• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Natural Born Citizen req -- is its time over?

jonks

jonks

Lifer
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/time-to-eliminate-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement/

Little is known of the story of the native-born clause. As reconstructed by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, the provision is rooted in the framers’ fears not of immigrants, who were allowed to hold any other federal office, but in anxieties about imported noblemen.

According to Amar, “In 1787, the more plausible scenario was that a foreign earl or duke would cross the Atlantic with immense wealth and a vast retinue and use his European riches to buy friends and power on a scale that virtually no American could match.” Amar reports that “several months before the constitution was drafted … Confederation Congress President Nathaniel Gorham, had apparently written to Prince Henry of Prussia, a brother of Frederick the Great, to inquire whether the prince might consider coming to the new world to serve as a constitutional monarch.” I don’t know about you, but more than two centuries on I’m willing the roll the dice on a Prussian takeover.
Click to expand...

Aside from momentum, why keep it? What if we have a 20 year residency requirement, or even a requirement that the person had to have been living here before the age of 10 or something. Are we really worried about a person being a double agent or being raised in another country and then being sent here to ascend through the nearly impossible hoops required to become a presidential contender, and survive background scrutiny and everything else on the 1 in a million shot they become president? What's the point anymore?
 
The question is why change it? Is there something wrong with the current law? Are there a large number of qualified candidates being kept out of office because of it? Enough so that it's worth taking the risk with the most powerful political office in the world?
 
If the government and the states agree to pass an amendment voiding this requirement, I will abide by it.

I do not, however, see a reason for change.
 
This is a case where it would be nice if it were easier to amend the constitution to clear things up. I think the double-agent concern is small but still worth it for such an important position. You should be able to match the following requirements: A) You should born to an American parent or born in the US to legal immigrant parents B) You should live in the US for most of your life since you are five. C) You should not be a dual-citizen (renouncement of other citizenship is a valid option)
(Watch Salt! J/k)
 
Paladin3 said:
The question is why change it? Is there something wrong with the current law? Are there a large number of qualified candidates being kept out of office because of it? Enough so that it's worth taking the risk with the most powerful political office in the world?
Click to expand...

Because of its absurdity in practice. John McCain, a war veteran, POW, and 3 term senator is conceivably not qualified to be president b/c of the req. Say Obama were born in Kenya and his mother snuck him into the country when he was a few days old. How is he more or less qualified because of that? You change it because it says to those who actually come to america because of what it stands for and offers, you are not fully american the way a person born here who thinks this country sucks shit, is. I think its unnecessary, but doubt there's any political will to change it. It's a nativist issue and would require a constitutional amendment to change so the only way it'd ever happen is if a conservative politician who had impeccable credentials and a likely shot at being president couldn't run because he came to the US when he was one year old.
 
Paladin3 said:
The question is why change it? Is there something wrong with the current law? Are there a large number of qualified candidates being kept out of office because of it? Enough so that it's worth taking the risk with the most powerful political office in the world?
Click to expand...

I believe it's inconsistent with American values. IMO its fundamental American value that you shouldn't judge someone because of where they come from (class, race, national origin, religion, etc). I'd like to see it replaced with a 25 or 30 year citizenship requirement.
 
No lets admit the issue is and remains, what happens in the case of a foreign national who happens to be pregnant, as she maybe illegally sneaks into the United States, and gives birth on US soil?

The mother cannot thus alone qualify for US citizenship, but per our constitution, the child automatically becomes a US citizen.

But when we look at the original constitutional intent cited by Jonks, namely the fear of imported European noblemen, we have another question that pertains to many national politicians. Namely what happens to the children of US citizens who give birth on foreign soil, often in the foreign service of US sanctioned policy? We can claim McCain was born in the US Canal zone, and say thus say John McCain was born on US soil. What about the wives of US diplomats, who give birth in foreign hospitals that clearly are not US soil. Or in terms of ole Barry AUH20, he was born in a US territory before Arizona was a US state? Or in the case of Barack Obama, his mommy was a US citizen, so why is Barack thus not automatically a US citizen regardless where is was born? None of these questions in any way touches our framers original intent, that some totally foreign national will buy their way into the US Presidency. As we should also note such a totally foreign national, after attaining US citizen, can run for any office he or she are otherwise qualified for excepting the Presidency.

But I agree, we all need to get this constitutional question clarified.
 
Lemon law said:
No lets admit the issue is and remains, what happens in the case of a foreign national who happens to be pregnant, as she maybe illegally sneaks into the United States, and gives birth on US soil?

The mother cannot thus alone qualify for US citizenship, but per our constitution, the child automatically becomes a US citizen.

But when we look at the original constitutional intent cited by Jonks, namely the fear of imported European noblemen, we have another question that pertains to many national politicians. Namely what happens to the children of US citizens who give birth on foreign soil, often in the foreign service of US sanctioned policy? We can claim McCain was born in the US Canal zone, and say thus say John McCain was born on US soil. What about the wives of US diplomats, who give birth in foreign hospitals that clearly are not US soil. Or in terms of ole Barry AUH20, he was born in a US territory before Arizona was a US state? Or in the case of Barack Obama, his mommy was a US citizen, so why is Barack thus not automatically a US citizen regardless where is was born? None of these questions in any way touches our framers original intent, that some totally foreign national will buy their way into the US Presidency. As we should also note such a totally foreign national, after attaining US citizen, can run for any office he or she are otherwise qualified for excepting the Presidency.

But I agree, we all need to get this constitutional question clarified.
Click to expand...

Kim Jong(new kid) will do this and that's how Homefront will become reality. :colbert:
 
Infohawk said:
This is a case where it would be nice if it were easier to amend the constitution to clear things up. I think the double-agent concern is small but still worth it for such an important position. You should be able to match the following requirements: A) You should born to an American parent or born in the US to legal immigrant parents B) You should live in the US for most of your life since you are five. C) You should not be a dual-citizen (renouncement of other citizenship is a valid option)
(Watch Salt! J/k)
Click to expand...

I really really like the fact that the Constitution is rather hard to change.
 
Yah I want Arnold to be president . . . Not!

So what foreign born person you want to be president?

This is why people do not trust O'Bammah! They think he is a muslim loving foreign born President.

I think we should change it to 3rd generation American born.
 
Last edited:
Paladin3 said:
The question is why change it? Is there something wrong with the current law? Are there a large number of qualified candidates being kept out of office because of it? Enough so that it's worth taking the risk with the most powerful political office in the world?
Click to expand...

How about the fact that there are millions of American citizens that are second-class citizens because of this policy?


This is one of the things that makes me glad my parents chose to immigrate to Canada rather than the US - whereas I would have always been looked down upon by your kind and treated unfairly there, here I get to be a regular citizen, equal to everyone else regardless of circumstance.
 
The first time a non-U.S. born Republican wins the presidency, every "lefty" will be outraged, angry, and ready to viciously fight non-stop for the next 4 years.

The first time a non-U.S. born Democrat wins the presidency, every "righty" will be outraged, angry, and ready to viciously fight non-stop for the next 4 years.

It's far easier, and I bet far more calming to keep the law as it is.
 
Martin said:
How about the fact that there are millions of American citizens that are second-class citizens because of this policy?


This is one of the things that makes me glad my parents chose to immigrate to Canada rather than the US - whereas I would have always been looked down upon by your kind and treated unfairly there, here I get to be a regular citizen, equal to everyone else regardless of circumstance.
Click to expand...

Oh boo-hoo, you can't be President of the U.S. Get over it.

How much progress have you made in becoming Canada's Prime Minister? None? Gee, who would have thought?
 
I don't know why we don't abolish exec branch and judicial branch. A confederation of states voting is enough. It should require 2/3 of member states for enumerated powers to be executed, and unanimity to amend.
 
Anarchist420 said:
I don't know why we don't abolish exec branch and judicial branch. A confederation of states voting is enough. It should require 2/3 of member states for enumerated powers to be executed, and unanimity to amend.
Click to expand...

Maybe the EU or UN is more your style? Somehow I bet not. 😉
 
cubby1223 said:
Oh boo-hoo, you can't be President of the U.S. Get over it.

How much progress have you made in becoming Canada's Prime Minister? None? Gee, who would have thought?
Click to expand...

You know, there were men who supported women's rights, whites who supported black's rights and straight people who supported gay rights. You're the kind of feckless conservative coward that supports the status quo, right or wrong.

I'm not on my way to becoming Canada's PM, but I still enjoy living in the land of the free 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top