It just seems an odd phrasing, you have to have been born here, but you can have moved somewhere else for most of the the rest of your life as long as you moved back here for (the last or a total of?) fourteen years.
nm
From the 12th amendment:
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
fnord! back atcha!
None of them respectable. The rule is discriminatory and an embarrassment to us.
But without an organized, focused constituency, no, there will be no amendment on the issue, except perhaps as part of a larger electoral-reform one, such as one eliminating the Electoral College.
Oh for corns sake.
Yeah, that’s why the world hates us, because they can’t come here and become our President. Puh-lease! :rolleyes:
:smack:* and 
This, kids, is what happens to you when your only interest in Presidential qualifications comes from reading Birther threads on message boards . . . thanks Obama.
[Robert De Niro in Awakenings] Learn from me, learn from me! [/RDNiA*]
CMC fnord!
Well what’s the point? Why do you think this qualification “needs to go away”?
For people confused by ‘natural-born’, that’s vs ‘naturalized’. Father’s nationality is irrelevant, place of birth is what counts.
Not exactly. If either parent was a US citizen at your birth, and had some minimal residency time here, then you’re one, too, no matter where. Being born in the US or its territories or Puerto Rico does the trick too, unless you were part of a military or diplomatic family posted here, and “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
^^^ true, a child of US citizens may be a citizen no matter their birthplace.
I was addressing the other half of it- anybody born in the US (including territories, etc) is a citizen automatically, no matter the status of the parents (except as stated in the link, diplomatic missions and such).
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a citizen. His dad’s nationality or citizenship is irrelevant.
Congress could probably do it, but not a state. Citizenship is a federal issue, not a state issue.
What would the law say? That naturalized citizens are considered to be naturally born? Would it pass a challenge in the courts? While congress could pass a law as such, the intent of the constitution is pretty clear.
Well, they already passed a law so that people like McCain are NBCs, so it’s not like this has never been addressed.
That’s funny!
We did. In WWII. In fact when Arnold was born he was born in Allied Occupied Austria. Thus, he does have a tiny possible claim.
The point is that the provision apparently is based on something that simply isn’t true. It’s an irrational fear, a prejudice.
Not exactly correct. And I’m not confused by what natural born means since my own birth outside of the United States to American parents is what granted me US citizenship at birth.
“Puh-lease” yourself. That isn’t what he said at all.
Why this extreme love for Ahnold? Or is he just being used as an example?
Right. I meant that the clause’s presence in our document of our guiding principles does, or should, embarrass us. It decreases the respect we should have for ourselves.
I’ve no extreme love for the man. My concern is the issue of a ridiculous and foolish, IMHO, prejudicial bar in the Constitution.
He is one of the few republicans that democrats will vote for today. Socially liberal, otherwise conservative. In other words, even if he could be Prez there’s not a chance in hell of him being nominated. If he had been required to go thru the normal election process his first time, he wouldn’t have gotten the nom then, either.
I find him honest, a bit naive, but definitely could be the lesser of two evils.
He’s merely the most prominent current example of someone who could plausibly run for President but is barred by the clause. Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger are too far past their primes, and Jennifer Granholm is too much a lightweight.
I don’t personally think he’d be a great President, but we’ve done far worse. And, other lightweights have grown into the office before, so there’s no reason to think he couldn’t. At any rate, there is no basis in reason to bar him for a fact of his life that was beyond his control.