The US Constitution prohibits people originally from other countries from being President. Should it be amended to change this?
Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
2012/04/08 14:39:47
|
|
|||||
|
15 votes
|
|
18% | |||
|
70 votes
|
|
82% | |||
Top Opinion
-
chickn 2012/04/08 19:07:59
Apart from the natives, aren't ALL Americans "originally from other countries"?
If that's the case, the problem is that there actually is no requirement that one be born in the U.S. to be either a legislator in Congress or a member of the SC. One need only be a citizen...therefore, a naturalized citizen is perfectly eligible for either branch.
My point is that the branches still, essentially, police each other. If the President for some reason acted against the interests of the U.S. in a tangible way, in fact, Congress can impeach.
(1) It was designed to be amended, and therefore is meant to change as the nation does. There are already amendments, in fact, that alter Congressional election procedure, which in many ways is a technical aspect like the eligibility requirements of Art. II.
(2) It almost never happened...and it only was signed into law because people like Ben Franklin admitted that it was flawed in the eyes of all those at the Convention - but that compromise was necessary to move forward.
It in essence discriminates against groups of citizens who are equally capable of being president based on where they happened to be born.
People continued to come to the former colonies from other countries, and there were world powers with a distinct interest in gaining a foothold here.
Today, we are the sole superpower left. We have established our sovereignty plainly.
Why are we, then, suspicious of citizens who have lived here for decades, but simply weren't born here? That's what we say with this provision: there's reason to suspect that you, even though you are a citizen who has pledged an oath to this country to be naturalized, really aren't completely loyal.
But we need a much more than the possibility that a sleeper agent could come to the country, rise through the ranks over a period of years, run and succeed to gain the presidency, and then use it for nefarious means to say that no naturalized citizen can be President.
That's the same as saying that someone who is religious should not be President because they might push their religion as a state agenda.
The sleeper agent, though, is a possibility. And not necessarily that he would push through whatever. Could be that he aligns a "team" for future use in some fashion.
Kiddo, I am sorry that I am getting "old," and I do not find these lapses in being able to pull together words at all fun. And, please, do not ask me my name for the next few minutes because I'm not sure I could tell you. Mostly, I have a train of thought running around up there that I just can't pull through my nose and put down on the screen. IT IS IRRITATING THE HELL OUT OF ME!!!!!!
So come on back, I'll go back to work and have some coffee and maybe, just maybe, I'll be able to grab a hold of what's running around in my idiot brain. It is, however, an interesting discussion and an interesting exercise in what if....
That there COULD be a sleeper agent is also a remote possibility, and therefore isn't a reason to cast doubt on naturalized citizens generally.
Respond whenever you want. ;-) No rush...I understand the concept of a brain without coffee well myself.
I'm still not getting to the fine point here that I wish to make, just keeps eluding me. However, this is just a damn good interesting discussion of what if. And I'm not sure I'm ever going to get to that wee, tiny, thought that's rumbling around. But, should you choose to accept the assignment - thank you Mission Impossible - come on back. Will not guarantee that I will be any more clear but am enjoying the back and forth.
I think that the main thing that people don't think about in this situation is the fact that we do have the impeachment process. Anything drastic enough to cause real concern is likely an impeachable offence.
However, considering that the U.S. is essentially the last superpower standing...that original concern seems moot, no?
On one hand, I can see the need to exclude from eligibility people who are TECHNICALLY American citizens, but in fact are in REALITY citizens/residents of some other country.
I can see the need to protect the country from being led by someone who is only a U.S. citizen on paper, but who might seek the presidency in order to exert foreign influence on U.S. policy.
On the other hand ... there are people who have spent nearly all of their lives in America, have become American citizens, and have a deep love for America.
I like to think that I fit that category, as I was born in So. Korea but grew up in the U.S. and am a naturalized citizen. (Not that I would want to be president, but just saying.)
I guess at the end of the day, the reasons FOR keeping the law as is outweigh any reasons for changing it.
Look at Obama. I'm not going "birther" and claiming that he was born in Kenya -- but he did spent a significant number of his formative years living abroad. That has affected his thinking about America and the world, I think, and not in a very good way!
I always try to be rational ... though my husband may tell you that I don't always succeed!
As for your husband telling me you're not always rational, I believe that is something all husbands would say. Of course, were push to come to shove, I would say the same thing about him. But let's not tell him that right now, okay? :)
If we assume that he is a natural born citizen, wouldn't he be an example of how the reasons FOR keeping the law actually kind of fall apart (i.e., if a natural born citizen is essentially raised in a foreign environment, but maintains his U.S. citizenship and returns to seek office in order to represent non-U.S. interests, what is the protection such a requirement offers)?