Posts: 21822
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 1:20 am
(February 4, 2016 at 6:29 pm)Evie Wrote: What country you were born in is accident of birth and should never matter. Whether you'd make a good president is what's important.
The problem is that there is no way of knowing that, no matter one's birthplace. As a criterion, it would exclude everyone, for that reason.
The fact is that the restriction is in place because people tend to remain loyal to birthplace, rightly or wrongly. That tendency being fallacious doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered, which is what that Constitutional stipulation is intended to do.
Personally, I'm fine with naturalized citizens who have demonstrated their loyalty to hold elective office.
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 1:34 am
(February 4, 2016 at 10:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But no one, not me nor Zimmer v Acheson is saying that Cruz is not a citizen. The question remains "natural born" or "naturalized" and, as noted here:
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
Hmm, good point. To be honest, all this confusion over the issue of "natural born" vs "citizen from birth" just reaffirms my position that it shouldn't matter one iota in the first place. Ted Cruz, despite his right-wing views, is clearly a man who *should* be eligible to run for President. Sure, he was born in Canada, but his mother was American, and he lived most of his life in America.
Where you are born shouldn't affect your eligibility to be President.
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 1:46 am
Honestly, I don't really disagree with you but then, neither of us wrote the constitution.
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 1:54 am
(February 5, 2016 at 1:46 am)Minimalist Wrote: Honestly, I don't really disagree with you but then, neither of us wrote the constitution.
True, but the Constitution was always supposed to be amended when needed; the founders designed it that way. The "natural born citizen" clause was inserted to prevent foreign powers (likely the British) from trying to infiltrate the U.S. government. The fact that the phrase "natural born citizen" wasn't even defined suggests to me that the clause wasn't one that was considered important long-term for the founders.
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 2:07 am
I know you are new here but I'd really ( really!) like you to take a good look at the citizenry and consider what kind of batshit nuttiness would emerge from a constitutional convention.
![[Image: Ted-Nugent-320x240.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=dwpr80flwolb1.cloudfront.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FTed-Nugent-320x240.png)
Let's leave bad enough alone.
Posts: 66328
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 3:30 am
(This post was last modified: February 5, 2016 at 3:32 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(February 4, 2016 at 9:45 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I don't have aspirations for the Presidency, though I might run for some kind of office one day. I think it causes some small degree of harm to the overall picture of America though. You are proudly a country of immigrants, you allow people (like myself) to come live here, and to become a citizen of the country, to pledge allegiance to it. Yet although naturalized citizens have the same rights as natural born citizens, and are treated the same in almost every other aspect of life, being able to run for President or Vice President of the country that they pledged allegiance to is forbidden. I knew it, yet another reconquistador. Come to bring us back to the fold have you? Careful...we're well armed and entirely unreasonable.
Quote:It just seems strange to me, and I guess somewhat unfair, especially when it's not the norm around the world.
I don't know how far that will get you with regards to a countries laws "well, they don't do it that way where I come from". I don't think it's fair either. I don't think fair was what they were aiming at when they wrote than in, though.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 21822
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 4:05 am
(February 5, 2016 at 2:07 am)Minimalist Wrote: I know you are new here but I'd really ( really!) like you to take a good look at the citizenry and consider what kind of batshit nuttiness would emerge from a constitutional convention.
Let's leave bad enough alone.
Nothing nutty about a Les Paul Standard.
Posts: 21822
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 4:09 am
(February 4, 2016 at 9:45 pm)Tiberius Wrote: [...] especially when it's not the norm around the world.
What is popular is not always right; what is right is rarely popular at all.
Posts: 4484
Threads: 185
Joined: October 12, 2012
Reputation:
44
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
(February 4, 2016 at 2:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote: This isn't a thread about what constitutes a "natural born citizen", but rather whether that clause should even exist. The USA is on a very short list of countries which require their head of state to be a "natural born citizen", rather than someone who has gained citizenship via another means.
Short? I think you'll find many countries across Africa, Southern America, and Asia (which of course includes the middle east) that have such clauses.
The real question is why does the president alone hold so much power.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: U.S. Presidents & The Natural-born-citizen Clause
February 5, 2016 at 7:58 am
(February 5, 2016 at 4:17 am)Aractus Wrote: The real question is why does the president alone hold so much power.
It wasn't intended that way, to be sure. Here's a short piece on the subject of how the office has assumed more power without specific constitutional amendment to do so. Much of it boils down to strong personalities using circumstance to bend congress to their will. Unlike Cincinnatus, the office never returned its acquired power.
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/7a.asp
|
