oh, come on. You're forgetting Dianne Feinstein. She's a senior senator, she's seen as a moderate, but she's willing to take a daring stand occasionally - like supporting vouchers in DC schools. She's wealthy, which brings more money to the campaign. DiFi can speak convincingly of the evils of unregulated guns, since she became Mayor when George Moscone was assassinated, and can speak to the evils of recall elections, having faced down one herself. On all the rest, she's a good speaker with few heterodox positions, and she has administrative and executive experience.
Sure, she's Jewish, too, but that might draw away some Jewish and anti-anti-Semite votes from Bush, which would more than make up for the anti-semites the Democrats would lose.
Anthony, I had forgotten about Feinstein. A good one too! Jewish seems unconditionally good for this go-round, with Bush trying to take some Jewish voters away with his support for Israel. The only problem may be the taint of hated California. But yes, I like it. (Where is she on foreign policy?)
Fontana, I'll send that question along to Eugene Volokh and see what he does with it. If they let foreign-borns run though, I'm warning you all, blogging will cease as my presidential campaign begins.
At least in recent decades, I don't see that any candidate's VP choice has influenced an election, except negatively (e.g., Eagleton or Stockdale). I don't think that Geraldine Ferraro peeled off many female GOP voters for Mondale.
In the same vein, if Bush threw Cheney overboard and picked Powell for his running mate, I still don't think the GOP could get much more than the 10% of the African-American vote that they currently pull. The top of the ticket might well be a different story, but that's yet to be tested.
Except that she moved to the States when she was four from -- oh, the horror, the shame! -- Canada.
Feinstein is a choice that might cause me to abstain from voting; she's horrible. She's pushed for and voted for every bill that's come down the pike to advance the interests of Disney and the entertainment industry in extending copyright, in passing the Digital Millienium Copyright Act, in pushing for ratings of records, songs, and tv shows, she's supported every kind of encouragement of censorship. Her position on guns is so extreme that she wants a complete ban on all civilian ownership. If Cheney is a war-profiteer, what does that Feinstein?
You know, ogged, there are some of us who write for this blog who spent three whole years in law school and in so doing gained more than a passing familiarity with the Constitution.
To answer your question, Fontana, the prohibition against foreign-born persons being President is contained in the Constitution itself - see paragraph 5 of Section 1 of Article II. Because the Equal Protection Clause did not specifically repeal this provision of the Constitution, the best way to interpret the two clauses together is to give both meaning. That is, unequal treatment is generally forbidden, except in cases involving holding the Presidency, where it remains okay. So I think the argument you suggest is a sure loser. Incidentally, the oft-overlooked 12th Amendment makes clear that those who are not eligible to be President are also not eligible to be Vice President.
I thought that might be the answer, since reading "equal protection" that way doesn't (only) discover some penumbral right but voids an explicit prohibition. How sad.
I'm still writing in "ogged" in November '04, though. Or better, the "unf-ogged" ticket.
Unf, you know I'm loathe to tear you away from your corporate task masters.
Alas, it seems you're correct. Prof. Volokh responds,
"The Constitution itself prohibits foreign-born presidents; while a later-enacted amendment could remove this prohibition, usually general amendments aren't interpreted as overriding specific earlier clauses, unless they were clearly intended to do so. Since there's not the remotest evidence of such a clear intent here, the Constitutional prohibition stands until repealed by a more specific amendment."
Regarding Feinstein, after I posted my too-quick assent to Anthony's suggestion, I was reminded off-blog that I had earlier responded to Feinstein with "no fucking way." Thanks Gary, for filling in the details. I should really get more sleep.
The women that would be lured over by a female VeeP candidate are already voting Democratic. Running a strong white male candidate from a region with swing states is more likely to profit the Dems.
oh, come on. You're forgetting Dianne Feinstein. She's a senior senator, she's seen as a moderate, but she's willing to take a daring stand occasionally - like supporting vouchers in DC schools. She's wealthy, which brings more money to the campaign. DiFi can speak convincingly of the evils of unregulated guns, since she became Mayor when George Moscone was assassinated, and can speak to the evils of recall elections, having faced down one herself. On all the rest, she's a good speaker with few heterodox positions, and she has administrative and executive experience.
Sure, she's Jewish, too, but that might draw away some Jewish and anti-anti-Semite votes from Bush, which would more than make up for the anti-semites the Democrats would lose.
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 11:35 AM
Yes, but Jello Biafra made fun of her once, so there goes my vote.
Does anyone with a fistful of con. law knowledge know anything about this argument:
the prohibition on foreign-born presidents is a violation of the equal-protection clause
? The idea, I guess, is that naturalized citizens have something that native-born citizens don't, and this is a 14th amendment issue.
Someone in the NYer had a note about this in conjunction with Arnold, and he seemed to think this is a legit challenge waiting to be made. Any takers?
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 11:43 AM
Anthony, I had forgotten about Feinstein. A good one too! Jewish seems unconditionally good for this go-round, with Bush trying to take some Jewish voters away with his support for Israel. The only problem may be the taint of hated California. But yes, I like it. (Where is she on foreign policy?)
Fontana, I'll send that question along to Eugene Volokh and see what he does with it. If they let foreign-borns run though, I'm warning you all, blogging will cease as my presidential campaign begins.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 11:49 AM
At least in recent decades, I don't see that any candidate's VP choice has influenced an election, except negatively (e.g., Eagleton or Stockdale). I don't think that Geraldine Ferraro peeled off many female GOP voters for Mondale.
In the same vein, if Bush threw Cheney overboard and picked Powell for his running mate, I still don't think the GOP could get much more than the 10% of the African-American vote that they currently pull. The top of the ticket might well be a different story, but that's yet to be tested.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 12:44 PM
Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan.
Except that she moved to the States when she was four from -- oh, the horror, the shame! -- Canada.
Feinstein is a choice that might cause me to abstain from voting; she's horrible. She's pushed for and voted for every bill that's come down the pike to advance the interests of Disney and the entertainment industry in extending copyright, in passing the Digital Millienium Copyright Act, in pushing for ratings of records, songs, and tv shows, she's supported every kind of encouragement of censorship. Her position on guns is so extreme that she wants a complete ban on all civilian ownership. If Cheney is a war-profiteer, what does that Feinstein?
She wants to ban . Basically, she's for whatever is popular, no matter how stupid it is.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:01 PM
Sorry: ban flag-burning.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:02 PM
Gary - all that makes her the perfect Democrat candidate!
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:09 PM
You know, ogged, there are some of us who write for this blog who spent three whole years in law school and in so doing gained more than a passing familiarity with the Constitution.
To answer your question, Fontana, the prohibition against foreign-born persons being President is contained in the Constitution itself - see paragraph 5 of Section 1 of Article II. Because the Equal Protection Clause did not specifically repeal this provision of the Constitution, the best way to interpret the two clauses together is to give both meaning. That is, unequal treatment is generally forbidden, except in cases involving holding the Presidency, where it remains okay. So I think the argument you suggest is a sure loser. Incidentally, the oft-overlooked 12th Amendment makes clear that those who are not eligible to be President are also not eligible to be Vice President.
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:12 PM
I thought that might be the answer, since reading "equal protection" that way doesn't (only) discover some penumbral right but voids an explicit prohibition. How sad.
I'm still writing in "ogged" in November '04, though. Or better, the "unf-ogged" ticket.
Posted by fontana labs | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:42 PM
Unf, you know I'm loathe to tear you away from your corporate task masters.
Alas, it seems you're correct. Prof. Volokh responds,
"The Constitution itself prohibits foreign-born presidents; while a later-enacted amendment could remove this prohibition, usually general amendments aren't interpreted as overriding specific earlier clauses, unless they were clearly intended to do so. Since there's not the remotest evidence of such a clear intent here, the Constitutional prohibition stands until repealed by a more specific amendment."
The blogger candidacy will have to wait.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:46 PM
Regarding Feinstein, after I posted my too-quick assent to Anthony's suggestion, I was reminded off-blog that I had earlier responded to Feinstein with "no fucking way." Thanks Gary, for filling in the details. I should really get more sleep.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:48 PM
The women that would be lured over by a female VeeP candidate are already voting Democratic. Running a strong white male candidate from a region with swing states is more likely to profit the Dems.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 12:11 AM