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 ...
IMHO it’s time to get rid of it and substitute something that is (a) rational, and (b) reasonable.
Putin 4 Prezzy!
The requirement is valid and should never be taken away.
They have already taken it away by ignoring it.
All the Obama suits were tossed out for lack of standing.
There was a specific reason that requirement was put in place. Like so much of the Constitution that the leftists say should be jettisoned to further their goals, this is just one more of those.
The reason for it? Obama. Grew up in Indonesia, hates America.
WaPo is full of caca. The Founders did not want anyone with divided loyalties to be the chief executive and commander in chief of the armed forces. Not just Euro royals
But speaking of royalty — how would WaPo feel about a Saudi Prince running for POTUS?
So you agree with the liberals that the constitution is a living document. Which includes changes 1st & 2nd amendments
Maybe you are in the wrong site
So you so love setting up false strawmen and then hitting people with them. That’s such a prototypical liberal thing to do; DU would be much more congenial for you.
I could see this argument coming from a mile away. It’s been percolating in the academic and elite circles for decades. Cruz is the vehicle to eliminate the “injustice of the NBC requirement.”
The author says hardly plausible???HOGWASH
Princess Grace Kelly’s children
Queen Noors children - one of which has already got some years in of his residency requirement.
Duke of Marlborough was qualifed because his mother was a Vanderbilt. Duke is ranked right under King. It is very easy for some in the Peerage to marry an American Citizen and go live in England and then the child come back.
I agree with the suggestion that NBC requirement be struck, but only in favor of “citizen by birth”.
No naturalized citizens for the Presidency.
But we need to end the divisive and stupid arguments about the meaning of ‘natural born’. They cannot be resolved because the arguments are essentially dishonest at the core; and because there NEVER was any consensus on what the turn of phrase even meant to the Framers beyond ‘citizen by birth’. It was added to the Constitution as an afterthought and never debated or discussed. It is nothing but an obstacle to understanding and serves as a canard for people whose motivations are suspect.
How very progressive of you.
What else in the Constitution do you think we should replace with rational and reasonable?
The Obama is a perfect example of why the requirement should stay.
Baloney. Ted Cruz would support this amendment, and might even argue that naturalized citizens have MORE allegiance to the US. An neutralized citizen can’t be dual - a born one can. A naturalized citizen takes an oath.
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Well, they do love Obama....
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.