That Pesky Exception

Maybe we could replace the "natural-born" condition with a
requirement for competence in speaking the English language ? That
would exclude both Schwarzenegger and George W Bush :-)

On the bright side, the popular moderate Republican governor of the country's largest state isn't considered a potential contender in 2008.

Article II states: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Now I find this language a bit confusing. It says "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States." Why does that exclude citizens not born in the U.S.--it seems to include both natural born and those who become citizens. Of course, it goes without saying that I am no lawyer--just a confused citizen (who happened to have been born in Australia).

yeah, and what's with the age limit?

if the country wants to elect a 15 year old sk8tr boi to be president, why shouldn't we be allowed to ?

Speaking as someone foreign-born who would, if not for this law, probably already be president owing to my charm and ambition, I still think it's a pretty good idea. I do feel a particular affinity for the old country, and though it might not lead to anything as dramatic as disloyalty, I'd just as soon have a president with warm fuzzies only for one country.

Oh right, the age limit. Nevermind that "already president" part. The rest of my argument stands.

Is "foreign-born" the strictly accurate way to characterize the exclusion? I believe the law says you must be a 'natural-born citizen', which seems like it would still permit people who were born outside the U.S. (i.e. still 'foreign born') but who were U.S. citizens from birth to be President. Thus someone like John McCain (born in the Canal Zone) or my highly electable and photogenic wife (born in Canada of U.S.-citizen parents) would qualify.

I realize none of this covers the category Matt's talking about -- naturalized citizens. Like me, which is a shame, because I am so freakin' electable it's not even funny. This exclusion bothers me so much I'd be willing to see a Schwarzenegger presidency if it got the law changed.

RWB, it is "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

Amen.

This is also a frustrating thing: it shouldn't be too contentious to amend the Constitution to change that, but the problem is everyone interprets a possible amendment in the light of those who would be concerned (such as Schwartzenegger) instead of the merits of the reform.

But I don't doubt it'll happen some day.

(No, I WILL not point out that Hitler was not a native born German who changed his nationality at the last day.)

You're misreading the Constitution it doesn't say: "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States."

It says: "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

There was a fear the British would return or somehow install a pretender on the throne. The goal was to set up a system in which Alexander Hamilton who was born in Nevis could have been a legitimate President, but King George's grandson, born in England, could not.

It's left some quirks in the system.

Actually I would say there is a possibility that this rule is needed more today than when the Constitution was drafted. In the 1700s it took several months and a significant risk of life to travel to North America from any other place, and if such a person stayed a few years he was very unlikely to return. Today poeple hop jets across continents every week, and I personally know several who have applied for citizenships just to make getting through customs easier.

Not Really

RWB,

I believe your puzzlement is the result of a misplaced comma (not misplaced by you, but by the framers): "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,"

Take out the second comma and it becomes clearer -- since nobody in 1789 was a natural born citizen (the country being brand-new), they added a clause to include everyone already alive in 1789 who had *become* a citizen as a result of the country's creation. Otherwise they'd have had to wait 35 years for anyone to become eligible. At least that's my understanding.

I think we should drop the any American can become President language anyway. It meant something when most of the countries we compared ourselves to were monarchies, in the 19th century. Other republics dont have many restrictions on who can be their head of state, just an age limit and a residency requirement. Its not like left handed people are barred from becoming President of Ecuador, for example.

And in reality, if Hillary wins we are looking at a situation where two families provide all our presidents for 24 years. She should be the last person making this stupid claim.

And in reality, if Hillary wins we are looking at a situation where two families provide all our presidents for 24 years. She should be the last person making this stupid claim.

My point exactly. Well done.

As an aside, it's worth pondering just how much hatred and fear Hamilton must have inspired among the Framers, such that he warranted his own clause in the Constitution. It's like the "No Homers" club on The Simpsons.

Hey, it's keeping The Arnold out of the race. The Founders knew what they were doing.

This issue arose in 1964 when Mitt Romneys' father, George, ran for the Republican nomination. George Romney was born outside the country to American Citizens. There was considerable discussion at the time as to whether Romney qualified as a natural born citizen.

I believe your puzzlement is the result of a misplaced comma (not misplaced by you, but by the framers): "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,"

It's not really a misplaced comma, just and old-fashioned way of constructing sentences.

since nobody in 1789 was a natural born citizen

the US declared itself a country in 1776 and won the war in 1783. so there were at least 6 years worth of 'natural born citizens' (if you want to argue that you can't be born a citizen until the country exists) or 13 years (if you want to start counting from when we declared ourselves our own country).

or, you can take the view that everyone born in the States, even before independence, was a 'natural born citizen'. that makes sense, since everyone living in the US at the time of independece (declared or won) was immediately considered a citizen of the US. a natural-born citizen would then just be someone who was born in what became the US, as opposed to someone who moved here pre-independence.

Of all the possible flaws in the Constitution that we might want to correct, this isn't one worth our effort. Let's worry about removing the electoral college, adding a recall mechanism to get rid of incompetent Presidents like Bush, term limits or some other limitation on judges' terms so we aren't stuck with judges like Thomas and Alito for 40 years, adding an explicit right of privacy, etc.

Arnie came here as an adult, so your example used just prior is pretty misleading.

As it is, I like the rules. Not everyone needs to be president, and I see no reason why people should be able to immigrate here as adults and a couple decades later be running the place.

The odds of anyone becoming president are really slim, so no immigrant is really being denied anything, and the only reason Arnie would be a possible contender is that he's a celebrity movie star, so he's not the best example for advocates making the case the change the rules.

"he's not the best example for advocates making the case the change the rules."

Okay. Jennifer Granholm, then. Or Albert Gallatin . . .

It's actually quite a significant restriction right now since the Republican field is so weak. Arnie would not be a shoo-in by any means, but Giuliani, Romney and McCain all have very significant problems with their candidacies which are only likely to worsen as time goes on.

Thanks for the clarifications, which make perfect sense. And since I was born an American citizen (both parents American, just happened to be in Australia at birth), I guess I'm elligible, unlike all those damn dirty foreigners with their incomprehensible accents and funny foods.

Of course some of those incomprehensible accents are quite popular. The constitution is a last ditch defence against a possible President Blair.

Actually RWB you are in one of the gray areas.

Cleek, there were no 35 year old natural born citizens in 1789.

I think its fine that immigrants can't be president. There are what 5 legitmate contenders and at most 4 people every 4 years are actually impacted by this.

On the other hand I think green card holders should be able to vote for all elections, including federal. This would have a tangible impact on more people than 4 people every 4 years.

I'd be OK with changing the relevant part of the Constitution, but with limitations.

That is, requiring a number of years of US citizenship (maybe 25 or so) and a renunciation of the person's previous citizenship - and again for some period of years (maybe 10) - prior to becoming eligible to be president.

Having a dual-citizen president, with the "other" citizenship having been from birth would indeed make me nervous.

As to the case-in-point of "my" governor Ahnold (voted against him twice): If I remember correctly, he is a dual-citizen, maintaining his natural citizenship of Austria.

Looks like RWB can be president, and so can McCain.

From US Code Title8, 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

I'm with Ron, above. Yes, this is an anachronism, but amending the Constitution is spectacularly difficult (no successful amendments since the repeal of Prohibition, I believe), and there are many other more important problems, such as the presence of the Electoral College and the absence of a clearly-spelled-out right to privacy. Frankly, I'm not upset that Schwarzenegger is barred from the presidency; in a sane world, we wouldn't be electing movie stars with no governmental experience to any high office.

Well, Arnie does have a bit of experience by now.

What about someone born in Hawaii before 1959- like Don Ho? Or U.S. Protectorates like Puerto Rico or Guam- are they out? How about if you're born in a car your American parents were driving in racing to a U.S. hospital but got stuck in Ottawa or somethin'?

Ted Kennedy has some warm and fuzzy feelings for Ireland. I'm guessing JFK felt the same way. Does that really make them traitors?

The last amendment was in 1992, about the rules for changing congressional pay, and before that, the one giving 18-year-olds the right to vote, so there have been some since prohibition. (7 in fact, now that I've looked it up)

I suppose the good Dr. Allen would prefer that we be ruled by PhDs, but Arnold is actually doing a pretty decent job as governor. He seems more intelligent, focused, accomplished and otherwise qualified than any of the clowns currently running for president. I don't think making movies is somehow inferior to being a lawyer or working in government, which is where we get most of these assholes.

Cleek, there were no 35 year old natural born citizens in 1789

damn! i wish, for your sake, i was arguing that there was! alas.

President Schwarzenegger would seriously rock.

crack: if you're not a U.S. citizen, who should you be able to vote in federal or state elections? What's the rationale here?

I gotta disagree - there is something about growing up in the shared American experience that one acquires as "normal" the values of what being an American is. I don't think it's any co-incidence that some really serious wingnuts with bizarre and very fundamentally jarring un-American ideas such as John Yoo and Dinish D'Souza, and even Andrew Sullivan (think, "5th column", are all Americans. They have an idealized uber-view of what they think America is supposed to be, without it having been tempered by a gut feel of what just "feels right" about being American from being born and raised here. Even if you come over as a child, chances are your political ideas and identity are first formed by exposure to your parents politcal views - and if their entire experience isn't American, what are you going to absorb? John Yoo's parents came over from war-torn Korea when he was 7 looking for economic opportunity (as opposed to poltical motivation) - and I'm convinced that part of the reasons why his ideas are so "out there" is precisely because he didn't absorb "innocent until proven guilty" and "a man's home is his castle", and all the other little stuff that I remember my father always going on about - his family had nothing but experience in an Aisan authoritarian tradition to expose him to - so when it comes to ideas such as jettisoning habeas corpus - something alien and unthinkable to most other Americans - it's no big deal to someone who doesn't grow up with that in his culture.

When your grandparents are back in the old country - and you've come over here because you can be a "success" here in the land of unfettered capitalism in a way that you couldn't be at home - why would you support Social Security, since no one in your family is benefitting from it and you view it as a drag on the unfettered capitalism that you think contributes to your success?

Remember Schwarzenegger telling the 1988 GOP convention about the supposed Soviet tanks that he remembers in the streets of his homeland as a child (widely disputed as he lived nowhere near a Soviet sector, and all foreign troops were withdrawn by the time he was 7) and how he had to flee a "socialist" country when he came here at the age of 21 (nevermind the fact that the entire time he lived in Austria, it was controlled by Conservative governments)? Do we really want Presidents who base their politics and policies on (imagined) rememberances of what they think they left behind?

You can make a good argument for amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to become president, but if we did that we should make it take effect after 25 years, so it wouldn't benefit specific politicians.

adding an explicit right of privacy
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ninth Amendment.

My grandparents are in the old country yet I've lived here all of my life. Am I not a real American?

Albright was not born here, but her actions as SoS didn't make me think of dual loyalties or anything. The same goes for Brzenski. I might not have agreed with everything they did, but they were smarter than native-borns like Wolfowitz.

"there is something about growing up in the shared American experience that one acquires as "normal" the values of what being an American is."

And since when is there only one shared American experience? Growing up as a black kid in Compton is different than growing up black in a rich Upper East Side of Manhattan family is different than growing up in a poor white family in Applachia is different than growing up white in a hippie family in Austin, TX is different than growing up in San Francisco's Japantown. Is the middle-class, white Christian Protestant middle America experience the only one that counts?

I really don't see the urgency or practicality of pushing this change, or the need for that matter, but I wouldn't object to a revision that basically just restated the 35 year-old requirement to 35 years as a citizen. That would probably qualify everyone who we'd conceivably want to have a chance to be president, while maintaining the exclusion of those who have not lived the bulk of their life here in America. I would not support a 25-year rule, since a 30-year old could move here pretty much having already formed a worldview in the former country and then become president at 55. I don't see any reason to allow that to happen, and don't really see any urgency or need in allowing to happen in 35 years either.

Have you not seen "The Boys from Brazil"?

On the bright side, the popular moderate Republican governor of the country's largest state isn't considered a potential contender in 2008.

I wouldn't exactly call Governor Palin a moderate, and she didn't even break fifty percent in her victory to succeed Governor Murkowski, so I'm not sure how popular she is, either.

--The Quibbling Pedant

P.S. I concur with those who consider amending this part of the Constitution to be a very low priority. Let's fix how we elect our native-born Presidential candidates first.

I'd be OK with changing the relevant part of the Constitution, but with limitations. That is, requiring a number of years of US citizenship (maybe 25 or so) and a renunciation of the person's previous citizenship - and again for some period of years (maybe 10) - prior to becoming eligible to be president.

if we did that we should make it take effect after 25 years, so it wouldn't benefit specific politicians.

These seem like reasonable changes to me; doubt they'd ever happen though. Alternatively, maybe we should say you have to be a US citizen by age 18 or 21 to be eligible.

As I've said elseblog, the problem with the restriction is that it only becomes a point of discussion in the context of a particular politician, and as such becomes a debate over President Arnie or President Granholm or whoever. And when there's no naturalized political stars, it drops off the radar. If it's to be amended, I'd add a clause to ensure it didn't take effect until, say, 20 years after being ratified.

crack: if you're not a U.S. citizen, who [sic] should you be able to vote in federal or state elections? What's the rationale here?

The old 'no taxation without representation' thing? I think it's a no-brainer moral case to open up the right to vote in state and local races to permanent residents, given that state residency extends from, um, living there. The federal level is a bit different, but there are foreign examples: the UK allows citizens of its non-splitter colonies to vote in all elections.

Last point: McCain's foreign-ish birth is addressed in law, but it'll be more interesting if there's a contender who's a dual national through birth.

Look, if we Americans can't find a good President among our 300 million citizens and have to resort to out-sourcing, we're fucked. :-)

I have no problem if Arnold could run as long as Bill C (Big Dog) could run against him. HIL C could take a pass and get some more seasoning.

"I think it's a no-brainer moral case to open up the right to vote in state and local races to permanent residents, given that state residency extends from, um, living there. The federal level is a bit different, but there are foreign examples: the UK allows citizens of its non-splitter colonies to vote in all elections"

The UK also allows Irish nationals resident in the UK to vote in national elections whilst other resident EU nationals can vote in all but parliamentary elections , ie) Local, welsh/scottish & EU elections.

The concept of "amend the Constitution to add it only after 20 years" seems bizarre to me. Like, maybe when we ended slavery, we should have put in a 20 year rider as well to make sure that it didn't advantage any existing slaves? Or we could legalize gay marriage, but not for forty years so that no current gay couples can take advantage of the situation?

I mean, if you think that it's wrong for naturalized citizens to not have a chance to become President, then it's just wrong, isn't it? You aren't worried about Arnie or whomever taking advantage of the situation, because the point is that naturalized citizens are SUPPOSED to take advantage of it.

The 20 year break concept just seems like a very jarring and incoherent form of ambivalence.

"The 20 year break concept just seems like a very jarring and incoherent form of ambivalence."

The point of the delay is to separate the merits of the amendment from the merits of any contemporary politician who might benefit from it. It's hardly new, either. Harry Truman was specifically exempted from the 22nd Amendment.

I mean, if you think that it's wrong for naturalized citizens to not have a chance to become President, then it's just wrong, isn't it?

Of course. It would be nice if we lived in such a world. Unfortunately, there's a greater chance of having the bar lifted if it's framed to exclude those who have risen to prominence in... well, the American electoral system, with all that entails.

Or to put it another way: foreign-born politicians require a bare plurality of votes to win office, while a constitutional amendment needs a supermajority. An 'Arnie amendment' is more likely to devolve into personal or partisan support, and thus fall short.

The point of the delay is to separate the merits of the amendment from the merits of any contemporary politician who might benefit from it. It's hardly new, either. Harry Truman was specifically exempted from the 22nd Amendment.

Likewise with the 1992 congressional pay amendment; it was specifically delayed to not affect the Congress that approved it. (Granted 80%+ are re-elected, but still)

Cleek, there were no 35 year old natural born citizens in 1789.

Yes, there were. Remember that when the Founding Fathers talked about "the United States," they didn't mean the single entity of all of the states; they meant the set of thirteen states who were united in one federation. A natural born citizen of Virginia was a natural born citizen of one of the United States.

As an aside, it's worth pondering just how much hatred and fear Hamilton must have inspired among the Framers, such that he warranted his own clause in the Constitution.

Yes. Hamilton was brilliant, ambitious, charismatic, authoritarian, probably a monarchist at heart, a representative of the monied interets that the landed interests that made up a majority of the Convention disliked, and quite willing to take positions he didn't really believe in if it helped advance his interests. He was, for instance, quite a bit less enthusiastic about the Constitution than his submissions to the Federalist Papers would lead one to believe.

The early Republic couldn't do without his talents, but no one wanted him in charge. In some ways, most of those at the Convention thought of him in much the same way that the Freepers think of George Soros, except for Washington, who was extremely fond of him. They just needed him.

I consider this prohibition as a fair trade off for the fact that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen. I think we all forget how novel (though it was based on English law)the concept of 'citizen by birth' was in 1787 and how rare it is in its "pure" form today.

Trade-off with who exactly? The Mexicans?

Isn't the largest state in the country Alaska? Just nitpicking.

"Isn't the largest state in the country Alaska?"

Acres don't vote, people do. So the relevant statistic isn't the state with the largest area, it's the one with the largest population, which is Ka-lee-fornia.

Bob's your uncle:

Have you not seen "The Boys from Brazil"?

I don't get it.

If someone is cloned in Brazil, and the host mother gives birth in the U.S., the child is a citizen.

Kohra:
An immigrant with a green card has met lots of criteria as far as employment and residency. For state and local elections it definitely makes sense for them to be able to vote, they are affected by policies enacted by the representatives. Additionally they don't really have a conflict of interest, there are few situations where states or municipalities deal with other nations. The occasional boycott or immigration stand maybe, but by and large those are federal issues. On the federal level Senators and to a lesser extent House members have an impact on foreign policy but the main foreign policy office is President. Congress spends far more time on domestic issues than on foreign policy.

Again, I think this makes sense for green card holders; green cards. Generally acquiring a green card takes some time and implies a certain amount of residency in the US.

hear hear. as someone who suffers from exemption i was surprised the other day to see Congressman Vic Snyder from Arkansas on Colbert saying he had sponsored legislation similar to the Arnold Amendment because his ten year old cousin was adopted from Korea and he wanted her to be able to president some day. as someone with a similar situation it was heartening.

Sure, the higher population is the relevant statistic...so why not use the relevant phrase: 'most populous' rather than 'largest'?

Reality Man - the trade off is citizenship is not determined by ethnicity or religion or the citizenship of your parents.
Would you prefer the German system?

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

mirc

sadasdsaasdhduduaosdasd

seks shop