Running out? This is more about giving American citizens(over the age of 35) the right to run for President, something not all citizens can currently do.
I have to admit, I lol’d.
This can’t really be clarified until someone who wants to become president but has some question raised about their eligibility [legitimate question, I should say, as the ‘Obama isn’t eligible*’ meme has been pretty well debunked], and a legal challenge is decided in court.
Are you a ‘natural-born’ citizen of the US if you were born in the Canal Zone to American citizens, as was John McCain? I have a friend who is a US citizen and has no other citizenship. His wife is a Chinese citizen. Is their son, who was born in Tokyo, a ‘natural-born’ US citizen? How about the child of illegal immigrants, born yards inside the border?
We all think we know what ‘natural-born’ means, but the founding fathers did not explain what they meant by the phrase, so we will have to wait for one or more court decisions to know who is and who is not eligible to run for President.
- It will be interesting to see if the ‘birthers’ attempt to use the Obama presidency and their ginned-up ‘proof’ that he is not a citizen as precedent in a case when/if they want to field a candidate who was born elsewhere.
From this site, we get the following definition, which seems to answer some of your questions.
I think natural born should include children adopted under a certain age, even if from another country.
I’ve said it in a half-dozen other threads, and I’ll say it again. Nobody knows definition of “natural-born citizen” in the context of presidential eligibility.
Your cite does not define “natural-born citizen” but rather defines “person who was born a citizen.” An important difference from a constitutional perspective. The only way we’ll get an actual definition of the constitutional term is if a case goes before the SCOTUS, and they make a ruling that includes a definition. No such case has yet gotten that high.
On a side note, it is possible – likely even – that the constitutional definition will match the one given in your cite. But we don’t yet know that.
Do you have any evidence for this? Because I would think that people who suffer hardships to get to the US, and then jump through a lot of hoops to become citizens, have shown a much bigger interests than white US-born guys who feel entitled to the world just because they were born Americans, without ever doing anything positive for the country, just bitching around while listening to talk radio.
And that’s different from domestic plants backed by domestic money running and being elected president, who then make politics only for their backers, but not for the rest of the country, how exactly?
Because not every person who’s been a citizen of the USA from birth was born in the USA? It’s one of those things where the phrasing is essential.
By the way, becoming naturalized already has a “several years’ residence” requirement, so I think one would be relevant only if it’s longer than the amount required to become naturalized or phrased as “must have been naturalized for X years” and consist of “resident for tax purposes” - unless someone thinks that naturalized personnel who have spent time working abroad (which may even be for the US Armed Forces or as diplomatic personnel) should not be eligible. I’d ask these people whether they would change the Constitution to add a residency requirement for natural-born citizens, under the same logic.
Didn’t vote on the poll as I am not a US citizen or national.
It should remain, but there needs to be a clear statement of what “natural born” means.
It’s akin to having a prerequisite that unless one’s first paying job was at IBM, he/she is not eligible to be elected/appointed CEO of IBM.
Stupid, xenophobic requirement. Get rid of it.
**Oakminster **said it better than I would’ve, so I’ll just quote it here. Sure, I think that naturalized citizens should have just as much right to run for president as I (born in Colorado) do, but I don’t think that their disqualification has or is currently causing such hardship that we need to change those rules. Amending the Constitution is something that should be backed by stronger reasoning than “hey, you know that isn’t quite fair.”
I don’t want it removed. I want it clarified. It’s pretty widely accepted that “natural born citizen” means “born in the USA”, but I’d like to see some clear language on the matter.
I have a compelling reason. The current rule creates two classes of citizens, one class that is eligible for the presidency and one that isn’t. It’s offensive to the ideals of democracy and egalitarianism. There should not be classes of citizens.
I think the Constitution is the one document where if it ain’t fair, it’s a travesty. Building unfairness into the bones of the system is a disgrace.
I don’t see a compelling reason to remove it. It’s not as though we have a shortage of candidates. And I say that as an immigrant.
[QUOTE=ascenray]
I have a compelling reason. The current rule creates two classes of citizens, one class that is eligible for the presidency and one that isn’t. It’s offensive to the ideals of democracy and egalitarianism. There should not be classes of citizens.
[/QUOTE]
Natural born citizens are already de facto segregated into those who could become president and those who couldn’t.
ETA: I do agree with appleciders, though.
Do you see no difference between a constitutionally sanctioned classification of two types of citizens based on birth and some kind of “de facto segregation” (whatever that might be)?
This country is a nation of immigrants. Naturalized citizens should be in exactly the same constitutional position as natural born citizens.
Constitutionally sanctioned classification only matters when it matters. The presidential/ vice-presidential qualifications do not matter, for all intents and purposes.
They very well might matter to someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he wants to be a candidate for president, it’s an injustice if he is prevented from being one by the natural born requirement. That kind of injustice actually does matter. It’s an injustice that the question even comes up for people like Barack Obama and John McCain. The question of their locations of birth shouldn’t even create a hypothetical constitutional question.
Schwarzenegger is not a candidate, and questions of their locations of birth didn’t create even hypothetical constitutional questions. Have you seen how complex and ridiculous the Birther theories are? If it wasn’t this, it would have been something equally silly.
The rule exists to promote fairness. A naturalized citizen will typically have a much better understanding of our system of government than a native, which gives them an unfair advantage come election time.
This is a ludicrous argument. How do you know that he wouldn’t bs a candidate but for the disqualification? The constitution takes away that option. And it’s disingenuous to argue that it doesn’t matter because Schwarzenegger hasn’t declared his own candidacy. The rule prevents a priori ant person in that position from being a qualified candidate. If the rule said that only whites or only Christians were qualified, would you call itmerely theoretical because at the moment there wasn’t a viable non-white ornon-Christian candidate? The rule is unacceptably discriminatory on its face, regardless of who is or isn’t currently a candidate.