Arnold for President? At Least One Hurdle May Fall

Los Angeles Times ^ | July 21, 2003 | Patt Morrison:

[Cicero]

Amending the constitution is a very difficult, expensive, and lengthy process. By the time they got it through, Arnold would be an old man, even assuming they could get enough states to ratify it.

If they couldn't succeed in ratifying the ERA at the height of rabid enthusiasm for it, they certainly won't get this through.

[sargon]

No way.

The Constitution is clear on this, and don't expect it to be changed.

[CyberAnt]

And ... in order to change the Constitution - it takes ratification by the STATES - with all the repub states it would be very difficult to pass.

[newgeezer]

Good point!

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Do not further modify the Constitution.

Disagree. Desperately need an amendment to make ALL federal judges subject to term limits and/or re-election or at least recall.

[Nick Danger]

Alexander Hamilton, the soundest political mind this country ever produced was unable to run for President

Oh, is that who it was. Every time I read about this "amendment," I can't help but think that this is a very strange idea to come out of the blue. The people pushing this must have somebody in mind. Then it occurred to me that the requirement was probably put in there in the first place because the Founders had somebody in mind that they didn't want to see become President.

[RightWhale]

Desperately need an amendment to make ALL federal judges subject to term limits and/or re-election or at least recall.

Why? Not that there will be a constitutional amend anyway. Nobody is about to adopt the 1948 UN Human Rights statement, so what else is there of such importance as to require a constitutional amendment? Not judges, that's for sure.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

It is very suprising to me Hatch has time for such things. I thought he was interested in being a rock star, writing all those masterpieces. That explains why he's so obsessed with teenagers downloading music.

Maybe he just figures a foreign president would be a little more open to the idea of blowing up people's computers.

[MEGoody]

I like some of Ahnold's movies, but I wouldn't vote for him in a Republican primary.

[Iwo Jima]

I believe that you are correct. The Constitution (Art. II, Sec. I) says that the president must be a "natural born citizen," not a "native born citizen." Therefore, if you were born a citizen -- regardless of where you were born -- you meet that requirement.

[tiamat]

Dan from Michigan wrote: No way. Two words. Jennifer Granholm.

So is our Dear Jenny a Canadian? I made it a point to stay away from the Manchester Chicken Broil this year because she was going to be there.....

Tia

[Dan from Michigan]

Born in Canada, grew up in California, went to Hahhhvard, lived in Hollywood, and moved to Michigan when she got married.

[presidio9]

On the other hand, Mel Gibson IS a native born American. Plus he's very Conservative.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

FAQ

Is a child born outside the US to American parents legally eligible to become President?

Most likely yes.

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: "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."

The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.

While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment), other legal experts believe the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

At least three Presidential candidates in recent memory were born outside the US proper: o

Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate, was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 (Arizona did not become the 48th state until 1912). Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson. o

George Romney, a 1968 Republican hopeful, was born in Mexico in 1907 to American parents who had moved there to escape anti-Mormon persecution in the US. (Contrary to a widely held popular misconception, by the way, Romney's parents were settlers in Mexico, not missionaries.) Romney's campaign fizzled following a gaffe about his having been "brainwashed" by the military establishment into supporting US involvement in the Vietnam conflict. o

John McCain an early Republican hopeful in the current (2000) campaign, was born in the Panama Canal Zone, in 1936 to American parents. McCain dropped out of the campaign in favor of the Republicans' eventual nominee, George W. Bush.

Some questions were raised at the time regarding both Goldwater and Romney's eligibility for the nation's highest office, but no formal legal challenge was mounted in either case.

We will probably never really know whether an American citizen born outside the US can become President (or Vice-President) until a lawsuit involving such a candidate finds its way into the courts. This could happen, of course, if a foreign-born candidate were elected and the electoral college's choice were challenged in court; or, more likely, if such a candidate's right to federal campaign subsidies (matching funds) were questioned.

[Iwo Jima]

Disagree. Desperately need an amendment to make ALL federal judges subject to term limits and/or re-election or at least recall.

I agree that federal judges should be subject to term limits and/or recall. However, you should be pleased to learn that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to accomplish that goal. The life tenure for federal judges is a legislative mandate, not a constitutional one. Therefore, Congress can implement such changes regarding tenure as it wishes.

In fact, several Republican congressmen (Tom Delay, Ron Paul) have publicly called for Congress to enact such provisions. And John Culberson has filed a bill which would require a vote on federal judges every (IIRC)ten years. I don't recall the details of the recall vote -- I think that the voters of the state in which the judge sat would do the voting.

I think that that is a very good idea.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Ref post 24: Yes.

[tiamat]

This explains much.

Yuck

but thanks!

tia

[atomic conspiracy]

I would not favor changing the natural-born citizen requirement for the Presidency. It is an additional layer of protection for American interests and American culture. I am a naturalized citizen, 31 years and counting. I can run for any office in the land, except the Presidency. I have actually been elected to public office twice, once as mayor of a small community and once to our local school board. My immigrant background was never an issue and would almost certainly have backfired if my opponents had tried to make it one. Being mayor of a town of 1200 souls, btw, was a lot like being president of the PTA, but I did learn a great deal about the duplicity, callousness, and ruthless tactics of the environmental movement.

[gop_gene]

No way. Two words. Jennifer Granholm

NEVER going to happen--Didn't you know, Hillary Evita Peron Clinton wants to go down in history as being the 1st U.S. female (I use the term loosely) president. Unless that happens, Granholm doesn't stand a chance, or else she better watch her back if she gives Hillary any kind of run for her money--at least she's got time on her side, she younger and looks great and I don't think her face will fall any time soon, whereas that mug of Hill's can't wait much longer.