Maybe theoretically, but practically no. Nixon never served time. Bush pardoned everyone involved in Iran-Contra.
1 Like
youâre forgetting the context of the constitution: the colonies had just broken away from england.
they absolutely were trying to assure america was protected from outside control.
there were more than enough french and english loyalists living in america who would have been happy to have the american experiment fade away. ( i donât know for a fact, but itâs probably also part of why presidential elections werenât based on the popular vote. )
4 Likes
Oh, Iâm aware of that. Iâm just dismissing it. Iâm very much against pretending that we need to preserve the interests of dead people in our legal framework.
2 Likes
Therefore the US constitution should continue to adapt to prevailing conditions.
1 Like
I will gladly express my native-born All-American schadenfreude to Cruzâs situation.
One of the differences between naturalized citizens and natural-born citizens is that the former have to go through a lengthy process to ensure they are fit to call themselves âAmericans,â including oaths of loyalty to the United States.
Those of us who just happened to be born here donât have to know or do squat. We could shout praise for ISIS from the rooftops without any danger of losing our citizenship.
The idea that someone would go through the trouble to earn U.S. citizenship, spend years building a political following, run for President and successfully win the White House just to sell us out to some foreign power seems a little nuts.
4 Likes
Not a big fan of Schwarzeneggerâs politics in general but Iâll admit he wasnât nearly as bad a governor as Iâd feared he would be. He could have killed the decades-long effort to get Californiaâs High-Speed Rail project off the ground or tried to enforce unworkable anti-immigration policies. He recently wrote a pretty eloquent essay arguing for why itâs in Californiaâs long term economic interests to invest in renewable energy.
So as Republican politicians go Iâd definitely take him over any of the clowns currently vying for the GOP nomination.
2 Likes
More ironically, they are also talking about keeping muslims out of America, when the one thing the framers could agree on about religion, in the original constitution, before the bill of rights, was a prohibition against requiring religious tests to hold public office. Admittedly, it doesnât specifically deal with entrance to the country, but it does show that they were pretty down on the idea of religious tests.
6 Likes
The Supreme Court is unlikely to touch this and instead defer to the political branches. If the Electoral College selects a president and Congress certifies the results thatâs good enough evidence for SCOTUS that the winner is eligible.
I have no desire for prez Schwartz, but I agree with your sentiment. If a person can govern the fifth largest economy, why canât they be president except for pettiness?
(Why is it that we live in a world that the Terminator is a moderate figure?)
5 Likes
Those are nice thoughts, as are @Daemonworks. But the current government of this land isnât a direct democracy, itâs a constitutionally-limited democratic republic. The framers of that constitution decided, for better or worse, that some principles should be a lot harder to alter than obtaining the support of a simple democratic majority. So while the legal definition of a natural born citizen can potentially be altered through court rulings or maybe act of Congress - because whether natural born citizen refers to soil versus blood isnât explicitly addressed in the US Constitution - opening eligibility to all citizens (as @Daemonworks suggests) or any one freely and fairly elected (as you yourself suggest) requires one of three courses of action. In order of difficulty: amending the US Constitution, revolution to overthrow the government, sufficient collapse of society to require starting from scratch.
Iâll be happy to sign any petition to amend the Constitution to expand eligibility to all US citizens, and Iâm sure you could find plenty of people (though not I) who would sign a petition expanding it to anyone elected irrespective of citizenship. But I wonât spend any money or substantial time, wonât incite revolt, and wonât try to precipitate a collapse of civilization to achieve it. I donât care that much if Ted Cruz can be elected POTUS (particularly since Iâd much rather he be elected President of the moon and delivered for inauguration ASAP).
Is it, as @Daemonworks says, an idiotic debate? The reasons for it being a point of debate may be idiotic. But if your goal is to actually change the law, then focusing on a transition from jus soli to jus sanguinis is a potentially productive undertaking. If your goal is to rail against the walls of injustice and accomplish nothing of substance, then shoot for the moon 
Merely my 5¢ (adjusted for inflation). No quarrel sought.
4 Likes
Yes itâs. The key difference is, that the US of A was explicitly constituted as a nation of immigrants (overlooking the small detail of annihilating the indigenous population and slavery) in revolutionary opposition to the Motherland (England), and thus, the presumption that someone whose procreators had put themselves through the hardship of raising their offspring in the harsh reality of the colonies would have stronger loyalties and greater commitment to the US than to England seemed reasonable.
Consequently, it seems reasonable that the Founding Fathers explicitly tried to exclude naturalised citizens from holding the highest, most powerful office in the land (given that the US is a Presidential Democracy, rather than a Representative one), who, if naturalised, might have at birth been subject of the King of England, i.e. their archenemy. It seems pretty clear that the rules were set up, so as to ensure, that the English wonât claim back the colonies through some underhand, backdoor method (they have been known for that kind of shenanigans).
This clearly is an issue, but as in so many instances in life, you canât make the rule based on an exception. Such a President would be an anomaly, but given the current political climate, it seems a very theoretical case. Hard to imagine someone campaigning to become President of US of A, who spent the substantial part of their life in a Middle Eastern nation as part of a Middle Eastern family. US tolerance doesnât go that far.
Much more interesting is that Cruz only gave up his US citizenship at the last minute. Surely, he had political ambitions prior to 2013. It suggests, that his decision was motivated by optimising his tax liability, which would be rather revealing.
As to Boris Johnson, again, he is the kind of operator whose decisions on citizenship will be motivated by tax considerations (and for those purposes, itâs not good to be a non-resident US citizen). I wish there were some rule that would prohibit him from running for office in the UK, and we could send him over the Atlantic to battle it out with Trump on Buffoonery. It would be a win win. At least he is more eloquent and intelligent than Trump, thus could slightly raise the tone of the debate, while we would be rid of a self-aggrandising, narcissistic, exhibitionist, who turns with the wind.
4 Likes
May of 2014, actually.
Itâs like they knew my plan!
4 Likes
yep, rather an elaborate scheme, to thwart your plan. no effort spared:)
although, I am highly critical of the current state of US politics, the thought and eloquent discourse that went into the drafting of the Constitution is impressive.
a shame, that those who are currently seeking its protection (e.g. NRA) do so without either thought or even remotely intelligible arguments / debate.
how about a new constitutional requirement for the Office of President:
capacity to string a coherent sentence together and / or make an intelligible argument.
3 Likes
Except Obama would have lacked the benefit of the doubt accorded members of the white wing
1 Like
Ms. McMananmon actually defeats her own argument. Canada, until 1982 when the Canada Act of 1982 was passed, was still partially, at least, part of the âdominions of the crown of England.â It wasnât until 1982 that Canada achieved full independence from the British Parliament. It seems like Ms. McMananmom doesnât understand/know Canadian history very well.
Since Ted Cruz was born in 1970 (in Canada), that would mean he was born in Canada at a time when it was still under the rule of the Crown of England. So, even if you reject the idea that someone born to an American is not a US citizen (which is idiotic), he still qualifies as Canada did not achieve full sovereignty until 1982 â when Cruz was
about 12.
What is interesting to me is that no one is even daring to address the closing clause of Article II, section I, clause V of the US constitution:
âNo Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.â[Emphasis added.]
If weâre going to be âstrict interpretationistsâ or so-called âoriginalistsâ or just plain jerks about adhering to only the language as expressly stated in the Constitution, then that means every president basically from Martin Van Buren (he was #8) on was not eligible to be president since none of them were alive âat the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.â
But all of this is silliness. Shouldnât we be focusing on the fact that neither Cruz nor Trump are totally unacceptable to lead the country and that the proposals theyâve put forth actually violate the Constitution?
4 Likes
Well, everybody knows that thereâs no scary Muslims in Canada.
(Except CanadiansâŚ)
Iâll see your
And raise you a
Sorry, first thing that came to mind. It doesnât really matter does it, heâs got no chance?ZOMG
Yes it is.
