Presidential Eligibility
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Presidential Eligibility

  1. #1
    Super Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jeddah
    Posts
    678

    Default Presidential Eligibility

    I was just reading the news and came upon an article where Obama asked a 7 y/o boy from Hawaii if he had a birth certificate, jokingly.

    So I just wondered, why is it completely necessary for the POTUS to be U.S. born? What do you think and why do you think it? And why age 35?


    ETA: by U.S. born I mean a natural native of the U.S regardless of actual birth spot, not an immigrant etc.
    Last edited by myyams; 09-08-2012 at 11:19 PM.
    Aisha

  2. #2
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    I think that it is a ridiculous rule for a country that wants people to believe it is "the land of the free." Let the people choose.

  3. #3
    Super Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jeddah
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Children who weren't born here but were very small when they immigrated here may call the U.S. home and feel the same affiliation with the U.S. as children who were born here. Just even minutes could make or break one's eligibility to become POTUS. I don't think birthplace alone makes ones feelings for anyone.

    If it's strong ties and honor of this country (etc) which concerns voters, they can decide based on getting to know the candidate. I am not sure birthplace alone can make or break that decision for me. There are LOTS of people born here that should never be president and would probably never win anyway. There could be great people born elsewhere but brought up here or otherwise naturalized and feel a lot of love and support for the U.S. perhaps even more than some people born as citizens.

    And then I can't understand this magical number 35. It's kind of odd to me that there is a minimum age limit and not really a maximum. If there is a super smart person under 35 who could do well as President, then why the age barrier?

    Basically becoming "Naturalized" as part of the immigration process gives all rights except Presidency (and of course VPOTUS). I just don't see how birthplace (and the other 2 rules) make one's eligibility and I certainly don't agree with these rules.
    Aisha

  4. #4
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myyams View Post
    Children who weren't born here but were very small when they immigrated here may call the U.S. home and feel the same affiliation with the U.S. as children who were born here. Just even minutes could make or break one's eligibility to become POTUS. I don't think birthplace alone makes ones feelings for anyone.
    It can now, but at the time the Constitution was written a few minutes would not have made the difference in citizenship. When the delegates met to draft the Constitution, they wanted to ensure no one person would become too powerful. They had just finished up a war to get away from that kind of rule. Loyalties the new country would be much stronger for those born in the US than those who immigrated here. Perhaps that's not true anymore, but it will take an amendment to change that. There was talk years ago about the "Arnold amendment" but it was really just talk.

    If it's strong ties and honor of this country (etc) which concerns voters, they can decide based on getting to know the candidate. I am not sure birthplace alone can make or break that decision for me. There are LOTS of people born here that should never be president and would probably never win anyway. There could be great people born elsewhere but brought up here or otherwise naturalized and feel a lot of love and support for the U.S. perhaps even more than some people born as citizens.
    Where would we draw the line though? Is it enough to come here at age 25 and become a citizen then later president? How about 5 so they were educated in the US? It would again end up an arbitrary number.

    And then I can't understand this magical number 35. It's kind of odd to me that there is a minimum age limit and not really a maximum. If there is a super smart person under 35 who could do well as President, then why the age barrier?
    Well, the average lifespan was much shorter. By 35 candidates would have experiences and maturity that younger citizens wouldn't have. It's never been an issue since all have been older than 35. A maximum age wouldn't be necessary for the same reason. It would be an arbitrary number; if we set it at 60, we would have disqualified 9 presidents. Three presidents were over 65. None have been over 70 thus far.

    Basically becoming "Naturalized" as part of the immigration process gives all rights except Presidency (and of course VPOTUS). I just don't see how birthplace (and the other 2 rules) make one's eligibility and I certainly don't agree with these rules.
    Why not? You have 2 jobs - just 2 - the require being born in the US. That's it. Only 43 different people have served in the position of POTUS and 47 VPOTUE in 223 years. Is it really an issue? Have we lost out an potentially wonder candidates because of this requirement?

    You don't need to be a natural-born citizen to serve in Congress, yet there have only been about 60 who fit this description. It doesn't sound like it's something that needs to be addressed at the POTUS level.

    Also, you only have to be 25 for the House and 30 for the Senate. As you age, you gain experience. I know I would never vote for a 35 YO to be president. If s/he's that good, s/he will be better at 39, 44, 48, etc. Several have been elected the 2nd time around.
    mom3girls likes this.

  5. #5
    Super Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jeddah
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    It can now, but at the time the Constitution was written a few minutes would not have made the difference in citizenship. When the delegates met to draft the Constitution, they wanted to ensure no one person would become too powerful. They had just finished up a war to get away from that kind of rule. Loyalties the new country would be much stronger for those born in the US than those who immigrated here. Perhaps that's not true anymore, but it will take an amendment to change that. There was talk years ago about the "Arnold amendment" but it was really just talk.


    Where would we draw the line though? Is it enough to come here at age 25 and become a citizen then later president? How about 5 so they were educated in the US? It would again end up an arbitrary number.


    Well, the average lifespan was much shorter. By 35 candidates would have experiences and maturity that younger citizens wouldn't have. It's never been an issue since all have been older than 35. A maximum age wouldn't be necessary for the same reason. It would be an arbitrary number; if we set it at 60, we would have disqualified 9 presidents. Three presidents were over 65. None have been over 70 thus far.



    Why not? You have 2 jobs - just 2 - the require being born in the US. That's it. Only 43 different people have served in the position of POTUS and 47 VPOTUE in 223 years. Is it really an issue? Have we lost out an potentially wonder candidates because of this requirement?

    You don't need to be a natural-born citizen to serve in Congress, yet there have only been about 60 who fit this description. It doesn't sound like it's something that needs to be addressed at the POTUS level.

    Also, you only have to be 25 for the House and 30 for the Senate. As you age, you gain experience. I know I would never vote for a 35 YO to be president. If s/he's that good, s/he will be better at 39, 44, 48, etc. Several have been elected the 2nd time around.

    Basically from all you have stated, it seems like these laws are outdated. We don't really know if eligibility is an issue because it is kind of a moot point for others to consider. Slowly...very slowly...our leadership is becoming more diverse. Perhaps it js something that should be looked at. It seems a little insulting that a naturalized citizen cannot become potus or aspire to be. Last year in my son's citizenship class in school, many kids said thye wanted to be the POTUS who were immigrants. At some point they will find out they cant despite being deeply vested in every way in thus country. I realize it is just something that looks so amazing esp to kids, and maybe few actually desire that or have potential for it. It is the principle, such a distinguishing line. It is almost like one is not fully accepted in society.
    Aisha

  6. #6
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    I don't know, I don't think it's weird or unfair to require that the leader of your country have been born in it. It's not like any legal citizen can't work in government at an extremely high level, or rise to a position of tremendous influence or power. I have no issue with the age limit either; if you're young, all you have to do is wait.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  7. #7
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myyams View Post
    Basically from all you have stated, it seems like these laws are outdated. We don't really know if eligibility is an issue because it is kind of a moot point for others to consider. Slowly...very slowly...our leadership is becoming more diverse. Perhaps it js something that should be looked at. It seems a little insulting that a naturalized citizen cannot become potus or aspire to be. Last year in my son's citizenship class in school, many kids said thye wanted to be the POTUS who were immigrants. At some point they will find out they cant despite being deeply vested in every way in thus country. I realize it is just something that looks so amazing esp to kids, and maybe few actually desire that or have potential for it. It is the principle, such a distinguishing line. It is almost like one is not fully accepted in society.
    Amending the Constitution is a long, difficult process (rightfully so). It seems like a waste of time to bother.

    As for finding out you're not eligible for POTUS, .0000001% of the population has held that position. If my math is right, the odds of winning the lottery are greater than becoming president. Should we really change the Constitution so immigrant children can feel the delusions most of us felt when we realized we won't be president? There are lots of things I wanted to be when I was a child only to found out later I wasn't eligible.

    Sure you have to be a natural-born citizen, 35 or older, and lived in us for 14 years prior. Then there's that pesky thing that stands in the way of most people: getting elected. Which requires some sort of name recognition, proven leadership skills (military, Congress, governor, lawyer), some sort of speaking skills, and gobs of money. The "poor" presidents were military leaders. And for 219 years a white man.

  8. #8
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,515

    Default

    I do think the rules in place are there for a reason and should not/can not be changed without a constitutional amendment.

    ~Bonita~

  9. #9
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,430

    Default

    I agree with ethanwinfield, cant really think of anything else to say.

    Oh except I am 35 and there is no way I would vote for someone younger then me, probably not even someone 45. I think the kind of experience needed to do the job of POTUS takes way longer then 35 years to gain.
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  10. #10
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    Loyalties the new country would be much stronger for those born in the US than those who immigrated here. Perhaps that's not true anymore, but it will take an amendment to change that.
    I don't think that has ever been true except on an individual basis. If you love a country enough to give up a life somewhere else, you really love it. So much more of a commitment than your mother happening to be somewhere when her water broke.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions