• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

"Natural Born" citizen - why the requirement for president

DeletedUser9393

There has been media discussion about what defines the "natural born" citizen constitutional requirement for presidential candidates.
Some constitutional scholars believe a candidate must be born in US, some say one (or more) parents must be born in US (ala Ted Cruz) some say candidate, both parents, etc. - SCOTUS might need to decide.
I say why the requirement ?
Other than the constitution requirement, what is inherent in whatever "Natural Born" means that makes a candidate more qualified to run for president ?
The constitution should be amended to make every citizen able to vote to be allowed to run for president.
Maybe we would get better candidates.
What do you think ?
 

DeletedUser9433

No, then Arnold S. would be eligible and I would hate to listen to his State of the Union address :)
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was, among the Founders, a real fear that, if they placed no restriction whatsoever on who could become President, that someone with potentially divided loyalties could become President and, though particular actions or inaction, weaken the country to the point that the country to which his true loyalty lay could take over.

So much of the Constitution has been challenged though the courts over our 220 year history that it is amazing that this phrase- "natural born citizen"- has never been the subject of a challenge. SCOTUS has never been called upon to define it (at least not directly....there is a 1974 case in which they did decide that there was a substantive, legal difference between a "natural citizen" and a "natural born citizen", that difference being only the latter was eligible to be President).

I'm a Cruz supporters, but, having debated quite a few very knowledgeable folks on this issue, I have come to believe that, although I >think< Cruz is eligible, I also think that he should petition SCOTUS for an expedited hearing on this issue so as to remove any lingering doubt over his eligibility.
 

DeletedUser24821

If natural born citizen wasn't a requirement then you would have individuals from foreign countries running for the presidency of USA for purposes that aren't in the best interest of the American people and instead for that individual's self interest and country of origin.
 

DeletedUser17558

A natural born citizen is one who at least has one parent who is a US citizen. That simple.

The requirement is there for the reason stated previously. Is it wrong for a country to want to have a national identity? Letting an immigrant run would be contrary to the national identity. Be a US citizen, assimilate to the culture and language, and maybe someday your children can be President, but not you. Too many people want to change every country to be like some other country. I always thought variety was the spice of life, so I have no problem with other cultures wanting to have their home turf, just quit trying to force others to change their home turf to be like yours.
 

DeletedUser24821

just quit trying to force others to change their home turf to be like yours.

USA ironically doesn't want foreigners to change its country, however USA as forced many regime changes and coups - forcing other countries to adopt the supreme and almighty form of government that is democracy.
 

DeletedUser17558

USA ironically doesn't want foreigners to change its country, however USA as forced many regime changes and coups - forcing other countries to adopt the supreme and almighty form of government that is democracy.

That argument is specious at best and not remotely on topic. While I won't defend all the practices of the US government or military, I don't believe the US is in the business of "forcing" other countries to adopt any form of government, they are more in the business of removing dictators. Of course the best case scenario is that the country in question adopts an alternate and more evolved form of government that allows ALL of it's citizens to participate, but that hasn't been the end result lately. Maybe a thanks is in order for freeing the citizens from an oppressive regime, but what they do with it afterward is their problem.
 

DeletedUser24821

That argument is specious at best and not remotely on topic. While I won't defend all the practices of the US government or military, I don't believe the US is in the business of "forcing" other countries to adopt any form of government, they are more in the business of removing dictators. Of course the best case scenario is that the country in question adopts an alternate and more evolved form of government that allows ALL of it's citizens to participate, but that hasn't been the end result lately. Maybe a thanks is in order for freeing the citizens from an oppressive regime, but what they do with it afterward is their problem.

Off-topic? I addressed the fact that this "natural born citizen" requirement enforces "national identity" and to disallow others to try to change our home turf into theirs - as you stated. This directly correlates with the debate of the requirement, only adding the irony of the hypocrisy that is that whilst the requirement enforces said, USA does the contrary when it comes to others.

Also to call my comment specious is ignorance at best. USA believes that they are right and anything to the contrary is wrong, USA is always right and almighty.
 

DeletedUser23123

I hate when the President and the staff start talking about how other country does thing. Well, whoopy do haha.
("We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts." By John Winger aka Bill Murray)
In a America we do things our way.
:cool:
 

DeletedUser17558

Off-topic? I addressed the fact that this "natural born citizen" requirement enforces "national identity" and to disallow others to try to change our home turf into theirs - as you stated. This directly correlates with the debate of the requirement, only adding the irony of the hypocrisy that is that whilst the requirement enforces said, USA does the contrary when it comes to others.

The addition of the irony was the only point of your post and your statement of "forcing" other countries has no bearing on the natural born citizen requirement for President. I disagree that the US does the contrary to your supposed irony. I think it just boils down to a difference of point of view. If you think the US forces democracy on other cultures then that is a discussion for another post, as it has no bearing on the OP.
 

DeletedUser24821

The addition of the irony was the only point of your post and your statement of "forcing" other countries has no bearing on the natural born citizen requirement for President. I disagree that the US does the contrary to your supposed irony. I think it just boils down to a difference of point of view. If you think the US forces democracy on other cultures then that is a discussion for another post, as it has no bearing on the OP.

The bearing is that USA has imposed this "natural born citizen" requirement to protect its "national identity", where it has no respect for other's "national identity".
 

DeletedUser17558

The bearing is that USA has imposed this "natural born citizen" requirement to protect its "national identity", where it has no respect for other's "national identity".

That is your opinion. I think the US is very respectful of other cultures and promotes wholeheartedly maintaining cultural identity. Being the biggest kid on the block comes with some moral obligations. If you would prefer that the US move to a more isolationist policy, there are plenty of people you can vote for who support that ideal. I prefer to help others who need it, but not everyone feels that way.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
The bearing is that USA has imposed this "natural born citizen" requirement to protect its "national identity", where it has no respect for other's "national identity".

Historically incorrect.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was thought that someone who was foreign born might have divided loyalties between the United States and their country of birth. It was hardly out of the realm of possibility that someone born in Great Britain, from whom we had recently won independence, might run for and win the Presidency and take steps towards reunification. Or that a Francophile might advocate for France against the national interests of the United States. It was not intended to be a slight towards the national identity of any other country.
 

DeletedUser13838

At the time the constitution was written there were no natural born citizens so they (the writers) exempted themselves from that requirement.
 

DeletedUser17558

At the time the constitution was written there were no natural born citizens so they (the writers) exempted themselves from that requirement.


I refuse to believe that no one of European descent was born in the United States in 1789. Fortunately the 14th amendment was added in 1868 when there were plenty of natural born citizens around.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
In addition to the requirement that anyone running for President be a "natural born citizen", the Constitution went on to state that anyone who was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1791 I think) was to be considered a "natural born citizen".

Believe me, as a Ted Cruz supporter, I've had to bone up quite a bit on US citizenship law.
 

DeletedUser13838

I refuse to believe that no one of European descent was born in the United States in 1789. Fortunately the 14th amendment was added in 1868 when there were plenty of natural born citizens around.

Van Buren was the first. Washington, Jefferson et al were US citizens when the constitution was enacted but the US did not exist when they were born so they are not "natural born citizens".

Ted Cruz may have a problem. Will be an interesting test but I'm not sure that he's looking forward to it.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I'm a Cruz supporter.

Once I became aware of the circumstances of Cruz's birth, on the more politically-oriented sites which I frequent, I advocated for Cruz to seek an expedited hearing before SCOTUS asking for a summary ruling of his eligibility, one way or another, could be taken off the table as an issue. There have been lawsuits filed in several states, including my own Alabama, challenging Cruz's eligibility, but I'd have to doubt that a ruling would be handed down prior to the election in November. I'd also point out that several suits brought challenging Obama's eligibility were dismissed because the complainants were found to "lack standing" (which I think was a dodge, and unworthy of the judicial system).

Obviously, I think it a nonissue. Cruz's mother was born in Delaware, making her unarguably a natural born citizen, and the child of at least one natural born American citizen is itself also a natural born citizen whether that child is born in Canada, Greece or on Mars.

The problem is that SCOTUS has never taken on a case which required them to define the term "natural born citizen", though they have taken on cases which required them to rule on the citizenship status of individuals on more than one occasion, but they managed to steer clear of rendering a definition. You'd have thought that, over the course of 213 years (remember that "judicial review" dates back only to 1803 with Marbury v Madison), a case which required definition would have been brought before the Court.
 

DeletedUser13838

Obviously, I think it a nonissue. Cruz's mother was born in Delaware, making her unarguably a natural born citizen, and the child of at least one natural born American citizen is itself also a natural born citizen whether that child is born in Canada, Greece or on Mars.
Unarguably? Obama's mother was also a natural born citizen but that didn't stop a lot of people arguing his not being a NBC despite his being born in Hawaii. Cruz was born to a US citizen but in Canada. I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making it seem.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
If I were that kid, I'd take my rattle, bash my parents heads, and make them take me back to the land of the fee and the home of the knave, err, I mean land of the free and home of the brave.
 
Top