Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should the natural-born citizen clause be abolished for U.S. Presidents?
Yes 18 26.87%
No 49 73.13%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2013, 11:45 AM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,794,657 times
Reputation: 1930

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub dub II View Post
umm, Barack Obama?
Didn't Barack Obama always live in the United States of America?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2013, 11:48 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,837,332 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
OK, but why shouldn't this person be eligible to run for U.S. President?

Also, in regards to your argument in regards to natural-born U.S. citizens living abroad for decades, couldn't one make the same argument in regards to the American people not electing such a naturalized U.S. citizen (but saying that this naturalized U.S. citizen should still be able to run for U.S. President in the first place)?
ok again, the second person CAN NOT prove they are a natural born citizen because of the adoption. and in fact they are NOT natural born US citizens since you made the claim that they were born in another country to parents that were NOT US citizens.

and again regarding the first person, chances are good that they wont survive the primary challenges because of their choice to live outside the US for years as an adult. obama got a pass for two reasons, the first was that he was a youth when he lived overseas and thus had no choice as to where he wanted to live, and second he was the democrats rock star golden boy and as sush the media and the democrat party protected him from attacks like where his loyalties lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 11:52 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 4,671,924 times
Reputation: 2170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
Didn't Barack Obama always live in the United States of America?
No. He lived in Indonesia for like 4 years...went to the local schools there and everything. Like from 6-10. Something like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 11:59 AM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,794,657 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by dub dub II View Post
No. He lived in Indonesia for like 4 years...went to the local schools there and everything. Like from 6-10. Something like that.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 12:00 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,584,176 times
Reputation: 2823
I don't think it should be abolished. There may be some people that would be good that are ruled out as a result but you have to consider who you "rule in" without standards. No system is perfect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 12:00 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,794,657 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
ok again, the second person CAN NOT prove they are a natural born citizen because of the adoption. and in fact they are NOT natural born US citizens since you made the claim that they were born in another country to parents that were NOT US citizens.
OK, but why shouldn't the law be CHANGED to allow the second person in my scenario to run for U.S. President?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
9,394 posts, read 15,691,376 times
Reputation: 6262
Yes. To think that a person owes some sort of extra fealty to their nation by virtue of who their parents were or what land they were born on is incredibly asinine.

I've met immigrants whose fervent nationalism for the US would put Jesse Helms to shame, and I've met natural-born Americans who pretty much hate the US.

As much as I dislike him, Henry Kissinger is a prime example of someone who was never eligible to run for President even though he'd performed more civil service for this country than 99% of Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,463,404 times
Reputation: 8599
All citizens should be equal in terms of rights - including eligibility for President. Let the lobbyists, the 1%, and voters decide if they support a hypothetical Kenyan Muslim as President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 12:32 PM
 
8,418 posts, read 7,412,065 times
Reputation: 8767
I voted yes, but I'd add qualifications to that yes vote.

I'd require that to be president, one would need to be a citizen of the United States, either natural-born or naturalized, that one would need to be a citizen of the U.S. for at least 30 years and that one would have to be a permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 25 years prior to election to the office of President.

I'd keep the requirement for the office that the President be at least 35 years of age.

This way a person who becomes a naturalized citizen at 20 years of age and resides continuously within the United States for at least 25 years as a citizen, could at 50 years of age be eligible for the Presidency.

Likewise, a person who is born in the United States and who spends at least 25 years as a permanent resident of the U.S. can become eligible for the Presidency at 35 years of age.

I know that the original intent for the 'natural born' clause was to preclude European aristocracy from using wealth, charm and power to obtain the Presidency, but IMO that is no longer an issue as the United States is now a world super power instead of a fledgling republic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 12:42 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,942,406 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
This doesn't address my question here.
You can't "abolish" an Article in the US Constitution. An article can be amended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top