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 ...
Good point. SMH.
So, you flatly fail to address the substance of my remark, and then engage in ad hominems and insults. If you wish to point the finger of progressivism, you could do no better than starting with the mirror.
The case for getting rid of editorials posing as journalism.
Somin is a legal academic. Orin Hatch proposed this amendment years ago. It gets proposed from time to time in Congress. I don;t have a list of them, but found half a dozen on a casual search a few days ago. Looked back to 1995 or so.
YouCon Ted agrees.
I think it’s Obama who was the nose of the camel.
I agree. Anyone could become a naturalized citizen (even some Kenyan kid from Indonesia) and do this country irreparable harm, given the right grooming, backing, and handlers.
Cruz would agree, to keep NBC. Given that he is natural-born, according to current law, there is no impact.
The most important thing is for it to be clarified.
We already got rid of it for Democrats.
Oh heck, for that matter how would the WaPo feel about Benjamen Netanyahu running for President? He has American citizenship!
JUST MORE INSANITY FROM THE WAPO. In this NWO insanity to remove all borders and throw the world into one great big stew pot with no requirements for allegiance to a country, no retention of culture, values, individuality, or right to dissension, the WAPO is right on schedule. Try to make the THINKING AMERICANS mold into stupid little robots and slaves so we no longer have any sovereignty or say so on our own country’s laws. All will be decided from cradle to grave by a few elite kings and queens and the REPUBLIC of the United States of America will exist no more.
Either we stand up and DEFEND the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN, or we Lose forever our rights and privileges as independent people. The Liberal Road is directly to insanity. We have been warned. We had better listen!
Is the profanity necessary ?
I disagree. The existing requirement should be enforced. When a candidate files their paperwork, the valid documentation should be part of it.
The current requirement is rational, the framers of the Constitution put it there for specific reasons. It is entirely reasonable.
But like much of what we see going on in government, there are no penalties for ignoring the Constitution. Nobody in the elected bodies care or have the guts to say anything.
You are only as much of a valid constitutional republic as the willingness of the elected officials to follow the rules outlined in it. And they are routinely ignored. So we aren’t much better than a banana republic now.
Not only that but they did not want foreign interference in the presidential selection process. There had been numerous wars in europe, and elsewhere, as one country tried to put is favorite prince on the throne of another country.
Should Queen Noor’s kids be able to be our president?
I don’t think so.
Wow you were the one who stated you wanted “something rational and reasonable.
THAT change is NOT Original intent. It falls under the category of living document. ( the liberal democrat preference )
Once part of it goes the remainder will be open to adjustment also
Others with more legal authority might explain it better
Is an “anchor baby” a citizen by birth?
No. Pray to God no. We need to tighten requirements for public office.
I am not going to have people, including Ann Coulter, pulling this crap. When we pointed out that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, we were called loonies, cranks, and birthers. Now people who are communists or impressed by the bulge in Trump’s pants (I mean his wallet for Ann Coulter) do what they excoriated people such as me for. There is no Constitution anymore. We live in a post Constitutional society and we need a principled Conservative to get us back. That means a Ted Cruz or the army taking over and having a Pinochet style figure put in charge.
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.