Foreigners’ presidential eligibility

[Nereid]

I just remembered (OK, I'm slow today), didn't Sonia come very close to being the Indian PM? If a country as much not of immigrants as India can (almost) have a foreign-born woman as PM, how shameful is it that the US, a country of immigrants, bars all but natives from the post of President? (At least women can become President, right?)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since an amendment is a change in the Constitution, of what relevance is the intent of the framers?

Are you kidding? This above all must be considered first. Next, why do you think we haven't allowed the Constitution to be re-written? "By whom" is always the problem.

Even as someone who has been called a nationalist on this board, I disagree with your position, Ivan. Arnold has been a citizen (not just a resident) for 20 years. I see no cause to doubt his loyalty to the US Constitution.

And though xenophobia is as American as apple pie, the US is now and always has been an "immigrant nation."

xenophobia
noun: an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers

This has nothing to do with the argument. In fact it is very naive to discredit genuine concerns about our national interests as a phobia. Also, that this has always been an immigrant nation is exactly the point. It has also always had a president born of this nation since the founders. Your argument only makes my point. Why should we change now; for Arnold?

As for Arnold's loyalties; it doesn't matter. The impact is much broader. The obscenity is that this would be done for Arnold - one man.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This was for the most part a "no hunting, fishing, or trespassing" sign posted for the European royal families --- fairly prescient considering Mexico, the French, and Maximillian forty (fifty?) years later.

So it was designed to protect us from threats from foreign governments.

Post WW I, it's pretty much obsolete.

Really! I didn't know that all threats from foreign nations ended after WWI. I didn't realize that control of the our military and our nuclear weapons, and the hearts of the American people were of such little interest to anyone.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I notice that on one responded to the spy link and my specific example of foreign operatives. I'd bet that you want to argue that this level of conspiracy is absurd, but we already know better, don't we.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So why is this particular two-class citizenship any less arbitrary than any other?

Because this directly affects national security at the deepest level.

If the US were just a country of 2 million, in some out-of-the-way place, with no nukes, etc none of this would matter very much (except to those in the US). However, as the only superpower, the US' domestic politics casts a huge shadow over all of us.

You seem to think this is some kind of buffet. We are a nation, not a fruit stand. We have a right to protect our interests.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Consider also that Bush has just proven that as President he was capable of starting a war with virtually no oversight. He stated that he would attack Iraq with or without the consent of Congress; and he had the power to do so with the approval of what, six other people or so?

 

[Gokul43201]

I just remembered (OK, I'm slow today), didn't Sonia come very close to being the Indian PM?

True. However, the right-wing opposition (in India) did make her foreign origin the thrust of their attack. The country was quite divided on the issue even though she'd been an Indian for over twenty years and almost single-handedly revamped the (left-wing) Congress Party as it's leader since 1997. About half the country was okay with her 'origins' and her party did win the elections but she decided to drop out, and ceded her position to a safer candidate.

And just for the stats, the Congress Party (roughly, the equivalent of the Democratic Party) has had eight leaders of foreign origin, three of them women.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

how shameful is it that the US, a country of immigrants, bars all but natives from the post of President? (At least women can become President, right?)

I think we have more to be proud of. That we are a nation of immigrants only proves the point. Your objection is a bit of a diachotomy, don't you think?

I am German, English, Polish, two kinds of native American - Blackfoot and Sioux- Finnish, Swedish, and something else that I forget.

Oh yes, and Swiss.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Article I; Section 2.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article I; Section 3,
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

So all of Congress may be naturalized citizens but not the executive branch. Should we just assume this is done by accident? Of course not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the two term limit - The Twenty Second Amendment - the decision was not so frivolous as was suggested.

The Two-Term Tradition
From early 19th century through Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 decision to run for an unprecedented third term, American Presidents considered themselves bound by a tradition that they should serve no more than two terms. Although Washington is credited with establishing this tradition, his 1796 Farewell Address made no mention of any such constitutional precedent: “... every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. ”3 According to modern scholars, the two-term tradition is more properly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who expressed concern about “perpetual reeligibility” in the presidency as early as 1788.4 Petitioned to run for a third term in 1807, Jefferson declined, stating his belief that, “If some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life ... I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor [Washington], should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office.”5

The two-term limit quickly acquired the force of tradition. Three of Jefferson’s four immediate successors, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson, stepped down at the close of their second terms, while the fourth, John Quincy Adams, was defeated for reelection. In fact, historian Michael Nelson notes that, during the second quarter of the 19th century, the Whig Party (and many Democrats) supported a one-term limit, and suggests that this proposal may have influenced presidential tenure for a quarter century following Jackson’s retirement in 1837, during which period no President served more than a single term.6 Abraham Lincoln was the first President since Jackson to be elected to a second term (in 1864). In the 68 years between the death of Lincoln in 1865, and the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, only Ulysses Grant and Woodrow Wilson served two consecutive terms, while Grover Cleveland was defeated for reelection
in 1888, but was reelected to a second, non-consecutive, term in 1892. During this long period, only Grant explored the possibility of a third term, in 1880, while Theodore Roosevelt declined to run in 1908, notwithstanding his considerable popularity.7

The two-term mold was broken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940. Following his 1936 reelection, it was widely assumed that Roosevelt would step down at the end of his second term. In 1939, however, the political landscape was transformed by the outbreak of World War II. As the conflict erupted into a world crisis in the spring and summer of 1940, Roosevelt, after a long silence on the subject, let it be known that he would accept the Democratic Party nomination for a third term, if it were offered. The party obliged with considerable enthusiasm, and the President was reelected for a third term that November. With the United States deeply involved in the war by 1944, the injunction not to “change horses in the middle of the stream” seemed even more compelling, and Roosevelt, although in failing health, was elected a fourth time. [continued]

http://lugar.senate.gov/CRS%20reports/Presidential_and_Vice_Presidential_Terms_and_Tenure.pdf

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the requirement to be President, here is an excerpt from the Theory of the Presidential Office. This comes from a large pdf so there is plenty of good reading.

The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out
in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is
whether a child born abroad of American parents is ‘‘a natural born
citizen’’ in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a
consequence of statute. 94 Whatever the term ‘‘natural born’’ means,
it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘‘naturalized.’’

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con005.pdf

 

[Nereid]

Because this directly affects national security at the deepest level.

Hmm, remind me again how many senior members of former communist (and former USSR) nations are (or were) US citizens (not even born, or lived in the countries they now lead)?

 

[Nereid]

True. However, the right-wing opposition (in India) did make her foreign origin the thrust of their attack. The country was quite divided on the issue even though she'd been an Indian for over twenty years and almost single-handedly revamped the (left-wing) Congress Party as it's leader since 1997. About half the country was okay with her 'origins' and her party did win the elections but she decided to drop out, and ceded her position to a safer candidate.

And just for the stats, the Congress Party (roughly, the equivalent of the Democratic Party) has had eight leaders of foreign origin, three of them women.

The striking thing about India is that it isn't even remotely like the US in terms of the recent immigrant heritage of its population, yet came so close to having a foreign-born head of state! In contrast, the large nation which is so proud of, and so vocal about, its immigrant heritage has given the whole idea short shrift (but is perfectly happy to see US citizens as heads of state of foreign nations). No one finds this ... odd?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hmm, remind me again how many senior members of former communist (and former USSR) nations are (or were) US citizens (not even born, or lived in the countries they now lead)?

How does this apply to the discussion?

 

[Smurf]

I notice that on one responded to the spy link and my specific example of foreign operatives. I'd bet that you want to argue that this level of conspiracy is absurd, but we already know better, don't we.

If you research some Espionage Efforts during the cold war I believe you will find that the US was infiltrated a number of times by US-Born citizens working for the USSR. Its much easier to find someone already in a nation to do your work for you than it is to Plant a familly there and wait 20 Years before they can do anything. The risk is already there, This won't extend it, remember its ****ing President we're talking about here, if something of this magnitude gets by the CIA you guys are screwed anyways.

Consider also that Bush has just proven that as President he was capable of starting a war with virtually no oversight. He stated that he would attack Iraq with or without the consent of Congress; and he had the power to do so with the approval of what, six other people or so?

Which is why I don't understand your Xenophobia. Bush ****ed up, so why can't you give a (much smarter) Foreigner a chance eh?

 

[russ_watters]

I think we have more to be proud of. That we are a nation of immigrants only proves the point. Your objection is a bit of a diachotomy, don't you think?

I don't understand. Are you saying that because we are a nation of immigrants, we shouldn't let immigrants into government? I guess I don't understand, but at face value, it sounds self-contradictory.

Are you kidding? This above all must be considered first. Next, why do you think we haven't allowed the Constitution to be re-written? "By whom" is always the problem.

But WHY? What would the framers say about women's suffrage? slavery? The 14th amendment (I think - the one about states' rights?)? Income taxes? These were major, major changes to the structure of the constitution. If the intent of the framers is what matters, why do we even have the ability to amend the constitution? We have "allowed the Constitution to be re-written" - it was designed with that specifically in mind!

The framers knew they weren't perfect. They knew times change. They knew that their intent may become obsolete.

Consider also that Bush has just proven that as President he was capable of starting a war with virtually no oversight. He stated that he would attack Iraq with or without the consent of Congress; and he had the power to do so with the approval of what, six other people or so?

And he was born here. So clearly, whether or not someone was born here isn't relevant to this example.

xenophobia
noun: an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers

This has nothing to do with the argument. In fact it is very naive to discredit genuine concerns about our national interests as a phobia.

Ok, so its a fear, but its not irrational? Well, since I consider my opinion rational (further, I consider fear, in general, to be an irrational emotion)...

Ivan, your strength of conviction on this issue makes me think you're motivated more by emotion. Its not even that I disagree with your arguments - they just plain don't make sense to me. That's just my perception.

I see this issue as very similar to the controversy over JFK's candidacy. People worried that because he was Catholic he'd have a split-loyalty. He'd base some decisions on what the Vatican wanted him to do. The same question of split-loyalty haunted Lieberman. Never mind that religious beliefs (or any other beliefs) effect everyone's decisions - Bush, for example, may be the most religiously motivated president we've ever had.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't understand. Are you saying that because we are a nation of immigrants, we shouldn't let immigrants into government?

Why don't you show me how you come to that conclusion?

I guess I don't understand, but at face value, it sounds self-contradictory. But WHY? What would the framers say about women's suffrage? slavery? The 14th amendment (I think - the one about states' rights?)? Income taxes? These were major, major changes to the structure of the constitution. If the intent of the framers is what matters, why do we even have the ability to amend the constitution? We have "allowed the Constitution to be re-written" - it was designed with that specifically in mind!

The framers knew they weren't perfect. They knew times change. They knew that their intent may become obsolete.

It was never intended to be frivolous. Why is this just now an issue?. You keep evading the point.

And he was born here. So clearly, whether or not someone was born here isn't relevant to this example.

It speaks directly to the issue of whose interest a person may really represent. So it is completely applicable. Clearly this sole requirement for the executive branch had a purpose.

Ok, so its a fear, but its not irrational? Well, since I consider my opinion rational (further, I consider fear, in general, to be an irrational emotion)...

Ivan, your strength of conviction on this issue makes me think you're motivated more by emotion. Its not even that I disagree with your arguments - they just plain don't make sense to me. That's just my perception.

That you would argue against it without even bothering to learn what that pupose may be shows me that your are driven by an irrational dedication to partisanship. I think this drives your strength of conviction. Mine comes from the fact that when it comes to toying with the Constituion, only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

I see this issue as very similar to the controversy over JFK's candidacy. People worried that because he was Catholic he'd have a split-loyalty. He'd base some decisions on what the Vatican wanted him to do. The same question of split-loyalty haunted Lieberman. Never mind that religious beliefs (or any other beliefs) effect everyone's decisions - Bush, for example, may be the most religiously motivated president we've ever had.

With the notable exception that Catholics are allowed to hold office.

 

[Smurf]

Wow that last post reminded me of Bush's speech.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since the Constitution also defines that naturalized citizens are allowed to hold seats in the Senate and the House, I would argue against changing these with equal vigor. So you can quit trying to make this a hate issue.

Since you are all really sincere that this is about equal rights, and not Arnold, I'm sure that at least you would agree that if an amendment was made, it should not take effect for at least twenty years. This would insure that no impropriety is involved.

If after due consideration to the original constitutional arguments for and against this limit, and after consideration of the entirety of potential and certain consequences of such an amendment - that naturalized citizens are eligible to run for President - then I would support this if no clear dangers could be shown. Anyone who requires less is certainly naive at best.

Smurf, good name. It works.

 

[Smurf]

This is about Equal Rights, but I don't see why you should exlude Arnold, I was having a nice dream earlier about Arnold doing the presidential Debates with Kerry. It was hilarious.

no really, why do you want to exclude Arnold?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't want to exclude Arnold specifically. He might make a great President. I said early on that I like some of what I hear from California. My objection is that these guys want to change the Constitution because they see a superstar in Arnold. This is not only dangerous, it is flat out un-american. The Constitution must stand above partisan issues. Is is the most important document that we have.

Again, as soldiers, people like Russ swore to defend the Constitution with their life. That's how important it is. They don't defend the President, or Congress, or the lives of Supreme court judges, they swear to defend the Constitution. Think about it. Is this something to be taken lightly; subject to the whims of partisanship. This is a complete disgrace. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in defense of this document. We had a civil war over this document.

 

[russ_watters]

Since you are all really sincere that this is about equal rights, and not Arnold, I'm sure that at least you would agree that if an amendment was made, it should not take effect for at least twenty years. This would insure that no impropriety is involved.

Certainly. If your basic objection is that this would be an issue made for one man, I'll agree that amending the Constitution to benefit one person is a bad thing. I thought you had a more fundamental objection to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then it seems that we agree. How about that!

I certainly have no problem with a serious review of the law. However, if this is allowed to apply to Arnold, or anyone even potentially of interest to the political world, no matter how great he or she may be, we could never trust that a wise, informed, and unbiased decision is made re the constitutional amendment. No candidate is worth that risk. The twenty years was plucked from thin air but it seemed like a reasonable number.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I couldn't find a link yet but today I saw this touted as "Arnold's Law". Anyway, here is an interesting quote, I thought.

Support for amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to serve as president came Thursday from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco..."I think the 35-year provision probably makes more sense, that somebody is raised in our country or has lived here long enough to have an appreciation for the culture and the beautiful diversity of our country to serve as our president,'' she added.

Opposition came from Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who was born in Budapest, Hungary, arrived in this country in 1947 and became a citizen in 1952. "I am irrevocably opposed. Our Constitution should only be amended for the most pressing and substantive reasons. There are 250 million native-born Americans, and there ought to be enough talent among them to find someone to serve as president.

"But if there is a restoration of the Austro-Hungarian empire, I am ready to consider a joint candidacy with Arnold, provided I am on top of the ticket. '' [continued]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/01/MNGP0927TG1.DTL