, rather than waiting for the future. But he’s equally absolutely the wrong candidate at this time and place to beat Trump, who could go on the attack against him with every headwind, fair or not. And however fair his arguments may be that the language about who can be President is unfair, do you honestly think for a single minute that the current SCOTUS, with a conservative majority who claim strict literalist language as an excuse for their rulings would rule in his favor?
I can see no way in which I can rationally expect that. And as I granted in the first section, he’s not a fool, so I see no way in which he could not agree. Which leads right back to the second point: there’s a lot for him to gain in taking his stance, but right now (and I cannot stress this enough) Trump is certain to be the Republican candidate, and giving him such a gift leads to the worst of all possible worlds, not the best.
It seems like he’s what many people thought that Trump was in 2016… Someone who knows they aren’t going to win but want the publicity of running. Except Trump actually won and served a term as POTUS. Uygur literally can’t win, being ineligible, and unlike Trump isn’t a household name. So this is solely a publicity stunt.
Now, publicity stunts aren’t always bad. They’re bad if the whole point is to get someone attention. But they’re not bad and maybe even good if the point is to bring attention to a cause.
I think the cause is wrong, I don’t think there is a better chance of winning than Biden right now, and this doesn’t do anything good. But if nothing else, if this gets people to start asking, “Who is next after Biden?” (Because even if Biden were 50 years old, he can’t run again after 2 terms anyway.) Then I guess it’s a good thing to ask. But the message that Biden is a bad candidate is not a good one. (Of course he’s not a perfect candidate, but you’re just not going to do better than an incumbent POTUS with a good record and no scandals.)
It’s the on-the-fencers, independents and those Republicans who dislike Trump as a choice but can’t bring themselves to vote for any Democrat, who might be persuaded to sit it out if the MAGA wing overplays its hand, which a clever gadfly who happens to be a real MOOSLIM (by blood, though not by practice), not the pretend Obama kind, were to hit the trail and make enough headway to scare a few influencers on the right to say something ugly and racist, that an uncommitted person might find repugnant (but Donald would double down on) - that might be Cenk’s ambition. That’s a lot of ifs, but what can one man do?