No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President

I remember seeing a comedian many years ago who felt that world leaders, when they’re done serving their countries, should move to another country, like football coaches. I believe the routine ended with, “And we have a report that Guatemala has just signed a four-year deal with Margaret Thatcher. This should help them move up in the Central American Division.”

It was funny, but also quite literally Unamerican. The idea behind the War of Spanish Succession was that the Ruling Class would rule everyone else. Every European monarch believed in this, although they disagreed in this particular case as to whether it should be a Bourbon or a Hapsburg. Requiring that the President be native born was also a statement about government.

We’re still waiting for blinkingblinking’s answer to this question. I’m chiming in just to let the poster know we’re interested.

Even most diehard Republicans wouldn’t want to amend the Constitution specifically to allow Schwartzenegger to run. No single person is so important that the country couldn’t run without him (or her).

Nowhere does blinkingblinking say that he is talking about citizens of another country who later become U.S. citizens. In both of his posts he says only people born outside the USA.

Actually, federal law is very clear on this subject.

Well, good point. I may have projected an incorrect interpretation on the OP. But here’s why:

A “natural born Citizen” born outside the USA is not prohibited from becoming president, so I don’t know what else blinkingblinking could possibly have meant.

blinkingblinking what did you mean?

Canada doesn’t. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that any citizen is eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons, and thus indirectly provides that any citizen can become Prime Minister:

In fact, three of our Prime Ministers were born in Britain: Macdonald and Mackenzie in Scotland, Bowell in England.

Except when the USSC Justices rule on matters not to be found any where in The U S Constitution.

I am obviously not saying every citizen has the right to be POTUS. But that every full citizen should have a chance to be able to become POTUS.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human rights ( I have no link-found it in a book)- (Found link unhchr.ch - unhchr Resources and Information.)

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 21

  1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

The way I interpret that is everyone( full citizens) has right to try to become POTUS.
I think I have answered by own question.

I did not know the exact details of who could or could not become POTUS - so I apologize for not framing the question correctly. I am a New Zealander. We never studied much American History.QUOTE-“Nowhere does blinkingblinking say that he is talking about citizens of another country who later become U.S. citizens. In both of his posts he says only people born outside the USA.” I meant to frame the question in the proper way.

And the proper way is . . . what?

And the proper way is . . . what?

To answer the OP’s question, President and Vice President are the only positions restricted to natural-born U.S. citizens.

At least two foreign-born American citizens have been U.S. Secretary of State (Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and Henry Kissinger was born in Grrmany), and at least one has been U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (Albert Gallatin was born in Switzerland.

There have also been numerous foreign-born Congressmen, Senators and governors.

So, an immigrant can go very far in the U.S.- just not all the way to the top.

The right to participate in government does not imply the right to be the head of the government.

Why not? Why should there be a restriction on just two jobs ? Surely that is the discrimination I am talking about. As people have informed me here there is no restriction on all the other Governement positions.

Why is there a restriction?

This has been answered. When the constitution was written back in 1787 the were worried about foreign aristocrats being elected president and turning the country into a monarchy. And former colonies getting european lordlings foisted on them as heads of state really did happen, see Emperor Maxmillian of Mexico.

Nowadays we aren’t worried about this, so the requirement is an anachronism. However, we’d need a constitutional amendment to change it. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this amendment enacted someday. Except there’s no pressing need to do it, so no one bothers.

Now, you may be aware that the position of head of state of New Zealand is rather restricted, no? And that of Australia, and Canada, and the United Kingdom? In fact, there are laws that the head of state of the UK has to be a certain religion! Gadzooks, a violation of human rights! Maybe you Kiwis better kick out the royal family and declare yourself a republic before you go looking at the mote in your brother’s eye.

As for questions about other countries that demand natural citizenship for certain positions, Mexico requires natural citizenship for all constitutional offices and for military service. This of course, in response to “Emperor” Maximillian back in the 1860s, and the adventures of Walker in Central America.

As to discrimination, let us remember that “discrimination”, per se is neither right nor wrong – the kind of discrimination, against whom and for what, determines that. In the case of qualifications for holding of office, the UNDHR does not and has never pretended to override the constitutions of its sovereign subscribers. The “basic human right” is to participate in representative government, not to hold one specific office.

spingears!! You’re doing it again. This is General Questions, not Great Debates or the Pit. Information is welcome. Opinions and snarky comments are NOT.

samclem GQ moderator

Wasn’t John Turner born in England, too?

Obviously I know the restrictions on being King or Queen- head of state of NZ. My OP was obviously talking about NZ’s Prime Minister not having restriction.
Nowhere have I criticized the USA on its policy nor said it was better for NZ. I was asking a question.
I was not aware that the USA is NZ’s brother.
In my studies of Ethics I do not think it is good idea to frame any question in forms of ‘rights’. But I wanted to know from the people that do frame questions in terms of ‘rights’ whether they thought that this restriction on POTUS was thought of as a ‘breach of human rights’.

But can any Canadian citizen become Queen or King?

I was at first going to ask that question flippantly; however, it is a serious query now. What if a Canadian woman marries the reigning King?