Posted on Feb 18, 2016
Should the presidential requirement of being a "natural-born citizen" be removed?
6.82K
106
46
3
3
0
Citizenship
Office of the President (POTUS)
Constitution
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 19
12
12
0
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.
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.
(12)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - You are correct that it would need to be changed through the Amendment process. I wouldn't want it done any other way. And while you are correct in that is an objective standard outlined in the Constitution, it's also an arbitrary one that IMHO is badly outdated.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Paul Labrador - I think Arbitrary isn't necessarily correct. I think the Framers had a specific logic in mind when they placed it. They feared "foreign influence" and viewed the Natural Born Citizen clause as a means of combating it. It's not present in Art 1 & 3 because the States elect the Legislature and the Judicial exists with the Advise & Consent of the Senate. I'm not saying it isn't outdated (now), but for a "young nation" it made sense. For a 200+ year old nation, not so much.
The last thing the Framers wanted in 1800~ was someone becoming a Naturalized and changing things. They wanted "Americans."
The last thing the Framers wanted in 1800~ was someone becoming a Naturalized and changing things. They wanted "Americans."
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I agree with you on the original intent.....although, being natural born doesn't really protect against "foreign influence". That is even MORE true today in the world of globalism and social media. Else we wouldn't have American born kids flocking to Al Queda and ISIS....
And if you really wanted to extrapolate, you could exclude certain religions as well for fear of "outside influence". Some folks used this logic to try to exclude JFK from running, since he was Catholic, and they feared the Pope could unduly influence him.
And if you really wanted to extrapolate, you could exclude certain religions as well for fear of "outside influence". Some folks used this logic to try to exclude JFK from running, since he was Catholic, and they feared the Pope could unduly influence him.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Paul Labrador Concur. I only point out the logic of it (original). As I said, I have no objection to change if it makes sense, but I want it to make sense.
As for JFK, there's a reason we have the No Religious Test clause as well, though. The Framer's couldn't think of everything... but they did think of a lot.
As for JFK, there's a reason we have the No Religious Test clause as well, though. The Framer's couldn't think of everything... but they did think of a lot.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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
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.
(5)
(0)
SPC Duncan Koebrich
Thank you so much for recommending those free classes-I look forward to gobbling them up. I'd like to recommend Professor Kagan's lectures on Ancient Greek History in exchange:
http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205
"These are the days of miracle and wonder" (Paul Simon)
http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205
"These are the days of miracle and wonder" (Paul Simon)
Open Yale Courses | Introduction to Ancient Greek History
This is an introductory course in Greek history tracing the development of Greek civilization as manifested in political, intellectual, and creative achievements from the Bronze Age to the end of the classical period. Students read original sources in translation as well as the works of modern scholars.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
SFC Anabel Cepero great question, I think it should be revisited and looked into. I am biased on this one.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
#1 Have served a mininum of 4 years of Military service and honorably discharged.
I will close the soap box at that.
(1)
(0)
SSG Jesse Cheadle
Would you want me to represent you in court just because I am savy with my words and I tell you I can represent you? Didnt think so.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I don't agree with the military requirement. Only about 1% of our population serves in the military. So you want to restrict the candidate pool to only 1% of the population? (Of course this argument kind of falls flat because effectively only the top 1% money earners can afford to be a candidate)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google