Posted on 01/17/2016 4:37:25 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
In recent weeks, much time and effort has been devoted to debating whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency. Whichever way you come down on this question of constitutional interpretation, the real lesson of this debate should be the absurdity of excluding naturalized citizens from the presidency in the first place. Categorically excluding immigrants from the presidency is a form of arbitrary discrimination based on place of birth (or, in a few cases, parentage), which is ultimately little different from discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Both ethnicity and place of birth are morally arbitrary characteristics which do not, in themselves, determine a person's competence or moral fitness for high political office.
The "natural born" citizen requirement was originally inserted into the Constitution because some of the Founders feared that European royalty or nobles might move to the United States, get elected to the presidency, and then use the office to advance the interests of their houses. Whatever the merits of this concern back in the 1780s, it is hardly a plausible scenario today.
One can argue that immigrants have less knowledge of the country and its customs, and might make worse presidents for that reason. But that problem is surely addressed by the constitutional requirement that a candidate for president must have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. As a practical matter, anyone who attains the political connections and public recognition needed to make a serious run for the presidency is likely to have at least as much knowledge of the US and American politics as most serious native-born candidates do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I saw it, the dude is either heavily medicated, of his meds, or a troll.
Why??? These are examples of everyone who can run for POTUS thanks to Cruz. According to you, the Founding Fathers would want Prince Romanov to run for POTUS. Didn’t matter where he was born..just need an American mother.
Then you really are a clueless git. I think it needs to be changed if for no other reason than to clarify the standard - whatever that standard turns out to be, even if it turns out to be the rather squalid standard you’re pimping for - and I think it should be done in the manner the Constitution itself provides - through amendment.
You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you think should be observed. The Founders realized that the Constitution may need to be revised from time to time and they put in the amendment provisions for exactly that reason.
I believe the Founders were wise, and believe we should follow that wisdom and alter the Constitution to make it work better than it does.
Well the current resident is named Hussein. Somebody supported him.
You are so right, please accept my apology for incorrectly attributing the post to you.
I've been seeing the insults on this site from him as long as I've been on this site. And yet it continues. My explanation was the only one I could come up with that made sense.
BTW, I received freepmail from someone else who says they've also stopped contributing to the site for the same reason.
Not necessarily. Just because someone is naturalised doesn’t mean they still aren’t tied to and loyal to the old country. I’ve seen this way too many times to believe otherwise.
Enter Barack Obama.
The loyalty of the native born is just as much subject to doubt. If it were not, then the concept of treason would be pointless.
How about someone not named Muhammad but someone who is a direct descendant of The Great Prophet.
Queen Noor’s son IF no papers can be found that show she formally relinquished her citizenship before he was born.
That is an underhanded, bastardly, statement. My loyalty to the US is not questioned. Yours, however, is becoming more and more suspect.Don’t even try to go there!
What the eff are you talking about jacka##? The Founders wrote into the Constitution the amendment process. Is there something unconstitutional about wanting to utilize it?
Yes, your loyalty is. I question it.
Oh, we here see that progressivism in your posts quite clearly, the moron socialist/communist at DU agree with you.
Me thinks they would welcome you with open arms.
yeah, and it would have the pope eligible!
Ahh, so only certain parts of the Constitution have to be followed according to you. According to you it is unconstitutional to wish to use the amendment process the Founders themselves wrote for the purposes the Founders intended it to be used. How liberal of you, to pick and choose just those little bits of the Constitution you think should be enforced.
Discontinuing support for Free Republic while still participating truly SUX ... humblegunner or no humblegunner.
I know humblegunner in person and he is actually a very nice guy, and sort of shy ... LOL.
Thanks very much for telling me about that other FReeper!!
Much appreciated!
GO TRUMP, GO!!
Show us the amendment that cancelled out the natural born citizen clause to become president. Cruz is a natural born Canadian.
Perhaps, but the Founders knew that at some point, you have to draw a line. Immigrants naturally have a divided loyalty. For a native born citizen, such divided loyalties are unnatural and less likely to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.