the "natural-born" requirement for president

[The Houstonian]

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.

In Kansas, anyone can run for office (even kids and people from outside of Kansas). The results have not been muy bueno: https://www.insider.com/aaron-coleman-wins-kansas-state-house-revenge-porn-2020-11

[Lechasseur]

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.

Well tbf, the only situation out of those you mentioned that is really comparable to what the Founding Fathers were afraid of was Mexico.

Romania was always going to be a monarchy regardless (I think the only question was whether it was going to be a Romanian prince or a German prince, and Romania opted for the latter, surely in part to not have the nobles squabble over the throne), and the European powers weren't allowing a Greek Republic in 1832.

I think the best analogy to the Founding Father's fears was actually Second Republic France, when Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, Napoleon's nephew, was elected President in 1848 and then overthrew the Republic in 1851 after Parliament refused to amend the constitution to run for a second term and then made himself Emperor Napoleon III a year later.

But yeah the overall point you made is correct.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Yes - it should be revoked. On the flip side, birthright citizenship and citizenship through military membership have to go as well.

[Dr. MB]

All officeholding requirements are stupid. If you can vote for the office you should be able to run for it.

[(no subject)]

All officeholding requirements are stupid. If you can vote for the office you should be able to run for it.

That's what i meant. It's obscene and paedo-phobic that you can vote federally in the USA at 18 but are forbidden to be a Senator before you are 30 etc.

Unfortunately Manifest Destiny earlier in this thread was too busy screaming USA? A-OK!

[John Dule]

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

Disagree (sane, supports the age of consent).

[politicallefty]

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

Disagree (sane, supports the age of consent).

Very true. The eligibility age for elected office should be the same as the age of consent.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

Disagree (sane, supports the age of consent).

Very true. The eligibility age for elected office should be the same as the age of consent.

I realize young adults are often irresponsible, but raising the age of consent to thirty-five strikes me as impractical.

[politicallefty]

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

Disagree (sane, supports the age of consent).

Very true. The eligibility age for elected office should be the same as the age of consent.

I realize young adults are often irresponsible, but raising the age of consent to thirty-five strikes me as impractical.

Ha. Ha. Ha. 

On a serious note, where do the 25-year, 30-year, and 35-year age limits in the Constitution even come from? They seem sort of random apart from being increments of five.

The only state with an age requirement higher than 30 for Governor is Oklahoma, which is 31. The most common age requirement for state governors seems to be 30. Five states set it at 18 (and a sixth, Vermont, has no age limit) and a lot more have it at 21, although I'm guessing 21 is generally a holdover from before the voting age was lowered. Only 6 states have an age requirement higher than 21 to be elected to the lower house. A bit over half seem to follow the model of the US Constitution and require a higher age (in this case, 25+) for their upper house.

[brucejoel99]

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

Disagree (sane, supports the age of consent).

Very true. The eligibility age for elected office should be the same as the age of consent.

I realize young adults are often irresponsible, but raising the age of consent to thirty-five strikes me as impractical.

Ha. Ha. Ha. 

On a serious note, where do the 25-year, 30-year, and 35-year age limits in the Constitution even come from? They seem sort of random apart from being increments of five.

By excluding men under thirty-five from the first office, and those under thirty from the second, it confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment, and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. If the observation be well founded, that wise kings will always be served by able ministers, it is fair to argue, that as an assembly of select electors possess, in a greater degree than kings, the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment. The inference which naturally results from these considerations is this, that the President and senators so chosen will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence. With such men the power of making treaties may be safely lodged.

Basically, by making people wait until they're 35, it allows the voters a chance to judge how wise the candidate in question is based on what they've already been able to do up 'til then. If some flashy 21-year-old ran for President & they just happened to be more eloquent than the other candidates, voters might be inclined to base their vote on appearances rather than substance.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

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

I’d keep the 14 years of residence clause, but I do like your idea.

[DK_Mo82]

No but you shouldnt be allowed to be a citizen of any other country either.

[MarkD]

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

Your second theory can't work unless the courts agree with your first theory. And your first theory is certainly far removed from what the 5th and 14th Amendments were intended to mean. I think very few judges who adhere to the philosophy of originalism would take that argument seriously.

The constitutional amendment that I am campaigning for would prevent your theory from being carried out, so we would need an altogether different amendment to be adopted, after my idea, to allow people to serve as president without being natural-born citizens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I'd have to strongly disagree with the idea that either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to eliminate the natural-born citizen requirement. At most, one can argue that the Fourteenth gives to Congress an explicit power to define who qualifies as a natural-born citizen rather than the implicit power it assumed it had when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 to define the phrase to include the children of U.S. citizens born outside the U.S.