Constitutional Amendment: Should we do away with the 'born in the USA' requirement for the Prez?

Please, I've been working very hard lately, forgive me if this thread has been brought up, I scanned and didn't see one. I think I myself started a thread on this a while back, but that was hypothetical, this is now a real debate.

I never thought it would happen, but me and Orin Hatch are on the same side of a constitutional issue. He is proposing a constitutional amendment, which is also being passed through the house, which would eliminate the "Born in the U.S.A." requirement to run for the Presidency. I believe the requirement in the house would be citizen for 20 years and in the Senate it's 35 years. Remember, it also takes like 4 - 7 years or something like that of residency before can become a citizen.

I can understand the historical signficance of this law. And you ask anyone today, and they will automatically think it's a good idea, they don't want some "foreigner" running the United States.

However, if you ask me, it's idiotic and unfair to allow this constitutional discrimination to stay in place.

It's not just because I am a naturalized citizen, but I think it's a meaningless distinction.

If someone has been a citizen of this country for 35 years, (the length of time the constitution requires of non-naturalized citizens), I think you can pretty much be sure that they are loyal U.S. residents.

Fearing that someone who was technically born in another country but has been a citizen for thirty-five years (meaning they have really been living and working here for over 40 years) would STILL harbor favor or something like that with his birth-country is about as lame as fearing a Catholic President being beholden to the Pope.

Think about this for a moment. I think it's a powerful ideological shift, yet still very much in line with traditional values of our founders, none of whom were born American citizens.

 

I don't have much to say about it other than I would support such an ammendment.

 

I always thought the clause was stupid myself.

-P!-

 

No. It is needed. I could say more, but for now, I will not. It is just needed.



Old_Wizard

 

Why? You really should back up your reasons, expecially around these parts. (The Senate that is.)

-P!-

 

While there was a need for this clause in the early days of the republic to protect an infant nation from outside influence, given the current international climate there's really no need for someone to be born an American citizen to serve as president.

IMO all that should be necessary is citizenship for a set number of years.


Let the dream of President Schwarzenegger live on.

 

Isn't this contradictory to the 'all men are created equally' thingy?

 

It should stay. If it was taken way. Someone like Saddam or any one else could just come here become the Prez and take apart ever thing that makes the USA so great.

 

But all men don't have the God-ordained right to run for President of the US, Scummy. This political 'right' is a little different from civil rights.

I'm incredibly ambivilent about this subject.

 

You Americans really can be such an absurd race. You build your country on the back of immigration and construct a society that allows the immigrants to prosper, and your society becomes devoted to personal freedom and success on merit.

And yet you can't shift your mindset from the 1800s....

...truly amazing

 

It should stay. If it was taken way. Someone like Saddam or any one else could just come here become the Prez and take apart ever thing that makes the USA so great.

Isn't that what elections are for?

Besides, we will still have our Constitution that will limit his powers. If he overreaches, he can be impeached.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!?!?!


Do any of you REALLY believe that Saddam Hussain could come over here, find a work visa, live here peacefully (without getting arrested for all those pesky human rights violations) for 4-7 years, obtain UNITED STATES citizenship, then live and be a good citizen for THIRTY FIVE YEARS, and THEN find enough support to launch a campaign for the Presidency, and then get a LOT of Americans to back him?

Can anyone actually give me a GOOD reason why we should keep this thing around?

I would also say in our media age where everyone is scrutinized with a microscope, do you think someone who hated this country go through all that and get elected?

It's absurd, I challenge any of you to find an actual reason.

And my friends across the aisle agree, so unless the Dems mess this up, I'm hoping Hatch and crew can get this thing to work.

 

And yet you can't shift your mindset from the 1800s....

Be fair, it was the 1700s.

 

That additional hundred years only increases the absurdity!

 

Someone like Saddam or any one else could just come here become the Prez and take apart ever thing that makes the USA so great.

He'd kinda have to win this election thingy we have.

 

Only naturally born US citizens should be able to become President.

This measure obviously prevents conflicts of interest in the highest office in the land.

The founders knew what they were doing when they instituted this measure, and I don't think it should or it will be changed.

 

Well Hitler was born in Austria, and had barely lived in Germany before he was elected.

 

What conflicts of interest do you think could possibly arise? Keep in mind the presidant has to get past two other houses for the most part, and there is that impechment thing if he ever goes overboard.

-P!-

 

Germany had something like that too.

 

Can you be more specific than "something like that?" I know they teach the subject of "something like that" in schools nowadays, but I'm an old bastard and don't know anything about "something like that." So please elaborate on your "something like that" point.

 

A Democratic government, with a Reichstag, which was like Congress or Parliament, it had a President and Chancelor, all running the country.

 

That has to do with anything how? It feels as if you left out the bit of info that would make that work.

-P!-

 

Disagee. I think the Constitutional requirement on 'born in the usa' must stand. There is just too much on the line to have the presidency in the hands of someone who just was not born with the things that make us AMericans.

 

Like I said, I am naturalized citizen, I came to this country when I was 3 months old and I can see no reason for keeping me from running for the office (other than not getting enough votes, but hey, that didn't stop Dubya ) This country is supposed to be a place where anyone can come, work hard, and have a chance at greatness. There is not ONE good reason for not switching the rule. A person born in this country can be just as evil or beholden to say Isreal or Germany if their parents were immigrants with strong nationalist feelings, being born here and 35 or being a citizen for 35 years, I so ZERO difference.

Regardless, TripleB, DM, Confederate, you guys have not a single argument. You show a bit of ignorance in not understanding how the safegaurds are still in place. Did I remind you that under the Senate version, it would take someone living here for over 40 years before they'd be eligible?

Besides they'd have to get past the American people before being elected?

You guys don't have a single good argument. TripleB, (and I include the attitudes of Confederate and DM in this) your statement is bordering on racist or some other meaningless form of discrimination. What makes you more of an American than me?

Basically, it's just elitist arrogance, nothing more. You got nothing.

 

My only problem is that I don't see how it is necessary to change this item in the Constitution.

I've always felt that the Constitution is not something to be amended lightly. It has survived relatively unchanged for 214 years. Even now, our Constitution is one of the oldest, yet also one of the shortest, governmental documents in the world. It currently has 7 articles and 27 amendments (one of which was repealed). Contrast that with the current proposed draft of a Constitution for Afghanistan, with over 160 articles.

The reason it has survived so long is because it has only been changed for the most urgent matters, and then only after careful consideration (notice the trouble caused by Prohibition, which was not as well considered). I'm not sure that this is one of those issues, at least not at this time.

This is one issue where we can afford to be patient. It is not one of the vital issues facing our country at this time.

Kimball Kinnison