the "natural-born" requirement for president

[(no subject)]

The notion that no naturalized citizen can ever be President of the United States is, in my view, a piece of unambiguous bigotry, that should be removed from that country's constitution.

Your thoughts?

(i recently read an article about a girl from China who has lived in the USA since she was three  weeks old but because of her Chinese birth she can never be President of the country that she loves)

[brucejoel99]

The requirement is certainly outdated (to a ridiculous extent), to say the least. Sadly doesn't change the fact that a constitutional amendment fixing the issue is unlikely at best, though.

[SteveRogers]

Agreed. America shouldn’t have two different classes of citizens.

[Figueira]

Yeah, there's no good argument for keeping this in here.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I'd be okay with making the requirement thirty-five years of citizenship.

[(no subject)]

the fact that younger people can't be Senators or Representatives is outdated as well.

In Australia you can both vote and stand for federal office once you are a legal adult but in the USA you cannot.

[Del Tachi]

I support the theory that the 5th and 14th amendments implicitly repealed the natural-born citizenship requirement

Even if not, it seems obvious to me that Congress could repeal the requirement with simple statute under the enforcement ability given to it by the 14th amendment

[Don Vito Corleone]

I support the theory that the 5th and 14th amendments implicitly repealed the natural-born citizenship requirement

Even if not, it seems obvious to me that Congress could repeal the requirement with simple statute under the enforcement ability given to it by the 14th amendment

I don't believe you can use one part of the Constitution to strike down another part if it's not an explicit repeal.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'd be okay with making the requirement thirty-five years of citizenship.

i.e. repealing both the natural-born requirement and the age requirement in favor of a single "must have been a citizen for thirty-five years regardless of when in one's lifespan citizenship was acquired" requirement?

Schwarzenegger has said in interviews that he became a citizen under Reagan, meaning that if this were the rule he'd definitely be eligible in 2024 and possibly in 2020 or even 2016, but not back when he was politically relevant. Them's the breaks, I guess!

[Del Tachi]

I support the theory that the 5th and 14th amendments implicitly repealed the natural-born citizenship requirement

Even if not, it seems obvious to me that Congress could repeal the requirement with simple statute under the enforcement ability given to it by the 14th amendment

I don't believe you can use one part of the Constitution to strike down another part if it's not an explicit repeal.

It’s an open question up to SCOTUS

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I support the theory that the 5th and 14th amendments implicitly repealed the natural-born citizenship requirement

Even if not, it seems obvious to me that Congress could repeal the requirement with simple statute under the enforcement ability given to it by the 14th amendment

I don't believe you can use one part of the Constitution to strike down another part if it's not an explicit repeal.

It’s an open question up to SCOTUS

I wasn't aware of this theory, at least not as it applies to the natural-born requirement. Who are some jurists or commentators who advocate it?

[brucejoel99]

I support the theory that the 5th and 14th amendments implicitly repealed the natural-born citizenship requirement

Even if not, it seems obvious to me that Congress could repeal the requirement with simple statute under the enforcement ability given to it by the 14th amendment

I don't believe you can use one part of the Constitution to strike down another part if it's not an explicit repeal.

It’s an open question up to SCOTUS

I wasn't aware of this theory, at least not as it applies to the natural-born requirement. Who are some jurists or commentators who advocate it?

There's a well-sourced Wikipedia section on it, but in any event, it appears that the Court apparently wrote in 1946's Knauer v. United States that the "natural-born" requirement was still recognized by them as being the law of the land. Of course, nothing's to stop that precedent from being overturned on the basis of somebody like Schwarzenegger asking the Court to determine whether the natural-born requirement was inherently overturned by the 5th &/or 14th Amendments, but for the time being, the current case law would suggest that it wasn't.

[The Mikado]

Constitution already says that a President must've lived in the US for at least 14 years. IMO it would've been better to lose the natural born citizenship clause and just keep it as having been a US citizen who lived in the US for 14 years post-citizenship. It'd have dealt with the prospective problem the Framers were actually worried about: some asshole German princeling getting elected and subordinating the US' interest to their own state's.

[The Houstonian]

The notion that no naturalized citizen can ever be President of the United States is, in my view, a piece of unambiguous bigotry, that should be removed from that country's constitution.

Your thoughts?

(i recently read an article about a girl from China who has lived in the USA since she was three  weeks old but because of her Chinese birth she can never be President of the country that she loves)

Some of the framers of the Constitution were born abroad (including Alexander Hamilton), and all of them had fairly recent ancestors who were. I don't think they were xenophobes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The requirement was there not because of xenophobia but aristophobia. There was a exaggerated concern that some scion of a European royal family would be put forth as a potential President. Not an entirely unwarranted concern given what later happened in Greece, Romania, and Mexico.

[brucejoel99]

The notion that no naturalized citizen can ever be President of the United States is, in my view, a piece of unambiguous bigotry, that should be removed from that country's constitution.

Your thoughts?

(i recently read an article about a girl from China who has lived in the USA since she was three  weeks old but because of her Chinese birth she can never be President of the country that she loves)

Some of the framers of the Constitution were born abroad (including Alexander Hamilton), and all of them had fairly recent ancestors who were. I don't think they were xenophobes.

Not to belabor the point, but Hamilton & any U.S. citizen at the ratification of the Constitution - natural-born or naturalized - were explicitly grandfathered in too.

[StateBoiler]

the fact that younger people can't be Senators or Representatives is outdated as well.

In Australia you can both vote and stand for federal office once you are a legal adult but in the USA you cannot.

If we're doing this game, the fact that Australians can't vote for the individual that runs their government is outdated as well.

You worry about your Constitution and we'll worry about ours. You have no standing in the manner until you move here and become a naturalized U.S. citizen, for the same reason I have no standing to criticize the structure of the Australian government seeing as I am not Australian and therefore have no skin in the game.

[StateBoiler]

The requirement was there not because of xenophobia but aristophobia. There was a exaggerated concern that some scion of a European royal family would be put forth as a potential President. Not an entirely unwarranted concern given what later happened in Greece, Romania, and Mexico.

In part explains the Titles of Nobility Amendment which almost became law. Applied to modern-day, I think would've meant Megham Markle would've been stripped of her U.S. citizenship upon becoming the Duchess of Sussex.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

the fact that younger people can't be Senators or Representatives is outdated as well.

In Australia you can both vote and stand for federal office once you are a legal adult but in the USA you cannot.

If we're doing this game, the fact that Australians can't vote for the individual that runs their government is outdated as well.

You worry about your Constitution and we'll worry about ours. You have no standing in the manner until you move here and become a naturalized U.S. citizen, for the same reason I have no standing to criticize the structure of the Australian government.

StateBoiler, you have made your stance on this matter clear in the past, but please don't play thought police on this forum and let people voice their opinions.

[StateBoiler]

the fact that younger people can't be Senators or Representatives is outdated as well.

In Australia you can both vote and stand for federal office once you are a legal adult but in the USA you cannot.

If we're doing this game, the fact that Australians can't vote for the individual that runs their government is outdated as well.

You worry about your Constitution and we'll worry about ours. You have no standing in the manner until you move here and become a naturalized U.S. citizen, for the same reason I have no standing to criticize the structure of the Australian government.

StateBoiler, you have made your stance on this matter clear in the past, but please don't play thought police on this forum and let people voice their opinions.

If he or she wants to have an opinion, great. I will stand by and state my philosophical principle based on republican democracy of the citizenry in opposition to that opinion and will then state why his or her opinion is not only wrong but also dangerous to republican democracy in an 8 to 10-page thesis that would make John Locke proud.

Just because this forum is a cesspool does not mean I am required to accept it. If you don't want enlightenment of ideas here, what is the raison d'etre of this forum?

And if he or she actually is American, great, he or she has skin in the game and the opinion is then valid for discussion. But then why lie about where you live?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

the fact that younger people can't be Senators or Representatives is outdated as well.

In Australia you can both vote and stand for federal office once you are a legal adult but in the USA you cannot.

If we're doing this game, the fact that Australians can't vote for the individual that runs their government is outdated as well.

You worry about your Constitution and we'll worry about ours. You have no standing in the manner until you move here and become a naturalized U.S. citizen, for the same reason I have no standing to criticize the structure of the Australian government.

StateBoiler, you have made your stance on this matter clear in the past, but please don't play thought police on this forum and let people voice their opinions.

If he or she wants to have an opinion, great. I will stand by and state my philosophical principle based on republican democracy of the citizenry in opposition to that opinion and will then state why his or her opinion is not only wrong but also dangerous to republican democracy in an 8 to 10-page thesis that would make John Locke proud.

Just because this forum is a cesspool does not mean I am required to accept it. If you don't want enlightenment of ideas here, what is the raison d'etre for this forum?

You're being awfully portentous about this. I don't think Jolly Slugg disagreeing with minimum age requirements for federal officeholders is what makes this forum a cesspool (if it is a cesspool which, compared to other sites, I'm not convinced it is). I also don't think a two-line comment on a secular blog needs to be responded to with an eight- to ten-page thesis.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

the fact that younger people can't be Senators or Representatives is outdated as well.

In Australia you can both vote and stand for federal office once you are a legal adult but in the USA you cannot.

If we're doing this game, the fact that Australians can't vote for the individual that runs their government is outdated as well.

You worry about your Constitution and we'll worry about ours. You have no standing in the manner until you move here and become a naturalized U.S. citizen, for the same reason I have no standing to criticize the structure of the Australian government.

StateBoiler, you have made your stance on this matter clear in the past, but please don't play thought police on this forum and let people voice their opinions.

If he or she wants to have an opinion, great. I will stand by and state my philosophical principle based on republican democracy of the citizenry in opposition to that opinion and will then state why his or her opinion is not only wrong but also dangerous to republican democracy in an 8 to 10-page thesis that would make John Locke proud.

Just because this forum is a cesspool does not mean I am required to accept it. If you don't want enlightenment of ideas here, what is the raison d'etre for this forum?

As I said, you have voiced your opinion on foreign users stating their opinion on US politics. That's fine. But as long as foreign users are welcome to join the forum - which is primarily a forum on US politics - I don't see it as appropriate to shame foreign users in voicing their opinions. That's all I have to say an all I will say on this issue.

[brucejoel99]

the fact that younger people can't be Senators or Representatives is outdated as well.

In Australia you can both vote and stand for federal office once you are a legal adult but in the USA you cannot.

If we're doing this game, the fact that Australians can't vote for the individual that runs their government is outdated as well.

You worry about your Constitution and we'll worry about ours. You have no standing in the manner until you move here and become a naturalized U.S. citizen, for the same reason I have no standing to criticize the structure of the Australian government seeing as I am not Australian and therefore have no skin in the game.

> StateBoiler: "I have no standing to criticize the structure of the Australian government seeing as I am not Australian and therefore have no skin in the game."

> Also StateBoiler: *criticizes the structure of the Australian government*

See the problem here?

[(no subject)]

In Australia an Australian can vote at 18 AND STAND FOR LOCAL, FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICE

In the USA it's illegal until someone is 25 and 30. That's paedo-phobia.

[(no subject)]

By the way, Jeffersonian democracy has descended into a cesspool of racism and parochialism.