NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, while in the supermarket, I noticed a tabloid headline claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Of course, this claim is clearly bogus, but it provoked a thought - if that were somehow true, why should that disqualify him when the majority of US citizens just said that they want him to be our president?

My train of thought led to a new position I am taking: That there should be an amendment to the US Constitution abolishing all eligibility requirements for the Presidency. Yes, we can question the motives of one who was born elsewhere, or the judgement of someone under 35, but I think that these should not absolutely disqualify someone. The ultimate judge of the worthiness of an individual to be President is the American people.

why not just annex the world? its not like anyone can really stop you

The eligibility rules are more about ensuring Americans vote in someone reasonably decent, as opposed to Mickey Mouse, which they would given the name was on the ballot.

So over 35 (I should check that one), born in America, a real person, no criminal convictions (probably should check that one as well), it's really about eliminating as many options to vote in an idiot as possible, not that it's a fool-proof plan.

Mickey Mouse, which they would given the name was on the ballot.

fuck yeah who wouldn't!

no criminal convictions

I wonder why you never see people bitching about this one?

The ultimate judge of the worthiness of an individual to be President is the American people.

A vast majority of which I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.

if that were somehow true, why should that disqualify him when the majority of US citizens just said that they want him to be our president?

Why should it disqualify him? Because under the law(which still applies, no matter how messianic a candidate may appear)he'd be ineligible to run for office, much less hold it.

My train of thought led to a new position I am taking: That there should be an amendment to the US Constitution abolishing all eligibility requirements for the Presidency.

That's retarded. The Presidency has eligibility requirements for the same reason that any other job posting does. To ensure that you end up with a pool of reasonably qualified people to choose from and it weeds out the hopelessly inept and the complete fuckwits. (And having said that, spare us all the tired GWB jokes, please. They're not clever or ironic and we've all heard them a billion times.)

having said that, spare us all the tired GWB jokes, please. They're not clever or ironic and we've all heard them a billion times.

should I do my taft routine?

Take away the requirements and you're left with a system where all a crook needs to get elected is popularity.

I could possibly support a change if a rule was put in that they lived in the US for a set amount of time. Maybe 30+ continuous years?

should I do my taft routine?

I will admit that there have been Presidents where an argument can be made that they were hopelessly inept or complete fuckwits(Grant, Harding, Carter, Pierce spring to mind). I put that in there mostly to forestall the quoting of memorized routines from 'The Daily Show' or 'The Colbert Report' that weren't all that clever the first time.

Take away the requirements and you're left with a system where all a crook needs to get elected is popularity.

Jackson? Nixon?

In my opinion I think that some eligibility requirements should be removed; for instance I think they should only need to be a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

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.

See the bolded part? That means Obama could have been born in Kenya, or anywhere else in the world. Since he had an American parent he is an American citizen no matter where he was born at making him qualified. It does not state specifically anywhere that he has to be born IN the United States.

I will admit that there have been Presidents where an argument can be made that they were hopelessly inept or complete fuckwits(Grant, Harding, Carter, Pierce spring to mind).

Grant; I have to argue was not completely inept, or a fuckwit. He ended up presiding during a corrupt and unscrupulous period in American History and I think that given what he had to work with he did a good job. He only seems like a poor president because his two terms in office were marred by civil unrest, political scandals (of which he had no part), and 1 man monopolies on commodities.

Grant; I have to argue was not completely inept, or a fuckwit. He ended up presiding during a corrupt and unscrupulous period in American History and I think that given what he had to work with he did a good job. He only seems like a poor president because his two terms in office were marred by civil unrest, political scandals (of which he had no part), and 1 man monopolies on commodities.

Grant's biggest problem was that 'good general' does not automatically translate into 'good President.' It did with Washington, but I think Washington is, perhaps, quite possibly the examplar of 'cometh the time, cometh the man' so it's not really fair to judge Grant by that. While he himself was not, Grant's administration was notoriously corrupt, and it has to be admitted, a good portion of the people involved were appointed by him.

Since he had an American parent he is an American citizen no matter where he was born at making him qualified.

Wrong. To be an American citizen, you have to be born in America(incl. Alaska, Hawaii, P.R. and American Samoa), in an American embassy(embassy grounds are technically American soil, no matter what country you're actually in) or (and I'm little sketchy on this one) as a child of an American military personnel on an American military installation. That's it. If it's not one those three, you lose out on ever getting to be President.

Grant's biggest problem was that 'good general' does not automatically translate into 'good President.' It did with Washington, but I think Washington is, perhaps, quite possibly the examplar of 'cometh the time, cometh the man' so it's not really fair to judge Grant by that. While he himself was not, Grant's administration was notoriously corrupt, and it has to be admitted, a good portion of the people involved were appointed by him.

Appointed by him under pressure from other members of his political party and on the advice of 'experts'.

Appointed by him under pressure from other members of his political party and on the advice of 'experts'.

Still appointed by him though. The final decision was his. As foreign a concept as this has become in our society, a man does have to take responsibility for his own choices at some point. Truman may have been blind to Communists in the State Dept, but at least he knew where the buck stopped.

Wrong. To be an American citizen, you have to be born in America(incl. Alaska, Hawaii, P.R. and American Samoa), in an American embassy(embassy grounds are technically American soil, no matter what country you're actually in) or (and I'm little sketchy on this one) as a child of an American military personnel on an American military installation. That's it. If it's not one those three, you lose out on ever getting to be President.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example

No, I'm not wrong.

Still appointed by him though. The final decision was his. As foreign a concept as this has become in our society, a man does have to take responsibility for his own choices at some point. Truman may have been blind to Communists in the State Dept, but at least he knew where the buck stopped.

The final decision belongs to congress. They have to OK anyone the president names; its usually just a formality but there has been times where Congress exercises that power.

Why should it disqualify him? Because under the law(which still applies, no matter how messianic a candidate may appear)he'd be ineligible to run for office, much less hold it.



That's retarded. The Presidency has eligibility requirements for the same reason that any other job posting does. To ensure that you end up with a pool of reasonably qualified people to choose from and it weeds out the hopelessly inept and the complete fuckwits. (And having said that, spare us all the tired GWB jokes, please. They're not clever or ironic and we've all heard them a billion times.)

Point 1: Q:Why should non-natural born citizens be ineligile? A:Because its the law.
Come on... Try harder... an appeal to tradition isn't an argument.

Point 2: How does requiring applicants to be natural born citizens ensure competence?

The final decision belongs to congress. They have to OK anyone the president names; its usually just a formality but there has been times where Congress exercises that power.

While I stand corrected on the citizenship qualifications, there are appointments that the President makes that are his alone. Also, the office of the Presidency was generally more powerful and more respected in Grant's time than it is now. Grant's Congress would not have subjected his appointees to the (partisan-inspired)scrutiny they receive now, but would have been inclined to 'rubber-stamp' them and move along.

Point 1: Q:Why should non-natural born citizens be ineligile? A:Because its the law. Come on... Try harder... an appeal to tradition isn't an argument.

Really? I really have to answer these questions? You couldn't have sat and thought about them for oh, say half-a-second? Ok, fine. I'm not 'appealing to tradition.' I'm 'stating the law.' There's a difference. It's traditional to have turkey at Thanksgiving, but nobody is going to toss you into jail if you have lasagna instead. It's the law that you pay your taxes, and they will toss you into jail if you don't. There isn't a penalty for breaking a tradition, except maybe a little family spat. Whereas there is a (oft times serious) penalty for breaking the law.

How does requiring applicants to be natural born citizens ensure competence?

That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about 'natural born.' What I said was that the reason the Presidency, like any other job anywhere in the world, has basic qualifications, is to try and narrow the field of possible candidates so that you have a better chance of getting someone who is competent.

While I stand corrected on the citizenship qualifications, there are appointments that the President makes that are his alone. Also, the office of the Presidency was generally more powerful and more respected in Grant's time than it is now. Grant's Congress would not have subjected his appointees to the (partisan-inspired)scrutiny they receive now, but would have been inclined to 'rubber-stamp' them and move along.

You have a point there, but my point still stands that if someone had seen a problem with any of the members of his cabinet than they had the opportunity to remove them.

President Grant himself did a fine job in my opinion, it was the civil service system that was the big failure and marred his presidency.

Really? I really have to answer these questions? You couldn't have sat and thought about them for oh, say half-a-second? Ok, fine. I'm not 'appealing to tradition.' I'm 'stating the law.' There's a difference. It's traditional to have turkey at Thanksgiving, but nobody is going to toss you into jail if you have lasagna instead. It's the law that you pay your taxes, and they will toss you into jail if you don't. There isn't a penalty for breaking a tradition, except maybe a little family spat. Whereas there is a (oft times serious) penalty for breaking the law.

That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about 'natural born.' What I said was that the reason the Presidency, like any other job anywhere in the world, has basic qualifications, is to try and narrow the field of possible candidates so that you have a better chance of getting someone who is competent.

1. In a discussion on if a law is sensible or valid saying it is "because its the law" carrys little weight.

2. The job has restrictions. You claim these are to give a higher chance of getting a viable candidate. So what makes the restriction "a natural born citizen of the United States" give a pool of candidates which is on average more competent than another restriction (e.g. citizen of the United States with HSD) or no restriction at all?

It's not really a debate so much as an inevitability - the citizen-by-birth requirement will fall, because we all know that the Schwarzenegger-Presidency will come, like it or not.

The question is just, when? I give it anywhere between two and six years.

You have a point there, but my point still stands that if someone had seen a problem with any of the members of his cabinet than they had the opportunity to remove them. President Grant himself did a fine job in my opinion, it was the civil service system that was the big failure and marred his presidency.

You have a point as well, but the trouble with weaselly book-cooking bastards is that they don't immediately look like weaselly book-cooking bastards, if they did, politics in general would look more different(whether it would be more or less difficult to deal with, I can't say). I would also agree that entrenched bereaucrats have been the death of many a high-minded ideal, something the soon-to-be President might keep in mind.

In a discussion on if a law is sensible or valid saying it is "because its the law" carrys little weight.

The inital question(i.e 'the one I was responding to')was not about things being sensible or vaild, it was a straight request for information, see?
why should that disqualify him when the majority of US citizens just said that they want him to be our president?
The answer to the above question is...wait for it, kids...'Because it's the law'

The answer to the above question is...wait for it, kids...'Because it's the law'

He's got a point, Rule of Law. As dumb a law as it is, the Law Rules, and the only way to get ride of a dumb law is to fix it.

The inital question(i.e 'the one I was responding to')was not about things being sensible or vaild, it was a straight request for information, see?

The answer to the above question is...wait for it, kids...'Because it's the law'

No it isn't. Your answer would go with the question "why IS he...". The question was "why SHOULD he". That is clearly asking for the reasoning rather than just the facts/

No it isn't. Your answer would go with the question "why IS he...". The question was "why SHOULD he". That is clearly asking for the reasoning rather than just the facts/

Semantics. It's a hypothetical question. You can just as easily substitute 'would' for 'should' in that sentence. And that's all the nit-picky grammar nazi questions we are entertaining this morning.

Semantics.
Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. Which sort of matters.


It's a hypothetical question. You can just as easily substitute 'would' for 'should' in that sentence. And that's all the nit-picky grammar nazi questions we are entertaining this morning.
No you couldn't. That would change the meaning. 'would' is asking for what is stopping him, 'should' is asking for the reasoning and justification.

There's been arguments made, not very good ones, but they're there, that the eligibility requirements for President are already void under the 14th amendment.

Some make sense. Like the lack of criminal record.

The Born in the USA requirement, not so much.

If someone immigrated to the USA at a very young age (younger than two, let's say), there is no real difference in his or her upbringing from that of a second generation immigrant, who would be legally qualified.

Some make sense. Like the lack of criminal record.

The Born in the USA requirement, not so much.

If someone immigrated to the USA at a very young age (younger than two, let's say), there is no real difference in his or her upbringing from that of a second generation immigrant, who would be legally qualified.

There is no requirement that states you need not have a criminal record.

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.

Must be a natural born citizen.
Must be 35 or older.
Must have lived in the USA for the past 14 years.

I think that any citizen should be eligible to run for presidency as long as they currently live in the US at the time of the election. The only one I really see anything resembling a good reason for is the age limit.

There is no requirement that states you need not have a criminal record.

Must be a natural born citizen.
Must be 35 or older.
Must have lived in the USA for the past 14 years.

I think that any citizen should be eligible to run for presidency as long as they currently live in the US at the time of the election. The only one I really see anything resembling a good reason for is the age limit.

Oops.

I see some logic to the last one as well. No one understands local problems like a local.

Oops.

Common mistake even among Americans.


I see some logic to the last one as well. No one understands local problems like a local.

Ok, but the natural born makes no sense.

Point 2: How does requiring applicants to be natural born citizens ensure competence?


It has nothing to do with competence and even less to do with just being the law. The Framers of Constitution didn't do things just for shits and grins, there was a reason. The reason for the citizenship requirement is that you don't want someone that potentially is more loyal to another country running this one. Its a bad plan.

it will never happen want to know why ?

Democrats are afraid that the republicans would run Arnold Schwarzenegger for president.

The reason behind the "Natural-born citizens" clause is glaringly obvious: If someone is born in another country, the people of the USA will not have his undivided loyalty. Should there be a conflict between the nations, the president would have a conflict of interest. Also, the president would also be suspected of acting as an agent of a foreign power, possibly to the detriment of the USA, such as instigating wars on behalf of his home country.

Some make sense. Like the lack of criminal record.

The Born in the USA requirement, not so much.

If someone immigrated to the USA at a very young age (younger than two, let's say), there is no real difference in his or her upbringing from that of a second generation immigrant, who would be legally qualified.

I agree. I'm fully in favor of allowing immigrants to run for President, though I would place a caveat, saying they had to be citizens of the United States for, say, at least fourteen years before they could apply. Which ought to be no problem at all for the vast majority of possible immigrant candidates.

Sure, we run the risk of President Terminator, but I can accept that.

If someone is born in another country, the people of the USA will not have his undivided loyalty.

Frankly, I am just as, if not more willing to believe in the loyalty of someone who willingly, of his own volition, swore an oath to be loyal to this nation over someone who by happenstance just so happened to have been born here.

The reason behind the "Natural-born citizens" clause is glaringly obvious: If someone is born in another country, the people of the USA will not have his undivided loyalty. Should there be a conflict between the nations, the president would have a conflict of interest. Also, the president would also be suspected of acting as an agent of a foreign power, possibly to the detriment of the USA, such as instigating wars on behalf of his home country.

All of which would be vetted out in the process of picking a candidate to begin with. Given the thoroughness with which a candidate is vetted, and given the media frenzy that would erupt over any of these possibilities, and I'll bet you that you're not going to end up with someone who's an agent of a foreign power as our President.

I mean, sure, we could--long odds, but still potentially possible--, but we run all sorts of weird risks like this with our system of government as it is, that I don't think it's something we truly need to worry about. Not anymore, at any rate. In the past it made more sense because it was a lot harder to really vet someone, especially way back when the country first got off the ground.

But nowadays, it's not a problem.

Take away the requirements and you're left with a system where all a crook needs to get elected is popularity.

You mean like Obama?

Wrong. To be an American citizen, you have to be born in America(incl. Alaska, Hawaii, P.R. and American Samoa), in an American embassy(embassy grounds are technically American soil, no matter what country you're actually in) or (and I'm little sketchy on this one) as a child of an American military personnel on an American military installation. That's it. If it's not one those three, you lose out on ever getting to be President.

You're wrong.

Well, everything you mention qualifies one for being a natural-born citizen, but you're wrong when you claim that simply having parents who are American citizens does not qualify one as a natural-born citizen. It most certainly does.

You mean like Obama?

Excuse me?

He's an advocate of slavery and murder of the human spirit.

Not only that, but in his legislative past he has actually engaged in slavery and murder of the human spirit.

That's pretty damn criminal.

He's an advocate of slavery and murder of the human spirit.

Not only that, but in his legislative past he has actually engaged in slavery and murder of the human spirit.

That's pretty damn criminal.
I fail to understand what you mean. Please clarify and provide evidence.

Frankly, I am just as, if not more willing to believe in the loyalty of someone who willingly, of his own volition, swore an oath to be loyal to this nation over someone who by happenstance just so happened to have been born here.

I'm not, I don't think an oath means much, and you take something similar when you take the oath of office. A common culture, patriotism and roots in a country seem much more binding. (not to say I don't think a foreigner could do a good job, but those that would be motivated enough to try may not have the best intentions, which is where the requirement comes from, I think.)

Recently, while in the supermarket, I noticed a tabloid headline claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Of course, this claim is clearly bogus, but it provoked a thought - if that were somehow true, why should that disqualify him when the majority of US citizens just said that they want him to be our president?

My train of thought led to a new position I am taking: That there should be an amendment to the US Constitution abolishing all eligibility requirements for the Presidency. Yes, we can question the motives of one who was born elsewhere, or the judgement of someone under 35, but I think that these should not absolutely disqualify someone. The ultimate judge of the worthiness of an individual to be President is the American people.

This is a message to whichever tabloid said that:

Do you know where Honolulu is in?

This is a message to whichever tabloid said that:

Do you know where Honolulu is in?

I'm pretty sure this is one of those non-reality-based tabloids.

I'm pretty sure this is one of those non-reality-based tabloids.

O.K.

P.S. It's in Hawaii (U.S State), dumbos!

I'm pretty sure this is one of those non-reality-based tabloids.

What...like the New York Times?

A vast majority of which I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.

And given our soaring obesity rates, I doubt they would even leave the ground.

why not just annex the world? its not like anyone can really stop you

China?

well, the question wouldnt be whether Obama would be able to govern properly...

But say, Candidate A was Mongolian...We elected him, now he uses the US Army to invade China and annex it to Mongolia...

Incredibly Unlikely, yes...But the possibility would still be there...

I fail to understand what you mean. Please clarify and provide evidence.

presumably, taxes

But say, Candidate A was Mongolian...We elected him, now he uses the US Army to invade China and annex it to Mongolia...

Incredibly Unlikely, yes...But the possibility would still be there...

doesn't this possibility exist currently?

What...like the New York Times?

I dont trust NYT anymore, any supposed news outlet that outright endorses any candidate rather than at least supposedly being Objective...Is undeserving of being a News Outlet any longer...

O.K.

P.S. It's in Hawaii (U.S State), dumbos!

Lol, you fail at understanding jokes.

doesn't this possibility exist currently?

Yes, but its much less likely...If Candidate A was US born, he'd be far more likely to annex it to the US rather than Mongolia, lol...

I dont trust NYT anymore, any supposed news outlet that outright endorses any candidate rather than at least supposedly being Objective...Is undeserving of being a News Outlet any longer...

I never did. I don't really trust any news source, which is why I generally read four or five newspapers and put them together. Then you can generally get an idea of what's going on.

You know, we have 300 million americans. If even only 1% of them match the current criteria, that's still 3 million people. Do you REALLY think that NONE of the 3 million will do a good job?

Yes, but its much less likely

is it really? on what basis do you think so?

You know, we have 300 million americans. If even only 1% of them match the current criteria, that's still 3 million people. Do you REALLY think that NONE of the 3 million will do a good job?

how is that even vaguely relevant?

is it really? on what basis do you think so?

Because If the Candidate had no ties to Mongolia, why would he wish to give China to it?

Because If the Candidate had no ties to Mongolia, why would he wish to give China to it?

why would anyone who could actually get themselves elected? are you assuming some sort of genetic loyalty?

why would anyone who could actually get themselves elected? are you assuming some sort of genetic loyalty?

Anyone who gets elected has the possibility to do anything...

But, Someone who is born in another country will possibly have loyalties to it, even if they disagree with what theyre doing...I dont agree with alot of the things MS does...But, being that its where I was born, I would be hesitant to move against it...

Which isnt really a problem, since im not elected to anything that could possibly need to, but, when you are the Head of Government for an entire nation, it presents a possible problem....

Im not saying they would automatically have a loyalty to it, or that the possibility doesnt already exist, just that the probability of it happening increases if you abolish the requirements....And Im not even saying that its proven, cause it isnt, I would imagine that its impossible to prove or disprove the possibility, but, the event would be much less likely, however, if we dont allow it to happen...

The 35 or older requirement I think is a bit stupid and should be the first one to be abolished if they are going to change requirements.

The 35 or older requirement I think is a bit stupid and should be the first one to be abolished if they are going to change requirements.

Yeah - isn't the average lifespan a bit longer than in the 1700's? Make it a minimum age of 50 :p

Yeah - isn't the average lifespan a bit longer than in the 1700's? Make it a minimum age of 50 :p

lol I was actually talking about getting rid of it.

lol I was actually talking about getting rid of it.

The :p should have indicated I was aware of your intent :p

I have no problem with a minimum age set at 35.