Would you support an amendment to the Constitution that removes the natural-born citizen requirement

[Progressivism]

What about an amendment that removes all the requirements to be President, and just leaves it up to the electorate to decide ?

It's my fifteenth birthday today,but I will never be able to be President anytime because of the belief that the country you are born in is the country you have your allegiance to.

I've really been affected,and have great concern,for the existence of age discrimination here in the United States.I am suspicious of setting age requirements for any position,since I think maturity is not necessarily gained at a linear rate,and that you can have a great amount of wisdom at a younger age than is commonly believed.

[Ken Burch]

1. I would support that. Unfortunately, due to the "birther" insanity of the last election campaign

The current president probably can't introduce such an amendment.

[HipChick]

2. yes

[WeDidIt]

3. No. n/t

[Tikki]

8. NO, also............n/t

[phasma ex machina]

37. +2

[Donnachaidh]

4. I don't want the idiocracy voting Ah-nuld into the White House

so a big fat NO on changing the natural born citizen rule. And the age requirements are just fine with me as well.

[varelse]

5. This isn't feasible

Have you done any research on the steps required to amend the US Constitution?

[Thickasabrick]

6. No nt

[LuvNewcastle]

7. no

[FLDCVADem]

9. No

But I recc'ed your thread because I'm impressed with your concern about issues at the age of 15.

[blondeatlast]

10. No. nt

[DavidDvorkin]

Absolutely

It shouldn't have been in the Constitution in the first place, and it should have been amended out long ago. It's a shameful clause.

[gopwacker_455]

11. hell no

[hlthe2b]

12. Ni and No... especially the minimum age

This is not age discrimination, as there is no age maximum. Thus the youngest (all other eligibility in place) will eventually qualify. Age is not a insurance that someone will be mature enough to be President, I agree... Just take a look at all the REPUG candidates in recent years. Nonetheless, experience gained with age is important IMO.

[enlightenment]

13. No, frankly.

I don't see any reason why it should be changed.

I also think that if you consider yourself mature enough to post on a board like this one, you need to work on your knowledge - why, for example, did the people who wrote the Constitution set the rules they way they did, and why might I believe that those rules about birth and age still appropriate today? Work on your ability to keep your argument on track. Your initial statement (your thesis) concerns the rule of natural birth, your final statement (conclusion) has nothing to do with where you were born, but rather your belief that you are mature enough to be a grown-up with full rights and privileges.

Not quite. But keep working on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. I've seen much older DUers be very immature...

And the OP wasn't immature at all. Yr response was a bit nasty and condescending. Instead of lecturing someone else, how about you now explain why you support retaining the being born a US citizen requirement for running for President even though it's discriminatory against US citizens who weren't US citizens when they were born?

[enlightenment]

114. I don't believe I suggested that the OP was 'immature' -

I suggested that he/she learn how to structure a coherent argument. If you find that nasty and condescending that's your prerogative. I do not need to explain my reasoning to someone cannot present a reasoned argument - which this young person most certainly did not do. Nor do I need to explain my reasoning to someone who would present their question to me in the form in which you did - a presupposed 'it's discriminatory' statement. Why should I bother? You've got it all figured out.

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. Hell no

President Schwarzenegger? I don't fucking think so.

[cayanne]

15. No nt

[Thickasabrick]

16. You know, I was too harsh in my previous answer. I have issues

with the age requirements for drinking being pushed up to 21 yet 18 year olds are perfectly old enough to be armed and go blow up people.

Keep doing what you are doing - stay involved. I was very old before I became involved in politics and I really regretted that after I became involved.

Happy Birthday!!

[bigwillq]

17. No

I do not support your proposals.

[xchrom]

18. Yes on the natural born citizen

No on the limitations and restrictions
of age.

[napi21]

19. No I wouldnt support such an amendment. I understand your objection

to the age requirement because you are 15 and 35 sounds sooo far away! There really IS a benefit to experience. It's not age that determines wisdom, but much more your life experiences.

[TommyO]

20. No

I would prefer we keep it so only those born here in the United States, like our current president, are able to become President.

[valerief]

21. You mean we should OFFICIALLY allow Exxon-Mobil to be our president? nt

[Old Codger]

22. Never n/t

[KoKo]

23. No.

[jberryhill]

24. Were you born to a US parent abroad?

And, no, I want to watch the birthers keep chasing their tails.

[janx]

25. NO n/t

[timeforpeace]

26. Not natural-born, no. 15-yr olds as President? Sure, why not. Repukes? No, sorry.

[Captain Hilts]

27. Yes. The navy trusted my dad with nuclear weapons but not to be prez. What's the logic in that?

[emilyg]

28. NO

[gateley]

29. Happy Birthday!! nt

[kickysnana]

30. No.

[FarLeftFist]

31. NO n/t

[Unvanguard]

32. I'd be all right with getting rid of all the requirements

but the "natural-born citizen" one especially. It's a disgrace to the principles we're supposed to stand for.

[HipChick]

33. Why? Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..

At one time, all must have been products of immigrants born on a stolen land..

[hayu_lol]

34. Under no circumstances should we ever consider...

a non-natural born citizen for the presidency.

NO.

[HipChick]

39. Curious..Why?

[Javaman]

104. Speaking for myself...

I prescribe to the founding fathers belief of a non-natural born citizen becoming president may have issues with allegiance.

This was a fine point in regards to their separation from the crown.

If memory serves me correct, none of the founding fathers were born outside of then colonial territory.

From further historical readings, time and time again, various leaders that were not natural born citizens of the nation the ruled tended to have a complex sense of allegiance and as a result lead to popular uprisings against them.

But then again, we have had complete A-holes as presidents in the past (one* stands out in particular) and we didn't rise against them. LOL

[Spider Jerusalem]

75. Under no circumstances?

Never? Someone born in Canada whose parents emigrated when they were small children, say? (Or anywhere else, for that matter?)

[1]

106. especially never a canadian...

that president would change the spelling of some of our favorite words, with unnecessary "u's" showing up where they shouldn't.

no, never a canadian...

[Unvanguard]

43. I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree with you.

The lack of substantive responses on the "no" side is indicative...

[AllentownJake]

35. No, Happy Birthday nt.

[OhioBlue]

36. Happy Birthday

and thank you for your post - as far as the "natural born citizen requirement", I would be open to the debate. As far as the age requirement, I think it is appropriate. It isn't really discriminatory because anyone younger than 35 will eventually be eligible once they turn 35.

You have a very valid point that maturity is not necessarily gained at a linear rate and you can have a great amount of wisdom at a younger age. that is very true. I do think that the education and life experience that are needed in a President take time and 35 is not unreasonable. I do value the idealism and energy in those that are still very young and am happy that you are involved in the political discussion. I hope you stay involved. There is a lot of good you can do and a lot that you can contribute. Are you hoping to go into politics or public service?

[Bitwit1234]

38. NO NO NO because people like Hoekstra are not natural born

and I wouldn't want that S.O.B. to be president.

[blue_onyx]

93. You think he would actaually have a chance of winning?

I say yes...remove the natural born citizen requirement.

[Posteritatis]

40. I'm fine with the natural-born part being tossed out, myself

Yes, yes, people will howl at me about Ahnold or whatnot, but they're smoking something if they think there aren't any number of equally vile presidential possibilities who can do so just because they chose the right place to exit the womb.

Also, I find xenophobia boring, and that's the only other objection there is to the idea.

[Book Lover]

41. Absolutely

My vote is that we replace it with a requirement that the citizen wishing to run has been a citizen for 35 years, to keep parity with the age requirement for natural-born citizens. What do you think of that?

Happy Birthday!!

[Hekate]

42. No. The first time I ever remember it coming up was when Arnold Schwartzenegger became governor...

... of California. A lot of people voted for him because he's famous and they mistook his screen persona (The Terminator, etc.) for the actual man. May I remind you he is a Republican?

I thought this was an interesting --yet disturbing and ultimately disgusting-- confluence of events.

My fellow Californians were so stupid that they blamed our fiscal crisis solely on Governor Grey Davis, an experienced Democratic politician, instead of on the combined forces of deregulation and Enron's malfeasance. With some behind-the-scenes help from the national honchos of the Repub Party, Californians recalled Davis and elected Schwartzenegger in one fell swoop.

Things did not improve, ultimately. We are close to bankruptcy now, although Arnie is not a stupid man.

But in the meanwhile, before it became evident that California was not going to make some miraculous free-market turnaround, he was the golden boy of Republican politics. I started reading about how wonderful it would be if we changed the Constitution... if only we changed the Constitution so a naturalized citizen (such as Schwarzenegger, by sheer coincidence)... could run for President of the US.

As I say, coming in the midst of some of the worst Constitutional crises in our history, wrought by the party of which Schwarzenegger is a member, it was more than a little disturbing to hear that they wanted to amend the Constitution for this purpose.

Fast forward only a few years. Barack Hussein Obama, born in the State of Hawai'i, runs for President. Parts of the Republican Party come absolutely unglued and insist he cannot possibly be a US citizen.

Everything has a context, and sadly enough in 2009 this is the context of your idea.

If you are genuinely interested in politics, you can go quite far. Like my governor, who was born and raised in Austria and still speaks with a heavy German accent, you could be a governor. Like Dr. Henry Kissinger, you could become Secretary of State. There are many other examples.

Very few people ever become President -- fewer than 50 in 233 years. But there are 50 states of varying sizes who all need governors. There are 100 Senators in Washington, and over 400 Representatives. There's a great deal of scope for ambition and (one would hope) a desire to serve.

As for age restrictions -- use the next decade or so to gain some experience in life and the time will not drag nor be wasted.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

Hekate

[Violet_Crumble]

111. And Bush was born a US citizen and did meet the requirement...

Yr argument against the requirement being removed seems to be that it would keep evil morons who weren't US citizens when they were born from running for President, but that argument doesn't factor in that there's plenty of evil morons who were US citizens when they were born. Also when it comes to US citizens who are currently ineligable due to not being born a US citizen, it's wrong to want to deny them a right because there's some evil morons amongst them just like there's some evil morons amongst those who are currently eligible to run for President...

[Hekate]

116. Con. Text. Context.

What I said.

Hekate

[OHdem10]

44. NO

[Lisa0825]

45. No. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Hell no--President Kissinger? President Schwarzenegger?

I remember Republicanites seriously saying that they wished Kissinger could be president, and I'm sure there are Republicanites now who would love to see Ahnuld on the ticket.

[dflprincess]

58. My thought exactly when I saw this thread (n/t)

[Violet_Crumble]

113. Yeah, coz it's only people who weren't born US citizens who are problematic...

Not natural born Americans like Bush or Palin...

[Vickers]

47. No.

Love,

Germany

[The Straight Story]

48. Well, we did elect someone born in Kenya, so yes

:rofl:

[AnnieBW]

49. For people who were naturalized as children

I think that people who became naturalized citizens under the age of 18, either because their parents emigrated or because they were adopted from outside of the US, should be eligible to become President. Children generally don't have allegiances to other countries the way that adults do.

[hyphenate]

50. No

I really don't want to see another alien, legal or otherwise, governing our country.

[Iggo]

51. No. No. And fuck no.

[Iggo]

52. No. No. And fuck no.

[gopiscrap]

53. Yes

I was born in Frankfurt, Germany and achieved my citizenship when I was 14...I ran for US Congress from the left against a person I had no chance of beating..the outcome of that was that I got 42% of the primary vote and this congress man changed his vote on the funding of the School of the America's so I think naturalized citizens can have a great impact on the country to the positive.

[JVS]

54. I think abolishing the Senate would be a better idea. It's far more deleterious to the...

representative nature of our government than the life long citizenship requirement

[doc03]

55. No

[bemildred]

56. No. Get rid of the Electoral college first and I'll think about it.

There are a lot of other reforms that are way higher on my list than this one. The filibuster and the electoral college are two. Corporate funding for political campaigns is another.

[Hawkeye-X]

57. Big fat NO, but I do support an IQ requirement.

Something around the range of 120 or so.

That'll keep the freepers out of the running, and that would have excluded Chimp if it had passed.

Hawkeye-X

[Edweird]

59. No.

[rug]

60. I support an amendment that would make Asher Heimermann President For Life.

[tkmorris]

62. HAH! I forgot about that guy

[blondeatlast]

92. I was trying to remember his name when I saw this.

Thanks for the reminder--and the early morning little grin it gave me.

[SharonAnn]

61. No. We have plenty of "natural born" candidates. We don't need to change the Constitution.

[slackmaster]

63. NO! And I can show you why in ONE PICTURE!!!

[Bill McBlueState]

64. yes

And supporting that requirement just because it prevents some specific Republican from becoming President is pretty damn stupid.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. WTF?

[Terra Alta]

66. I would support such an amendment.

With the stipulation that the person must have been a US citizen for at least 15 years prior to running for office. As for people bringing up Arnold, get real. He has run the most populous state in the US into the ground. He couldn't get elected dog catcher much less President.

[Lucian]

67. Absolutely not.

[grahamhgreen]

68. Never.

[Book Lover]

69. You natavists make me sick. I have two words for you: President Albright (nm)

[dysfunctional press]

83. you think that her nationality is all that stood between her and the presidency...?

you haven't lived in this country very long, have you?

[Book Lover]

94. If that's what you have taken away from my post,

then there really is no hope for DU.

[dysfunctional press]

101. well- it wasn't very much of a post, now was it?

and you definitely seemed to be implying in it that except for her nationality, madeline albright could/would have been potus.

and that implication is just plain goofy, and not very prescient when it comes to american politics.

yes- she's a remarkable woman, but there have been a lot of remarkable american women- natural-born american women, who wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being elected.
and she never held any elected public service post, even tho her birthplace wouldn't have stood in her way of being a senator or a house rep.- :shrug:

[Crabby Appleton]

70. No. nt

[Occulus]

71. I would support an Amendement inserting the word "natural" in front of the word "person"

in each instance the word "person" appears in the US Constitution.

Go researchi the concept and history of the term "corporate personhood". I very strongly believe that that particular legal fiction lies at the heart of most of our nation's current problems.

[Skidmore]

72. Nope.

[Jamastiene]

73. No no no no no no no.

A million times no.

Nuh-uh, nada. No.

[ZombieHorde]

74. Yes, I would support getting rid of the natural born citizen requirement. nt

[Raine]

76. No, I wouldn't. nt

[proteus_lives]

77. No.

I wouldn't support that.

[ProfessorGAC]

78. No

Sorry about youru particular situation, but i see no valid reason for any change in that rule.

[Petrushka]

79. "No!" to changing any of the requirements. (eom)

[howard112211]

80. I am torn. In principle I agree that the natural born requirement is obsolete.

However I am reluctant to changes in an existing constitution. If we change that requirement, what will stop other people from, say, amending the constitution to ban abortion? I think making it a habit of changing the constitution around will not lead to good
results in the long run.

Our constitution is pretty good, it just isn't applied often enough. The failures of our country pretty well demonstrates the limits
of what the legislative branch can do.

[kdmorris]

81. It's not quite "the country you were born in"

The requirement is that you are a citizen of the United States when you are born. That can happen if you are born in America to parents of any nationality or if you are born to one or two American parents in another country. Lots of military "brats" are born in overseas countries, but they are still citizens of America when they are born. (Of course, the nutballs that are constantly harping on Obama being "born in Kenya" don't seem to get the whole "you are a citizen if you are born to an American citizen).

Now, if you were born in another country and your parents, at the time of your birth, were not American citizens, then you are not "natural-born".

I don't really see any problems with the requirements for president.

[dysfunctional press]

82. don't worry- you'll figure it out too as you grow and mature.

enjoy your adolescence while you still can. :hi:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

84. No. nt

[invictus]

85. NO!

[Moondog]

86. Not a chance - n/t

[salguine]

87. No.

[Mudoria]

88. No

[Lurks Often]

89. Conditionally

I might consider removing the "natural born citizen" clause.

First it is necessary to understand why the clause was put in there in the first place. As I understand it, the clause was put in to prevent a foreigner (primarily British) from moving to the United States, becoming President and then, for lack of a better way of saying it, turning the country back over to the British. From the perspective of 230 years, perhaps that seems unduly paranoid, but I suspect that our new government was very fragile when it was created.

Secondly, the chances of us amending the Constitution on this subject approach zero
, however as a hypothetical exercise, I would be willing to remove natural born citizen clause and replace it with something along the lines of "a Presidential must have been a U.S. Citizen for no less a period of 35 consecutive years". I would leave all the other requirements in place.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. No. That requirement has nothing to do with what 'they' think of

your allegiance. It is about being a part of the ongoing thing you are wishing to lead. I ask you to be specific, and stop thinking about yourself, do you think that if there is no natural born citizen requirement, that there should be any form of limit to the amount of time one has been a resident citizen before one can run for President? Some come here as infants, others as grown adults. Should a grown adult be able to show up and run, no matter?

[piratefish08]

91. Without Campaign Reform, any other changes to our system are a wasted effort.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

95. Not a US citizen, but I say NO to that n/t

[harun]

96. Hell no. You'd end up with a President from the Likud party.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. Not until the Governator is dead

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anigbrowl]

100. Nonsensical. They could send the parents to the US and have them get pregnant

If someone wished to carry out such an elaborate multi-decade espionage operation, it wouldn't make a big difference to start operations 9 months earlier.

[Blasphemer]

99. Yes on the natural born citizen requirement. The others are fine.

I came to the country when I was two. I am aware of my cultural heritage but I don't really "know" any other culture. I am American here and everywhere I go. Even when I go back to my country of birth, I am American. Of course, I have never had any political ambition but having grown up in NYC, I knew many kids who were like me and came to the U.S. as infants and toddlers. It's quite possible that one of them would make a fine President if they had political aspirations and if it were allowed. I don't think spending the first 2 or 3 years of one's life living in another country really negates one's cultural allegiances. Someone can be born here, spend their entire childhood abroad, return for University and remain and be eligible for the Presidency. Yet, someone who became Naturalized as a child and spent every year but their first 2 or 3 in the country, can't.

[Kickin_Donkey]

102. No.

[fascisthunter]

103. Hell no!

Shit is bad enough here as it is...

[Toasterlad]

105. Absolutely.

There are people not born in the United States who are much more morally and intellectually qualified to be president than any man we've elected to that office in my 45 years.

The citizenry requirement serves no real purpose. If a foreign government operative were canny enough to get elected President of the United States, they could certainly do it whether they were a US citizen or not.

[Greyhound]

107. No. n/t

[LWolf]

108. No.

At least, not at this point in time. We could evolve eventually towards that point, but not now.

First of all, most of us will never be able to be president regardless of our citizen status. Level the playing field:

1. Universal public pre-school - trade or college for all-no cost.

2. Election reform: 100% public financing only, with equal, and equally neutral, media time of all types.

3. Real debates that give every candidate equal talk time, and a chance to answer every question.

When the playing field has been leveled for all, and the system has run that way for about 12 years, perhaps someone who is not a natural born citizen but has gained citizenship and lived productively here for a couple of decades could be allowed to run for president.

Not until Arnold's time has passed, though.

[LostInAnomie]

110. No

[TheKentuckian]

Tend towards no but this is so far on the backburner that I can't see the pan

[Violet_Crumble]

112. I notice that very few of the people saying no give any reason why...

I'd be interested in hearing from some of those who didn't say anything but 'no' as to why they think that way.

[Saboburns]

115. The problem is that there is no clear definition of what a "Natural Born" citizen is

That's the problem. It is an archaic term that is found no where except in our Constitution. But the definition is murky.

Personally I would like to see it changed to simply--United States Citizen.

That would open it up to more people.

As an aside I think it's silly that someone would be against changing the law just because of one person. A La Swartzeneggar or such.

But thats just me.

[TheKentuckian]

117. I think its clearly a born citizen but I guess some debate that

They tend to be birthers but ya know.

[nemo137]

118. It's simple. There are two ways to achieve citizenship.

Be born with it, or be naturalized. It's not that complicated.

[bridgit]

119. Happy Birthday, but no: our 'natural-born' candidates are slippery enough. I can just see...

Vladimir Putin or The Sultan of Brunei all running up in here, establishing residential requirements for candidacy, and spending mountains-more sovereign money to win ala Gov. Bloomberg and voila! There goes the neighborhood

[donheld]

120. No