They changed the Constitution after FDR - and as a direct result of him.
The ‘born citizen of the USA’ stuff was Ok when the Constitution was drawn up, but nowadays it is a bit odd.
If I were a Democrat advizer (which I could be despite my UK citizenship and residence), I would deliberately make it an issue, and soon - in 2008 I would be after a good majority in both Houses - the Presidency is not that important.
Democrat senators, congressmen and potential senators etc, could get very good mileage from saying: ‘give people a choice’ - personally I would go for the gratitude vote.
It would make a good diversion, and it would be pretty easy for Arnie’s speech writers to come up with a line like: ‘Vote for the guys who made it possible for you to vote for me’.
I don’t see this as at all unlikely, it would be a nice domestic distraction
and a darn good way of keeping ones own seat
If I were an aspiring Democratic Senator in a Republican State (with a knackered incumbent), then I would start this ball rolling about June 2007.
I propose a friendly amendment to the proposed amendment:
If we amend to allow non-natives to serve as President, then we should also amend to allow individuals to serve more than two terms, provided that after each two-term presidency, the incumbent must step aside for at least four years. (The “Bring Back Bubba” amendment.)
I can’t imagine getting the Constitution amended in time for Schwarzenegger to start raising money to mount an effective campaign. Even if Congress votes to approve this amendment, you’d have to have 38 states sign off on it. Typically it takes time to get this done. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but certainly not in that time span.
Anyone who pushes for an amendment specifically to get Arnold Schwarzeneggar or Jerry Springer or Jennifer Granholm or any other individual would be doing the movement a disservice. Passing an amendment for the benefit of one person’s political aspirations is inevitably going to alienate a good number of people. I can see the appeal of this amendment being enhanced if it were passed to take effect in, say, twenty years, so that it couldn’t take on the air of being aimed at benefitting one individual. Removing any whiff of partisanship would help get it passed (which I wholly support.)
For example: when the 22nd Amendment was passed to limit presidents to two terms or ten years in office (whichever comes first,) there was a clause in the amendment stating that it wouldn’t take effect until after the next presidential election. The idea was to eliminate partisan concerns and make sure that people weren’t voting strictly based on whether Harry Truman deserved to get another term in 1952. Of course, Truman chose not to run anyway, but the door was open for him to become the last president to serve more than ten years, even though that amendment was passed in 1951.
I think you’ll find people a lot friendlier to this amendment if you can show that it’s there to benefit us all and not specifically to help advance the career of Candidate X.
I’d like to quibble with you on this one. As it happens, I was born in England and raised in the US. It was a bit dismaying hearing “any kid in this classroom can grow up to become president” and realizing that that wasn’t quite true since I wasn’t a native born US citizen. The earliest one can choose to become a citizen is 18. While the process only took 3 months for me, it took my parents over a year. If we use your standard, Bryan Ekers and make it possible for a person who’s been a naturalized citizen for 35 years to run, that means a non-native-born US citizen would be able to become president at age 53 at the earliest. Would you be willing to compromise on 15 or 20 years to make it more comparable to the age at which a native-born citizen could become president?
On the issue of dual citizenship, it’s complicated. When one is sworn in as a US citizen, one renouces all allegiances to other countries under oath (Here’s a link to the oath if anyone’s interested.). Therefore, in the eyes of the US government, I don’t hold dual citizenship. However, as I understand things, in the eyes of the British government, I’m a British citizen until and unless the Queen tells me otherwise. Therefore, in the eyes of the British government, I do hold dual citizenship. I think my youngest brother who was born here in the US of British parents holds dual citizenship in the eyes of both governments. Thus, requiring non-native-born citizens not hold dual citizenship is a bit of a nonsense requirement in my opinion. If you were naturalized, as far as the US government’s concerned, you can’t be a dual citizen, at least according to my limited understanding.
I’ve always wondered about something when it comes to this issue. Our first several presidents weren’t native-born US citizens; while they were born on what became American soil, they were British subjects. When did the law change so that one had to be a native-born US citizen? Is there something in the wording I’m missing to allow for Washington, Jefferson, et al?
I think a more accurate description would be that as far as the government of the UK is concerned, you are a citizen of the UK. They couldn’t care less about the claim another country makes on your allegiance (i.e., citizenship).
In the eyes of the US, he’s a US citizen; in the eyes of the UK, a UK citizen.
That’s why I posted what I did above.
Article II, Section 1, fifth paragraph of the Constitution of the United States of America says:
OK, that’s where the loophole is, “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” (italics mine). I’ve always wondered about that and they didn’t cover it in elementary school history. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I’m certainly no expert on the subject but from what I’ve been reading this morning it seems like that clause doesn’t really carry a lot of meaning since what matters is whether or not the other country has any jurisdiction over the individual. It also doesn’t apply in the case of a US citizen who picks up another citizenship.
If an individual is subject to the laws of another nation then I can see how that would conflict with being able to carry out the duties and responsibilities of being the US president. I also see a difference between somebody technically having dual citizenship because the second country has not formally recognized the renunciation and somebody actively maintaining a passport, residence, business or other connections in both countries.
On the other hand, unless I’m mistaken there is no bar now to a US citizen who happens to have also become a citizen of another country sometime since birth from running for US president. The specifics may make the person unelectable because of popular reaction but as long as they were born in the US and are 35 they can try. It may be that relying on the vox populi would be enough were naturalized citizens also allowed to run. My first reaction is that it needs to be clarified but on reflection I’m no longer convinced about that.
I don’t know why you’d assume that I’d assume that was relevant. If a child’s legal guardians get him citizenship at age 3, then the clock starts at age 3 and he’d be eligible at age 38. The point is that if the original thought was 35 years was the minimum necessary age to be capable of being president (i.e. having a sufficient level of intellectual and emotional development), then why not acknowledge that someone who has been a U.S. citizen for 35 years, regardless of what he was doing before that, is sufficiently developed and indoctrinated to be capable of serving as president in a manner not likely to be of more benefit to scurrilous furriners (or scurriners, as I likes to call 'em).
Anyway, it’s not my country and he wouldn’t be my president; I’m just suggesting what seems to me a compromise that changes the rules as little as possible.
I’m wondering about the OP’s phrasing. We’re assuming it means as candidate for President or VP. But could it be otherwise? Could it simply be that Arnie’s name is there for a senior cabinet appointment? Not to be elected in his own right but as part of the package?
As a liberal Democrat, I’d love to see Schwarzenegger run for President on the Republican ticket. As Republicans go, he’s not at all bad. He’s pro-choice and doesn’t seem to feel the need to shove his religion in everyone’s face- just the kind of Republican I’d consider voting for.
I can even think of an argument for a Democratic Congressperson to support letting Schwarzenegger run for President. If he gets the Republican nomination, that means that it won’t go to some hard-line right-wing Republican, so no matter who wins, Democratic members of Congress aren’t dealing with someone like that in the White House.
If the Democrats were really lucky, it might splinter the hard-right religious-nut types off from the Republican party, and then they’d really have a hard time getting elected, hopefully for a very long time… I can dream, can’t I?
tbdi and FRDE have already made the points I would’ve made, had I come to the thread sooner. I also strongly agree with Chance the Gardener that a constitutional amendment would have a much higher chance of passage if it was clear that it wasn’t for the benefit of any particular presidential wannabe. It’s not gonna happen in time for '08. But the U.S. is very much a nation of immigrants, and I think it would make sense if naturalized citizens of long residency and undoubted loyalty could serve in the Oval Office.
Quartz, Ah-nuld could be appointed to the Cabinet tomorrow, if he and Dubya wanted. Both U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (born in Taiwan) and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez (born in Cuba) are in the Cabinet already, but are ineligible to serve as President should (God forbid) a catastrophe kill or disable everyone above them in the line of succession.
There is no way on Earth that this passes any time soon. It has nothing to do with Arnie, a populist white man from Europe, either. As soon as this is proposed, someone will raise the specter of A MOSLEM FROM SAUDI ARABIA COULD GET ELECTED NOW. You still think you can get two-thirds of each house and three-fourths of the States to pass that?
