Yeah that’s right, I remember that now.
Thing is, I just watched Gran Torino again, bit confused here.
2 Likes
Oh, absolutely. I meant the concept of original sin - not sure though if it’s the correct translation for “Erbschuld”, but I couldn’t find anything better. Taking responsibility to ensure that nothing like Nazi Germany ever happens again is of course vital.
3 Likes
I’m having a hard time figuring what percentage of people would be a better president than Trump; I can’t narrow it down any more than 95 to 99.9.
5 Likes
It’s an interesting question. The “natural born” requirement is so antiquated and racisty that (even now) it’s hard to imagine anyone standing up to defend it on its merits, either in a court case or a parliamentary debate.
But no one would bother to amend the constitution just out of the blue; it’d only happen if there was a specific candidate (Arnie) in mind, and then it’s a strongly partisan issue. Since it would take two-thirds of each house and 38 states, neither party could ever do it on their own.
But if you phrase the question as “can the GOP run Arnie as their candidate in 2020?”, that might just change the picture, especially if Democrats are feeling optimistic after the 2018 elections. Republicans would get to threaten Turmp without taking the political hit of impeachment, and Democrats might think “if we do lose in 2020 – and it’s always a possibility – at least we could avoid another Turmp term”. And again, if it comes to a vote, I don’t think anyone wants to make a speech about why you can’t trust naturalised citizens.
For a court to throw out the “natural-born” requirement, I assume Arnie has to apply to be a candidate, then get turned down, then sue, then appeal it to the Supreme Court(?). If both parties were happy, it’s hard to imagine the Supremes making an issue of it.
2 Likes
If it makes you feel any better, the reason you side with them is that they’re showing essential humanity and even a little bit of courage. This is “vast majority of the human race” stuff, just that those two have bigger soapboxes.
7 Likes
Compared to Trump I’d be slightly more optimistic about “Air Bud: Furmander in Chief.”
5 Likes
It has to do with a person’s loyalty to their country. If a smooth talking, sympathetic, and likeable person from somewhere else came to the US and had no real loyalty to the country and was able to pull off a presidential victory, and then work to collude against the country’s interests in service of a foreign power that would be a problem. HOWEVER, i’m not saying that’s what i believe. That’s what the founding fathers believed because they were trying to minimize the chances of England or other foreign powers undermining the newly created Union’s autonomy. Ironic that Trump, a natural born citizen is colluding with a foreign power.
That being said, i still think that having the pre-requisite of any presidential hopefuls be natural born citizens is sound and has nothing to do with prejudice or racism.
5 Likes
Exactly this…it isn’t racist in the slightest bit. It is absolutely a sound requirement for the highest office. I am fairly certain that the office of President is the only political office with such a requirement. Removing that criteria makes as much sense as removing the age requirement as well.
4 Likes
I absolutely think “citizens born in the United States are more likely to be loyal to the country” is an outdated notion. We don’t have any such requirement for the people who serve in the Senate or the Supreme Court or the people entrusted with guarding our nuclear arsenal.
If anything the legal hurdles that Schwarzenegger had to go through in order to become a citizen means he is more likely to respect and understand the Constitution than the guy currently occupying the office. As recently as 2008 Trump didn’t even know what the 13 stripes on our flag represented.
7 Likes
Clint’s empty chair would be better than Donald Trump.
4 Likes
I understand the point you’re making, but i can’t agree. It is the highest office a person can hold in the US, that person is responsible for the lives of every single American. While i’m sure someone that was merely born in a foreign country but raised in the US would have the country’s best interests at heart i think that having the per-requisite of natural born citizen is necessary and not wholly unreasonable for the kind of responsibility and power the office demands. However i’m willing to concede that the logic behind it isn’t solid and if there was enough interest within the Us to do away with it i would not be hard headed about it.
Also out of curiosity i looked up what other countries say about electing people not born in their country for President or PM
1 Like
That is a fair point; however, I do think people like Trump (and there are more than just him) are the minority still in politics. It is about more than loyalty, it is also supposed to be about having lived here and being part of the culture and value set.
We are talking about some things that I agree could be out dated…I just still believe that born here and at least 40 yr old are still good lines in the sand.
1 Like
Surely it should be up to the American electorate to decide whether a candidate upholds the culture and values they want to see in the country’s highest office?
3 Likes
You think they should be trusted after the last showing?
Over here in Austria, the conditions for the president are that he is a citizen, and it doesn’t matter when he got the citizenship, that he’s at least 35 years old and that he’s not currently imprisoned (duh).
Until a few years ago, you also couldn’t run for president if you were a member of the Habsburg family.
4 Likes
Fair point. How about we ditch the “natural born citizen” requirement but specify that any would-be President must be able to pass a US Citizenship test.
5 Likes
Like i said above, not having the natural born requirement is something i can understand. If someone is qualified for the job then that’s what should matter. However i also don’t think that requiring someone to be born in that same country is wholly unreasonable either. I don’t think that it’s dumber than some countries still having monarchies, though that line of discussion might be off-topic.
2 Likes
Yeah, I’m not terribly offended by the US method either. But it sucks in a case like Arnie, who came there ages ago, had two terms as governor and barely has any ties to Austria anymore.
1 Like
And do you see the american electorate clamoring to change this? Have Senators and Congresspeople heard a nationally based outcry to change this?
Also, which if any other nations allow a non-born-there citizen to run for the highest office?
I have to be honest…even if a candidate was a non-born US citizen were on the docket, it would become an instant point of contention all around. Obama was gas-lighted for this through not one, but two elections and he was OFC a naturally born US citizen and yet it was still brought up as a questionable item and certainly cost him votes as a result.
Again, I am still in favor of that being a requirement for the highest office…while I am open to debate its merits and place in a more globalized environment than in 1776, I simply feel it is still a valuable criteria despite the outlying current situation.
1 Like
