Article II of the United States Constitution states, in part the following.....



For purposes of debate the following amendment is proposed......

"This amendment eliminates the Article II requirement in the United States Constitution that a person be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States and replaces it with the following:
Any citizen who has attained the age of thirty five years and and has been a citizen of the United States for a period of at least twenty years and been a resident for fourteen of those years within the United States shall be eligible to hold the office of President."

Simple question for debate......

Do you vote YAY or NAY on this proposal?

Nay

I am against repealing Article II.

My reasons are pretty well outlined in this article:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2062

"The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak Presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of Presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable is the President's power as Commander in Chief. Can that power be safely entrusted to a foreign-born citizen?"

"The imperial disease is, in part, an affliction of gigantism: as the American Empire spreads over the Middle East and asserts its hegemony on every continent, it's only natural for lobbyists the world over to focus their efforts on the seat of power. Their machinations are a huge enough problem already: the passage of the Hatch Amendment would mark their final triumph."

Besides that I am not an advocate of messing around with the Constitution in general. Why fix something that is not broken? To appease an Austrian who has quite a bit more than his share of ambition? Im suprised at Senator Orrin Hatch as a pretty extreme conservative and cant figure out his motivations.
I am suspicious lately of this trend to modify the Constitution to sudden whims and fads andI dont like this at all. I think there are some strong idealogues out there who would really like to turn the tide of what really IS the Fabric of the Nation for their own interests. I believe we need to be extremely vigilant right now as this ideology seems to lean towards 'government by the government, for the government'.

I find this to be a ridiculous inclusion and I would definitely vote "Yay" for this. Imagine if someone were born in Canada and then moved to the United States when they were, say, five. Can you honestly say that person should never be allowed to run for our Presidency? It's ridiculous and absurd. Exactly what constitutes a natural born citizen anyway? What if two United States citizens go to South Africa for a while, have a child there, and come back? Is the child considered a natural born citizen?

I believe the answer is that the child qualifies for dual citizenship -- US through parents and SA through birth location. Don't quote me there, but I'm pretty sure that's the rules.

As for the topic, I vote "NAY". I think that someone needs to be a citizen born of citizens or a citizen born here in order to run the entire executive branch. I know there are some very qualified citizens who have recently become citizens, but I think that the qualifications to be President need to be high. Same with the age requirement (35); you need time to become "one of us" enough to be President.

Perhaps there's the out: you have to be a citizen for 35 years to qualify.

Fargo, please read the article I linked. You use the example of a Canadian, IMO least worst case scenario. Suppose the worst case scenario and you might see the detriment. As we are ever so increasingly globalized, there are very good reasons to believe that an out of country faction could spend enough monies to have a foreign born, foreign sympathetic president elected and 'in pocket'. We have enough problems with special interests in government as it is, right here as Americans.

The second problem is amending the Constutution, not really an added amendment but a major change to the original body of intent. Article II. I dont know that this has ever been done before, (Im slight on time this evening) but...

Something so important that it was only second in importance in the original document. I respect this reasoning, so far. I have had little reason to question the wisdom of the Founders in the past, they seem to have thought of almost everything in detail and although the Consitution is a living document and we have granted rights not previously granted, I see no imperative to change this proviso.

There are many reasons to protect ourselves from foreign influence, especially upon what is now considered the highest seat of power in the world. I am not necessarily saying that American politicians are the smartest or most suited, in fact I would be the first to doubt that we are capable of running the world considering our sometimes war-first ideology and scant history, however, this is America, and we are a superpower. I would not allow foreign born citizens to be head of the country, which is Commander in Chief of the military and with that comes the ultimate power to go to war. As it is, the Executive is the most likely to try to lead us into war, that was written about in depth by the Founders, hence the whole checks and balances concept. Yet Congress gave up their powers post 911 and we have had much corruption of government since.

As Americans we are also easily swayed by popularity contests, the media and Hollywood. Strangely I can see Arnold becomming President on little more than his movie image. Somehow the Founders also knew we could be that easily influenced, mostly because they used that influence themselves for their ultimate objectives, they fully used this in the media in the supposed massacre of rebels by the Brits that escalated the revolutionary war.
They had good reasons for writing Article II.
It just makes sense. Remove it and years down the line we shall regret.
As critical as I can be of american politicians, my suspicion of government, of our lack of world knowledge, our war-like tendencies, of our throw away, fast food, ridiculous, superficial and material culture, I am attached firmly to our ideals of freedom and self determination. I dont want that in foreign hands. Its really ours to work with. Bush is the most idiotic leader I have seen in my time, but he's dedicated to 'some' American ideals. I may be wrong, that a foreigner could lead us better, but I think we should be led by an American born citizen.

"McDonald reminds us that the "no person except a natural-born citizen" proviso was not even debated:

"That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice, nor did anyone speak in its support. Its meaning and rationale went without saying."

Just a point of clarification here. I did not pose this subject for debate with the specific idea that it would allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to become President of the United States. Had it been my intention to propose that, I would have included that in the question for consideration. I have made no secret of the fact that I strongly supported Arnold's election as Governor of California and that I think he has done a terrific job in that capacity thus far. However, I would hope that my political views on that subject do not detract from the broader consideration of this subject on it's own merits.

Edited to add more....

Lest people here look for a partisan purpose behind this proposal, I would point out that such a provision was introduced in Congress back on 3Sept2003, before Arnold's election as governor, in the House of Representatives by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and co-sponsored by Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Ca). You can read the text of the remarks made by Congressman Conyers on the floor of the House for this bill here. The bill itself is H.J. Res 67, and can be read here.

Personally, I like my proposed amendment language better.

I would vote yay. I was born on foreign soil to two US citizens. Though being the child of citizens means I was a citizen from birth, my understanding is that this section has been interpreted to mean a candidate must be actually born on US soil, which means I could never run for president (not that I would ever want to!). Someone's place of birth says nothing about what kind of citizen or leader they may be. I would say that as long as they fit the criteria in Aquilla's eloquently worded amendment, they should be able to seek any office in the nation.

No matter which side of the aisle proposed it I would vote NAY for the exact same reasons as Artemise wrote about. The only thing that I would clarify if any would be what Quark talked about being born to 2 US citizens but born on foreign soil, that I would suggest should be changed.

To if the foreign born to 2 US citizens has attained the age of thirty five years and and has been a citizen of the United States for a period of at least twenty years and been a resident for fourteen of those years within the United States shall be eligible to hold the office of President.

Aquilla, I had no idea of your leanings towards (damn, I have a mind block to have to spell it out) Schwarzenegger, when I posted . I do realize that this is why we are suddenly having to deal with a re-consideration of Article II.
I must admit, as I know you to be a strict and hard core old time Republican and a relative Constitutionalist I am suprised by this support for a repeal. Can you tell me from where this idea comes? From what is apparent Schwarzenegger is not truly Republican in his policy, you are not liberal in yours.
Why amend in your point of view?

One of the factors which may well have influenced Article II in the first place was that there were two distinct factions among our founders, the pro-British federalists and the pro-French republicans (a divide which is still recognizable in the 21st century - though the nomenclature has changed somewhat). Both factions feared that a naturalized citizen from the opposition might aspire to the presidency creating an even stronger bias than already existed among the citizens. I think the same fear holds true today.

That said, I'm a bit torn about some aspects of Article II. I think quarkie makes a very good point about children of citizens born on foreign soil, for example.

Should a change in Article II ever be contemplated to allow naturalized citizens to run for the highest office in the country, I think it should be absolutely prerequisite that it not be retroactive: i.e., that the change would only apply to citizens who become naturalized after the amendment is ratified. In addition to making sense from a legislative point of view, it would also quell the argument that such a proposal is being considered solely for the sake of certain Austrian-born ex-body-builders and is an entirely altruistic consideration for the sake of posterity.

I'm not so sure that I do support this amendment to be honest. I proposed it here in the hopes that it would start a good discussion on both sides of the issue. I could be convinced at this point for either a YAY or NAY.

However, your question is a fair question and if anything I'm leaning towards supporting an amendment like this based on life experiences and for many of the same reasons I supported President Bush's immigration proposal. I have a great deal of respect for people who choose to come to this country and choose to become Americans. "Natural born" Americans are Americans by an accident of birth and we're lucky that way, but immigrants are here because they really want to be here. In many cases it was a difficult process for them, they and their families made great sacrifices to become "an American", something I think many of us tend to take for granted from time to time. It has been my experience knowing a large number of immigrants that they are devoutly loyal to their country of choice and extremely proud to be "an American". They love this country, they really love this country. They go off to war for us, they send their sons and daughters and they fight for us and unfortunately, sometimes they die for us. They do the same things that "real Americans" do because they are themselves, 'real Americans'. I honestly don't see any difference. I can see no reason why they shouldn't be eligible for the office of President.

I support the proposition of an amendment including foreign-born individuals to seek the presidency. If you are concerned about foreign governments "buying" a president (previous post), it is just as easy to smuggle a couple into America and force their child to fill the role of President. At the same token, an American born citizen is just as likey to capitulate his patriotism to greed as any other person.

If you say it is a poor amendment because of Arnold and his movie star image, it would be just as easy for someone like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt to run. This, in my view, is not an adequate argument. I remember an actor turned politician who eventually won the presidency (ironically, he was the governor of California as well...).

The idea of democracy is what leads me to my position. When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, foreign born citizens were allowed to be President. Since the nation was young and unstable, I feel that the lack of any catastrophe during that era proves foreigners can fulfill the nation's top position. Since citizens vote for who their leader is, it is their choice to elect the president; he/she could be from New York or Nigeria, as long as the citizens legitimize the election, the office should be open to everyone regardless of national origin.

Shouldn't you be less worried about where the notional puppet president was born, and more worried about the fact that you take it as a given that if a candidate has enough financial backing, they can buy the presidency?

Doesn't an amendment limiting or equalizing election budgets so candidates get elected based on their policies, rather than how intrusive they can make their advertising campaigns, make more sense than this one?

It's very interesting to me that there is a wide range of opinions on this issue, and that the viewpoints do not reflect the usual liberal/conservative dichotomy. I tend to agree with Aquilla. I have a lot of respect for immigrants to the United States, and I see no reason why a naturalized citizen is not as qualified for the highest office in the land as one born on American soil. The concern that such a President would tend to favor the interests of the nation in which she or he was born seems a very minimal issue to me. It reminds me, a bit, of concerns that JFK would be loyal to the Vatican over the United States. In fact, I'd like to see a President with the notion that the interests of other nations are as worthy of consideration as those of the USA.

I don't see the difference between a person born to two Americans on foreign soil and a citizen of another nation in terms of loyalty. If they both grew up in Germany, for example, wouldn't they have similar influence from Germany?

I don't see a problem with a foreign born president, so long as the individual has been a citizen of our country for a period of time (say 35 years, the same as the age requirement for a natural born citizen). If they were running for the office, I'm quite sure their background and loyalties would be scrutinized extensively by whoever was running against them, just like happens now with natural born citizens.

I do not think a foreigner should be allowed to run for the higest office in the land. Look, this is AMERICA. This is my country and I wouldn't want an English, Chinese, Japanese, German, French, Russian, Canadian, et al. running this country. True, I think that any one of them could do a better job than our current one, but what does a Frenchmen or Canadian know about Americans as a people that another American doesn't know more about.

It's more than an issue of national pride, it's an issue of merit. A foreign born citizen is more likely to place his/her home country's issues ahead of ours. It just isn't right.

You can not be a foreigner and a citizen in the same country. Naturalized Citizens are not foreigners.

Websters:
\Cit"i*zen\, n. [OE. citisein, OF. citeain, F. citoyen,
fr. cit['e] city. See {City}, and cf. {Cit}.]
1. One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a
freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or
one not entitled to its franchises.

2. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. --Shak.

3. A person, native or naturalized, of either sex, who owes
allegiance to a government, and is entitled to reciprocal
protection from it.


I vote yea. All citizens should be treated equally under our laws - no exceptions.

Many opponents claim that this could lead to a President with ulterior motives based on his/her country of origin. While this is possible, I believe that our electoral system (while clearly flawed in some ways) is effective enough to prevent such a problem.

It's a bit of a relic, and disrespectful of naturalized Citizens.

I am reminded of the argument some time ago about 18-year-olds being old enough to die for their country (and many were doing just that) while not being old enough to vote.

Given that the scrutiny we apply to our presidential candidates grinds exceedingly fine, I do not think a "Manchurian Candidate" could sneak in. As to Schwarzenegger, he is American enough to be governor of California, but not American enough to be president?

I would have to vote yes to updating the Amendment in question. IMHO Schwarzenegger would make a fine president indeed.

I would vote "nay" I know that some Republicans would like to get such a provision passed in order to allow Schwarzenegger to run for president some day. Are they thinking that he's a younger version of Reagan? The simple fact of the matter is that before Schwarzenegger, no one was even thinking about changing Article II in any way. The constitution should be amended for serious, well-thought out reasons, and not for political expediency. .

Yes. I'm a citizen of the US, despite being born in Japan. However, I CAN'T be a dual citizen, as Japan doesn't recognize birth location citizenship; you must be born to a Japanese citizen.

Perhaps you should read my citation earlier in this thread. A similar amendment was proposed in September of 2003 by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and co-sponsored by Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) before Arnold was elected Governor of California. The proposed amendment is not a partisan amendment.

Edited to add a side note......

Arnold is a good person I think and thus far, he's been a pretty successful governor in a very difficult time, but trust me on this one. He ain't no Reagan. No way, no how.

Nay.

Why? Just because that's the way we do things here. Why change if there isn't a reason to change? Liberalizing the requirements for President would open the doors of opportunity to more people.

Like we need more people running for one position. I don't see this as being a constructive move. We have plenty of qualified applicants for the position.

Besides, getting this through committee (i.e., ratification) would just waste time, energy and money. We don't have a lot of any of these things. There are more important matters to deal with.

So nay. Changes need to be made, but this is not one of them.

I am very worried, no, angry about the fact that it takes a well-connected rich white man to become President in this country.

Anybody who wants to run for President here has to be extremely well-connected to be seriously considered as a candidate. But I don't see how making naturalized citizens eligible to become President would change that.

Aren't there enough qualified, "natural born citizens[s]" of the United States to consider for the Presidency already?

Should every problem or perceived problem we have be addressed with a Constitutional amendment? I don't think so.

I oppose changing it because unless we completely overhaul the constitution tinkering with the document to get some minor agendas through seems wrong to me.

I also oppose it a bit out of selfishness, I don't like Arnold. But I am willing to waive that reason.

Actually I really don't care, but I couldn't live in a country where our international represenative was in T3 Rise of the Machines.