Should the presidential requirement of being a "natural-born citizen" be removed?

SFC Anabel Cepero — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:00:03 -0500

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Feb 18 at 2016 6:02 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:02:30 -0500

SFC Anabel Cepero great question, I think it should be revisited and looked into. I am biased on this one.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 18 at 2016 6:07 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:07:44 -0500

Clarified maybe. Removed no.

There aren't many requirements to be President. 35 years old. Resident of the US for Preceding 14 years. Not from the same state as the VP. That's about it.

You can be a felon and be the President. You can be a plumber. You can be a former Private, or not in the military at all.

So that said, who are we excluding? Do the rules really need to change? And if they do, use the Amendment process.

Response by SPC Duncan Koebrich made Feb 18 at 2016 6:10 PM

SPC Duncan Koebrich — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:10:19 -0500

I've wondered about this, and suspect that abandonment would leave us vulnerable to a form of Tyranny that the clause serves to "check". Our founding fathers demonstrate a reverence for Classical Education, and I think it's safe to say they have good reason to insert that requirement when weighed against the contributions of Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, and even the likes of Titus Livy. Do I expect present-day citizens to be aware of these contributions? No. Can I back up my assertions? If you'd like, but it would require that they are measured against the reality of what is written by those authors, as I can't encourage your "taking my word for it". I'm reluctant to undertake such an endeavor, but will do so if you are interested.

I'm interested in reading why anyone thinks that clause exists to begin with after he/she thinks about it, if anyone cares to share.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2016 6:10 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:10:54 -0500

I am a bit scared that we are pondering such a thing.

Response by SSG Jesse Cheadle made Feb 18 at 2016 6:11 PM

SSG Jesse Cheadle — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:11:39 -0500

No. If anything there needs to be more requirements.

#1 Have served a mininum of 4 years of Military service and honorably discharged.

I will close the soap box at that.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Feb 18 at 2016 6:13 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:13:48 -0500

It doesn't need to be removed. It just needs to be defined, if only because I'm really tired of listening to "Constitutionalists" argue that some 17th Century Frenchman who didn't like women is somehow the defining authority.

Response by SFC Justin Scott made Feb 18 at 2016 6:15 PM

SFC Justin Scott — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:15:55 -0500

I think that it should be amended to add that US citizens serving a minimum of 6 years in the military with an honorable discharge should be qualified for President if they're not a natural born citizen but I do not think the requirement should be removed altogether.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 18 at 2016 6:16 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:16:49 -0500

There is no logical basis for maintaining the requirement that a candidate for President be a "natural born citizen". Nor can a "logical basis" be found for many constitutional requirements. The simple truth is that this nation "worked" once upon a time, when the government was limited to a very few constitutionally defined purposes. As we've drifted away from that vision, our nation has suffered. Economically. Politically. Culturally. These things are demonstrably true.

Wait, I hear you cry. But we had slavery. Women didn't have the right to vote. Etc. Etc. Etc. However, none of those things were created by the Constitution. They were cultural flaws that were all handled without altering the Constitution. Yes, we added amendments to free the slaves, but those were passed after the fact (the slaves were freed by a great war, not by an act of Congress or even a presidential declaration. Those things were simple acknowledgements of what was true).

Thus, I'm not inclined to support changing the Constitution for any purpose. Just read it and learn what's there before you go messing with it. I dare say that those who are be loudest advocates for changing the Constitution are among the most ignorant of it.

For those of you still serving, keep in mind your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. You may find it interesting that many among the ranks of those who have served before you and now honorably discharge, veterans, still feel compelled to honor that oath. You too hopefully will feel the same one day. Trust me, it's really worth fighting for. If you're not sure, get educated before you fight to change it.

Allow me to recommend these free on line courses, especailly Constitution 101 and The Federalist Papers. They're a good beginning...

http://online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses

Course List - Hillsdale College Online Courses

C.S. Lewis was the greatest Christian apologist of the twentieth century. He was also the author of works of fiction, including the Chronicles of Narnia, and of philosophy, including The Abolition of Man. This course will consider Lewis’s apologetics and his fiction, as well as his philosophical and literary writings, and their continuing significance today.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 18 at 2016 6:24 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:24:11 -0500

But, it appears as if more definition is required by the "Birthers" of all stripes. Its clear to me as is when all considerations are met.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2016 7:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:11:24 -0500

Absolutely NOT!!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2016 8:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:17:49 -0500

No.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2016 10:21 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:21:13 -0500

never!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2016 6:45 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 06:45:39 -0500

I'd rather make our country a Republic again...it's been a mostly foreign owned 3-time bankrupt corporation since Lincoln Incorporated when the Southern Comgressional delegates walked out on him! It's been a Board of Directors ever since and hopefully the tenets of National Economic Security and Reformation Act (2000) will finally be carried out! Which will make your survey moot!

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Feb 19 at 2016 9:51 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:51:33 -0500

Largely concur with Sgt Kennedy; the definition of 'natural born' should be clarified but maintained as a requirement. Having a foreigner come to this country and potentially run for President poses potential dangers. Just imagine a President Schwarzenegger....

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2016 10:38 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:38:47 -0500

This should be vetted extensively before someone is even put on the ballot. It seems ridiculous that there is still room left to question someone's birth status(candidate or elected).

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2016 6:53 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:53:29 -0500

I always thought that meant "natural" childbirth versus Cesarean Section!!!

Response by SFC Richard Lee made Feb 19 at 2016 7:00 PM

SFC Richard Lee — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:00:32 -0500

No it should not be removed, but I also think that a requirement of not less than two (2) years of active creditable military service. No deferments with the only exception being that the individual is handicapped and would not pass the entrance physical.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2016 4:10 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 04:10:52 -0500

NO!

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Sep 24 at 2017 12:07 AM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 00:07:14 -0400

Our forefathers came up with this as a response to what was common in Europe for centuries, monarchs and their families were sent to other countries or inter married to cement alliances and secure control. This was a protection to keep a foreign influence out of our presidency and thwart any outside influence.