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
0
0
0
I always thought that meant "natural" childbirth versus Cesarean Section!!!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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).
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
You have to be kidding, this has been gone over for 100 years, beginning with Chester Arthur and several times since. The first president that was natural born IAW the Constitutional requirements was?????
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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....
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
So you question a naturalized citizen's love of country? When natural born citizens shit on it daily.....?
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
1LT Aaron Barr - Founders also thought women shouldn't vote and black folks were only 3/5th of a person.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
The problem with sarcasm is that it doesn't translate well into the written word. Then again, the Founders didn't have to deal with an educational system that taught students to hate their own country.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I think naturalized citizens how have lived in the country for X amount of years should be allowed to run. I am a good example of being an asterisk citizen because of this rule. I moved to the US when I was 3. I naturalized when I was 7. I have lived in the US practically all of my life and consider myself 100% American. But because I was not fortunate enough to be born here, I cannot run? I am probably MORE American than half of the clowns born in this country who don't give a shit about it.
(2)
(0)
SFC Justin Scott
I think the stipulation of service should be there for those who are not natural born because of the oath taken to support and defend the Constitution.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
MCPO Roger Collins I tend to agree, but I've had more than one conversation where that was clearly not good enough. I had an argument here for the individual insisted that women cannot pass citizenship. I finally stopped responding when he kept insisting that's what the constitution actually said even though he admitted the text wasn't there.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SGT Jeremiah B. - There are those that think noise indicates intelligence. We see proof every day on RP of that.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google