I'm not sure it works like that. I think the absence of British "chauvinism" is best explained by the lack of any serious conflict between the US and the UK, not the limited number (I'm guessing) of naturalized citizens originally from the UK.

I'm quite comfortable with it. The 35-year-old requirement, not so much.

Trust Ogged to defend a policy that would have prevented the rise of the Führer.

I don't understand 1 (and remember, disagreement has to wait until comment 3). What do the British have to do with this? What doesn't work like how? You're not a native speaker, are you?

2: Ditto. Of course, it's the 35-year-old requirement that prevents the election of Carrie Underwood as the next President of the United States, so maybe it's not all bad.

Who's Carrie Underwood?

I don't think being native born prevents one from feeling warm friendly feelings toward the "old country." I think the absence of national conflict determines the absence of personal loyalty conflicts. I feel relatively certain that at least some of those supporting the IRA in earlier years were not born in Ireland.

The IRA point goes to the first sentence. I guess. I'm not really sure what I thought it showed.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, you're probably right, which is why only real Americans should be allowed to run. Like a lot of blanket exclusions, this can seem arbitrary, but I think the notion that if you were born somewhere you'll retain special feelings for it is basically reasonable.

In Canada there was a big fuss when the current Governor General (rep of the Queen) was named, because she has dual citizenship - some argued this was a conflict of interest. Should native-born citizens who happen to have an additional citizenship be excluded (if they aren't already)? What about children of immigrants who were probably raised with a strong bias towards some country?

which is why only real Americans should be allowed to run

Given that those who are regularly coded as Real Americans(TM) have revealed themselves to be unAmericans, I'm not comfortable with that formulation, either.

Is this a common requirement in other countries, or are we the outliers here?

I think the notion that if you were born somewhere you'll retain special feelings for it is basically reasonable.

See, I agree, but for me it's almost more powerful in the reverse. If you grow up here, you've been immersed in American values, for better or worse (usually both). The last six years notwithstanding, I accept nativity as a rough proxy for "believes in one-person-one-vote, free speech, the concept of class mobility, and a host of other ill-defined but generally valuable ideas."

And I want my president to believe those things, or at the very least to have grown up in an enviroment where you did you have to start at square zero with an argument about why people who don't own property and/or possess male genitals should be allowed to vote.

where you did not have to start at square zero.

which is why only real Americans should be allowed to run

This was a joke, you cyborg.

Your American humor confuses me.

It worked out fine when George Bush became the dictator of Iraq without ever having been there, didn't it?

In Canada there was a big fuss when the current Governor General (rep of the Queen) was named, because she has dual citizenship

And yet they don't care that the Queen isn't Canadian. Go figure.

I agree with the post, it was a good idea when it was included and it is still a good idea.

I'm willing to self-identify as self-evidently anachronistic. In a country where we already elect presidents who might well be technically retarded, I'm not confident that relaxing the inclusion criteria is the wisest course of action.

We've only had 42 different presidents in the history of the nation, and of the 300 million current citizens, how many were born here? 90%? 95%? Asking that you were born here doesn't really seem like that onerous of a requirement and moreover it prevents the embarrassment that would be the inevitable Schwarzeneggar presidential campaign.

I'm always appalled by how many people feel this way....I thought the requirement was stupid in fourth grade when I first learned about it and I think it's stupid now. Lots of people have warm fuzzies for countries where they weren't born. And the idea that people born elsewhere might not *really* believe in liberal democracy is flat out offensive. Where people were born just isn't a great proxy for what's in their heads, and while you can certainly come up with storylines about how it's better to have been born and raised a certain way, the dangers are quite small and something that voters are perfectly capable of weighing. You need to do better than "maybe a negative factor in this plausible way" to get to "should be a constitutional bar."

I mean, I'd trust someone born abroad over someone in the Bush family, and yet we haven't enacted a constitutional amendment over that...

In my mind, it's not about whether the person believes in liberal democracy--it would be a truly strange argument that foreigners don't--but whether, in a pinch, the person will treat the country of origin without conflict of interest.

the idea that people born elsewhere might not *really* believe in liberal democracy is flat out offensive.

That's not the concern, though.

the idea that people born elsewhere might not *really* believe in liberal democracy is flat out offensive

I doubt notions of liberal democracy are the crux of the matter here, Katherine.

Twice the pwnage for the price of one!

Yeah, oddly my German-born wife (raised here since 3) is also not a fan of that requirement. But since you'd need a Constitutional Convention to get rid of it (or a bazillion individual votes by verious legislatures), it has to be egregiously wrong, not just stupid, to be worth ditching.

Much higher priorities for amendments:

A. Right to Privacy
B. Fix the Fucking Senate.
C. Repeal the 22nd amendment, but add recall votes (with a high bar, duh). I think this is as close as we could get to Parliamentarianism without a bloody war.
d. No New Texans.

In my mind, it's not about whether the person believes in liberal democracy--it would be a truly strange argument that foreigners don't--but whether, in a pinch, the person will treat the country of origin without conflict of interest.

1. We're never, ever in a pinch--not since the Cold War, at least.
2. Surely there are discussions about war profiteering, timed wars, and yellow journalism wars to be had here.
3. It's a pretense to pretend that all Americans have all other Americans' best interest at heart. Cf. O'Reilly talking about nuking SF, etc. There are 300 million people here, and you can slice that into divergent groups in a lot of ways.

"liberal democracy" was a direct response to #13.

As for conflict of interest--if you assume that every other President will be a perfectly rational creature serving only U.S. interests maybe that makes some sense. But of course, that's a ludicrous assumption. The danger is minimal, and one that voters are perfectly capable of weighing as much as anything else. If you don't like voters that's another issue.

As for the rest--do you think it's right to discriminate on the basis of nativity generally, or only really important positions? What about the Cabinet? The Senate? Security clearances?

A U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen, as far as I'm concerned.

But Kathernie was responding to Witt's 13 - she didn't make up the liberal democracy thing.

OTOH, I have no real problem excluding ex-Hitler Youth categorically. Given how ignorant Americans are of other cultures (another reason only we get to be President!), it seems far too easy for a shady foreign upbringing to be misunderstood. "Oh no, that wasn't Hitler Youth - just the Jungenreichswehr. Like the Boy Scouts!"

Of course, in reality, what you get is rightwingers calling every school in Indonesia a madrassah.

21, 23, 24: I suspect it was my comment that sparked Katherine's. In fairness, I worded it poorly. I certainly don't think it's impossible for a non-American to believe in liberal democracy. I do think there are ideas, attitudes, assumptions, etc. for which growing up in the U.S. is a rough (rough!) proxy. At the very least for exposure, and perhaps for belief in.

FWIW, if it were practical, I'd also be happy to exclude people like my colleague, who was born in a French hospital to American parents and spent her life in England, France, Botswana, and South Africa before finally coming to the U.S. in her mid-50s.

I do think it's an inherently difficult issue to make rules about.

If it's a rough (I would use the word "atrocious" here actually) proxy why write it into the Constitution?

Jeebus, will no one fail to be pwned? Plus, I misspelled her name in my rush to be pwned.

Sorry, Katherine.

The real question is why the Constitution doesn't permit atheist Presidents.

21: What's appalling is that this has shown up on anyone's (college sophomores possibly excluded) list of national problems-to-solve list right now. I'll think about it after a couple of centuries of peace and quiet, after the heat wave is over, after the air is clean, and after Britney and Paris get their shit together

27: Nobody's making the argument that having been born here qualifies you to be president (or makes you a good person).

Let's try this on. Ogged was initially in favor of invading Iraq. Does anybody believe he could have been talked into supporting an invasion of Iran in 2003?

27- the argument isn't that it's sufficient, just that's it's a useful minimum.

7: Like Éamon de Valera, f'r instance?

If it's a rough (I would use the word "atrocious" here actually) proxy why write it into the Constitution?

Because there weren't that many liberal democracies around at that time, and people did, in fact, feel close ethnic connections to their homelands for many, many decades thereafter?

26b
You can't fix the Senate through amendment.

Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Bastards thought of everything!

Of course, the solution is just to get Wyoming drunk, and then have them sign away their Senators.

31: I think it was much more important when the Constitution was written. I am struck every time I read about the period how truly astonishing and miraculous it was that Washington actually gave up power. I can see a bunch of hotheads seeing it as another mechanism to prevent some foreigner from sweeping in and reconfiguring their hard-won republic.

As far as abolishing it now: 1) Changing the Constitiution is (appropriately) laborious and time-consuming; 2) If we're going to bother to do it, there are at least two dozen other issues that I think are more important; (and I do think it's zero-sum -- I don't think we have the national energy for *multiple* fights over amendments etc.); and 3) on this issue in general I'm pretty much where most people are on flag-burning. I have a position, sure, but I spend hardly any time thinking about it and put it very low on the priority list.

Does anybody believe he could have been talked into supporting an invasion of Iran in 2003?

This has been on my mind too, but if you'll recall, part of (maybe the main) reason I thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea what that I'd just gotten back from Iran where people said "Invade us, please!" That said, no one bombs my country!

You can't get Wyoming drunk. It's too square.

But I've got to ask, Katherine - do you really think that 35 years of American propoganda/indoctrination have no effect? Would everyone raised in, say, Eastern Europe pre-1989 have the same feel for our institutions that the native-born have? I know my HS German teacher described her East German family as being utterly incapable of coping with life in the West.

Obviously, you can wave your hand and say that no one like that would ever advance to being electable, but I don't think that gets at the issue. You seem to think that our hypothetical Desdener absolutely would not have a (problematically) nonorthodox take on the US. Is that really what you think? Or are you relying on the idea that, if they can make themselves viable, anyone gets it sufficiently to get the chance?

But if Zidane plays for New York, can he be elected mayor?

Would he have dual loyalties?

34: so what? That's a potential prejudice that could lead to errors in judgment. One among many, and in this case it would have had a better result.

Jews, are, as a group, pro-Israel, maybe irrationally so; should they be disqualified? Arabs and Muslims are, as a group, anti-Israel, maybe irrationally so; should they be disqualified? What about anyone who is a first-degree relative with a foreign national? Say I was born in the U.S. but my parents were Iraqis or Iranians who'd gone back to their country; should I be disqualified? What about people who believe in the theology of the Left Behind books?

Naturalized citizens ought to be equal citizens. And the idea that the U.S. electorate is too convinced of that for its own good, to the point that the Constitution must protect them from electing naturalized Middle Eastern citizens who will have undue regard for the lives of foreigners, is absurd.

43: no, I don't think that, nor does it logically follow from anything I said.

Do you all think Gore's going to announce his candidacy at the last possible moment and be able to generate so much money from all his connections that he sabotages all these fledgling candidates I'm growing very fond of? And that he gets elected and we have a robotic hard-to-love president for four years and then the country Jimmy Carters his ass in exchange for eight more years of Republican hell? And that if we elected one of these fledglings the party might move in a totally uncharted, wonderful direction?

This was mentioned to me this weekend and I find it very troubling.

And by the same token, how can we trust people not born in the U.S. to be four star generals, cabinet members, speaker of the house, members of the Supreme Court, hold a top-secret security clearance....?

48: We shouldn't. But what's done is done.

Katherine, I don't really see what any of your counter-examples in 45 have to do with the question at hand.

If you want to be president, you have to be born here and over 35. Those are the only requirements, and neither one seems overly exclusionary. If you're a naturalized citizen, there is exactly one job in the entire country that you can't have, and your kids born here are able to pursue it. I understand that isn't strictly fair, but it isn't like saying you can't drive or receive Social Security.

Look Katherine, you don't go to the polls with the Constitution you want, you go with the Constitution you have.

a robotic hard-to-love president

He has my undying love. Also, I think Gore's image problems are only problems in an election. Once in office, the raw, sexy competence takes over.

I understand that isn't strictly fair, but it isn't like saying you can't drive or receive Social Security.

There should be ethnic restrictions on the driving privilege, though.

50: and? I'm saying it's neither fair nor necessary nor a good idea and your arguments for it apply equally well to things you don't support.

(I was using analogies I guess...I don't think people not born here understand how essential analogies are to going on and on about Constitutional law.)

I was using analogies I guess

Katherine is deported!

52 - you would vote for him in a primary, hands-down? No second-guessing the whims of average voters on electability-charisma-crapeoke?

Like I said, my love is undying.

Also, the question of whether I would vote for him in a primary is different from whether I would want him to be President. Electability concerns are relevant in a Primary (though generally overemphasized, I think), but you were saying that even if he actually IS elected, it will create problems for the Democrats down the road. That isn't a concern of mine at all.

It isn't a concern because I don't think it's true, I should say.

47 - no, I'm not afraid of that. I can't imagine why one would think that basically inexperienced, untested people like Obama or Edwards or, god help us, Hillary, would make better presidents than Gore, who is clearly one of the most qualified living Democrats for the job.

Obama gives a better speech than Gore, maybe, but not only is Gore a generally good guy, in spite of his somewhat difficult public persona, he also gives every evidence that he would be a really good president. That's way more than I can say for any of these "exciting" candidates we've got ourselves at present (I assume you mean by this Obama and Edwards?)

And I don't see why President Gore would have any greater likelihood to lose re-election than one of the others. He's certainly a lot more likely to win first election than Clinton is, and I think the latter (nomination to HRC, loss in the general election) is what we have to fear most. Your nightmare scenario would be more or less my ideal one - Gore is the only candidate who I'm sure can beat Hillary, and I see no especialy reason to think he can't win the general election.

To add to this, I don't see why I should be worried about a Gore candidacy when the front-runner is basically worse than Gore in every way. I'd vote for Gore in a heart-beat, given that the rest of the field is Hillary Clinton, who is generally awful for a variety of reasons both substantive and "electability"-wise, and Obama and Edwards, who seem pretty clearly to be lightweights.

That's true - my primary concern is trouble-down-the-road, Jimmy Carter style, not '08 electability.

It just seems like he doesn't have anything that sustains popularity, especially after the novelty of having good legislation and leadership wears off.

I hate it that people coast on gut feelings, but I fear that Gore dangerously underperforms in our nation's bowels.

I don't really see a way in which the requirement has screwed us over. Yes, we've had some shit presidents. Yes, there were inarguably smarter people from other countries born the same day as the shit presidents. Do we know any of them wanted the job?

Short an example of someone who really wanted to be President and enjoyed tremendous popular support and was denied a chance at the office due to that one requirement I would have to default to "ain't broke" mode.

Extending that to the now, who would run if it changed? Apostropher is dead on: The Governator would be the Presinator in about two seconds flat. Thanks but no.

(Aside: Gore popping up at the last second and sweeping the primaries would make me very, very happy.)

I don't think that's how things work. Incumbents tend to win reelection. Carter lost because the country was in ridiculously shitty shape, not because he was personally unlikeable (although nobody much liked him, either). George H.W. Bush lost because there was a recession and the Republicans had been in power for 12 years, which leads to ansiness. I have no particularly greater worries on the part of Gore than I do of any of the other candidates. I'd much more worry that Obama or Edwards would fuck up and look weak and inexperienced than that Gore would bore people to the point of voting him out of office.

64 to 62

If you don't like voters that's another issue.

Seems to me like it's the same issue; the less that's left up to the voters, the better, and the founders, in their infinite wisdom, seem to have agreed on this.

Are you guys saying these things because you secretly suspect I'm right?

The Governator would be the Presinator

We have also successfully avoided the dreary inevitability of multiple Kissinger campaigns over the past few decades. The law keeps looking better and better.

66: that's just a bizarre characterization of the founders' views. It wasn't "the more that's left up to the voters the better" but that doesn't make it the opposite.

Okay, so who else should be constitutionally excluded from the Presidency, and what other jobs should non-natural born citizens be excluded from?

67 - What things?

Okay, so who else should be constitutionally excluded from the Presidency, and what other jobs should non-natural born citizens be excluded from?

I'd put a maximum age on it, too. Probably 65 or maybe 70 at the time of election. But I wouldn't make a similar law for other jobs, because there are no similar jobs.

70 - don't play coy with me!

who else should be constitutionally excluded from the Presidency

Republicans.

why no religious tests? As a policy matter I mean. Why no education requirement? Why no requirement of X years of public office or government employment? Why not actually require certain political views?

68: Wow, you just cured my hiccups. Like, for the rest of my life.

69: I don't think anyone seriously hates citizens born on other soil. I think the law hasn't fucked us over yet and so I don't think we should change it when we have many issues I see as more pressing.

I like Gore. I feel like he's grown a lot more engaging and vigorous over the last six years, he cares about many of the same things I care about, he seems to have picked up some good habits of telling people off, and he's beefy (physically and in his presence), not a feeble-seeming little fella like either Carter or George I.

I would strike this provision if I could, but I agree it's way down the list of improvements I'd want to make. "Abolish the states," a useful talking point but one that obviously calls for a whole new constitution, is more like what I have in mind.

I'm personally excluded by this provision, which doesn't bother me as mine is the wrong temperment, but it also excludes Jennifer Granholm, who does have it. I guess them's the breaks.

Katherine's point about the four-star-generals (Schalkashvili, or however that's spelled) cabinet secretaries etc. is well taken, and merely points to the residual, obsolete quality of this provision. Got a problem with that?

72 - I wasn't playing coy. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think Gore will run, although I'd like him to. If he did run, he'd have a good shot at winning, but I don't know that he would. I don't have particular fears that his election would lead to some kind of decades in the wilderness thing.

why no religious tests? As a policy matter I mean. Why no education requirement? Why no requirement of X years of public office or government employment? Why not actually require certain political views?

I like how you think, Katherine.

(70 - I'm kidding. You all made good points and I ran out of anything to say.)

75: that's fine...the Constitution is hard to change and this isn't a high priority for me either. I'm only arguing against people who think it's an actively good idea.

74: We aren't discussing any of those things. Try to keep up.

My serious answer, Katherine, is that all those other things aren't subject to the same kind of self-delusion and mysteries of the heart considerations that nationalistic loyalty is. I do think the founders were wise to recognize that even an immigrant who doesn't think he has abiding loyalties in fact probably does.

and he's beefy (physically and in his presence), not a feeble-seeming little fella like either Carter or George I

What about JM's vote?

What's with the "Oui?" Why not "Sì" or "Hai?"

Because above all, we must keep the French away from the Presidency.

"Chauvinism" is a French word, ain't it?

A "rogue" military commander can do arguably more harm than a "rogue" president. Permitting foreign born generals but not presidents is not consistent.

Okay, 86 made me laugh.

While I am sympathetic to Katherine's view that not being born here may not be a compelling reason to disqualify someone from the presidency, I think there is maybe a bit of unthinking nationalism in rejecting ogged's point.

I think the United States is the greatest country in the world. But that does not mean that people who come here from someplace else still do not feel loyalty and love for their homelands. Whether someone comes from [fill in name of country you think is best place to live in the world] or they come from [fill in name of country you think is greatest shithole], home is home and it exerts a strong pull on people. There are other nice places to live in the world. I have lived in some of them. But the US is where I was raised, and thus special to me. It is a mistake not to think that others do not feel the same way.

Is this sufficient reason not to let naturalized citizens run for President? Maybe not, but it's not nothing.

I love the mysteries of the heart, thinking with the blood, and all that Plumed Serpent stuff, but think the voting booth is the place to express it.

all those other things aren't subject to the same kind of self-delusion and mysteries of the heart considerations that nationalistic loyalty is. I do think the founders were wise to recognize that even an immigrant who doesn't think he has abiding loyalties in fact probably does.

I don't think that "nationalistic loyalty" is necessarily paramount in people who were born here. See the Civil War.

In truth I think the requirement is the 18th century equivalent of "we want to be sure that the President will be willing to bomb the shit out of anybody s/he has to without getting all misty-eyed and hesitant because that's The Old Country up there on the big board."

I also think I'm OK with that. This is not because I relish the bombing but because even if nationalism or nativism or whatever didn't matter at all to a sitting President born in another country the simple charge of it could be enough to undo them. It would be easy to paint any foreign policy position they took as some sort of double standard or conflict of interest. We are already plenty good at tearing down those in the spotlight. I see no special reason to create even more opportunities for it.

I'd think one could come up with some kind of medium position here, because I'm not sure that "natural born citizen" actually intersects all that well with "not infected by evil foreign nationalism". A child born in the US to foreign parents who then move back to their home country and raise him there until he's an adult would seem more likely to harbor dangerous foreign nationalism than one born in a foreign country who moves to the US in infancy and lives their whole life here. But it is the former, not the latter, who is eligible to run for president.

A child born in the US to foreign parents who then move back to their home country and raise him there until he's an adult would seem more likely to harbor dangerous foreign nationalism than one born in a foreign country who moves to the US in infancy and lives their whole life here.

Isn't that Hamdi?

It would seem to be Hamdi. The current system, it would appear, would allow Hamdi to become president, but not Ogged. That seems kind of fucked up, even from the perspective of Ogged's point.

87: Of course I knew that! Americans surely have mastered it.

For you maybe, ogged, I don't know why that's universal. Religion clearly trumps nationality for some people. And I'm not sure whether having been born somewhere matters as much as the number and closeness of the relatives who still live there.

Take an immigrant family where the first child was born in the old country, they moved when he was 18 months old, and then had the second child. The first child literally has no memories of the old country. Is the fact of foreign birth going to make the first child have dual loyalties that the second one doesn't?

Btw, being a natural born citizen != raised in the United States or even live in the United States. At the immigration court last year there was one bizarre deportation proceeding that ended when we discovered that the (40something year old) guy had been a U.S. citizen his whole life, unbeknownst to him. (Had to do with quirky laws about U.S. servicemen stationed abroad.) Obviously, that's not a typical situation...but when I contrast that to the situation where we almost had to deport someone about the same age who came here as a six-week-old infant, it's coloring my view.

90: again, there are certainly cases where I think this would be reason to vote against someone, but I don't think it's such a problem to warrant a constitutional bar. It sends a bad message and shows we don't QUITE mean this nation-of-immigrants a-citizen-is-a-citizen stuff, in return for fending off an illusory threat. This is not something that voters can't handle; if anything there's going to be an irrational prejudice in the other direction.

If you don't piss excellence in the morning, you shouldn't be allowed to be President.

but when I contrast that to the situation where we almost had to deport someone about the same age who came here as a six-week-old infant,

Isn't it actually pretty hard to deport a naturalized citizen?

But well-bred white men who are prevented from being commander-in-chief by this one niggling detail aren't a particularly sympathetic bunch.

Much more sympathetic is anyone who wasn't raised a white male attending the Little Lord Fauntleroy School For Albino Hemophiliacs, who are dealing with de facto rules that are a lot more troubling than the born-on-soil thing.

52: etc--Hell yeah. I've loved Gore forever. I liked Clinton mainly b/c he picked Gore as his running mate. I would *love* it if that happened. To this day I regret not working for his campaign in 2000, and if he started a campaign I might quit my job and go volunteer for it. Seriously.

But the main reason my love is undying--friends of mine have worked for and with him and confirm that he is every bit as awesome as I thought he is--is the main reason I don't think it's going to happen. He's a lot happier now that he doesn't have to worry about elections.

More on topic: Starting when I was like, 4, I used to brag to people that I'm the only one in my family who can become President. Like, I'd bring this up a lot, apparently. My parents and sister were somewhat bemused at my patriotic superiority which came out of no where. Now, every now and then, as we watch Shrub speak, my mother makes fun of me for my erstwhile pride in potentially joining his ranks.

"we want to be sure that the President will be willing to bomb the shit out of anybody s/he has to without getting all misty-eyed and hesitant because that's The Old Country up there on the big board."

Suggested amendment: The President shall be either a) a natural-born citizen of the United States or b) a naturalized citizen of the United States born in a country whose inhabitants have historically had no problems with bombing the shit out of it themselves.
After all, if people who actually live in X are OK with blowing up bits of X, then a naturalised Xian-American should find it a breeze.

Working out which countries this would apply to is left as an exercise for the reader.

100: yes, it is. He never naturalized. He either wasn't aware that he was born abroad or thought he naturalized automatically when he turned 18 or his parents did or something...the guy was kind of a screw up, and certainly would not have made a good president, but just gave me a powerful sense of how *arbitrary* it sometimes can be.

There was another case where one sibling was born in Haiti, then his family left for an island that Britain owns when he was about 1 years old. The other kids were born there before the whole family came to America at a young age. So the younger ones were British citizens, while the oldest was very nearly completely screwed--sent-to-die-in-a-Haitian prison screwed--for a marijuana conviction.

But well-bred white men who are prevented from being commander-in-chief by this one niggling detail aren't a particularly sympathetic bunch.

True, and that's why this is really not all that important an issue. (There's also, I would note, a well-bred white woman who is prevented from being commander-in-chief by this one niggling detail, but I'm not sure she's terribly sympathetic, either - perhaps those from Michigan can enlighten us more on this front, though.)

Should the invasion, carpetbombing, or nuking of Canada become necessary for our nation's survival, I for one would not want Jennifer Granholm's hand to be on the hot button.

44.--OMG! Zidane in New York! May it come to pass!

Should the invasion, carpetbombing, or nuking of Canada become necessary for our nation's survival, I too would have a very hard time pressing that button. But it's my father who's the naturalized citizen: I'm eligible for President, yo.

I'm eligible for going batshit bonkers grading these college algebra exams. PEMDAS! PEMDAS! PEMDAS!

Wow. No one has commented on any thread for like 15 minutes since my last comment.

I'd love to fill up the whole sidebar with comments from me while no one's looking.

The Offspring was born in Seoul, came here at 7 months, and was raised in a Caucasian upper-middle class family by American-born parents. Unlike most of his American-born friends and schoolmates, he has voted in every election since he came of age - and spends time reading propositions and discussing candidates. [He was horrified to discover how few of his friends bothered to register, much less vote.] He is interested in things Pacific Rim in much the same way I'm interested in things Scandinavian - some curiosity, some customs, some language. He is far brighter than Shrub and can pronounce "nuclear". He is honest. Why shouldn't he be allowed to be president? [A note: If he evinced any interest in becoming a politician, I'd ground him and call in an exorcist. But that's just my feeling about the inherent skankiness of politics.]

One might just as well argue that the American-born children of recent immigrants should be excluded, as well - after all, their parents have closer ties to a foreign country, and are more likely to instill a certain amount of loyalty to that country than are later generations. Then we have the issue of American-born children of illegal immigrants, whom many in the right-wing wish to strip of their citizenship due to their parents' status [the sins of the fathers (and mothers)...]

re: 112

Part of me wants you to get your wish. The other part goes muuuuhhahahaha.

Damn, too late.

DAMNIT DOM!

Aw well, maybe some other window.

But hey, the sidebar looks pretty good right now!

I ban myself for lack of intelligence. Carry on, party peeps.

Damn:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

Is that surprising? Of course they have a plan for that. The question is why it's being leaked now.

119: The triggers for the plans are important, that any military of any country has plans shouldn't be. They're supposed to have plans for damned near anything.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Can't you still just turn the Senate into a House of Lords -style institution? At least strip it of power on regular legislation.

re: 119 and 120

Yeah, it's the specificity of the triggers and some of the detail of the plan that I was referring to. Not the existence of the plan.

I personally think that nuking Canada at this point would be premature. No options can be taken off the table, however.

Nuking the Netherlands would be much more productive per device. With Canada spread out the way it is, you'd have have a device for Moose Jaw, another device for Medicine Hat, etc., and it would be expensive. You'd also run a risk of killing endangered bears, wolves, deer, etc.

Fiscally speaking, nuking the mere 32,000 Moosejavians would seem profligate. Ironically, however, it would probably cost more to cleanse the city with hand tools, as they did in Ruanda. To say nothing of the fact that we've already paid for the devices and might as well use them. It's not like there's anything else we can do with them.

If it's a rough (I would use the word "atrocious" here actually) proxy why write it into the Constitution?

I'm not sure if the question has been answered, not having read the thread past about 35, but the requirement has something to do with worries that someone from a monarchy - say, an English speaking one - might use the presidency to maneuver the US back into allegiance to that monarchy. Kind of a live issue in 1787.

yoyo, they could turn it into a Carrie Underwood fan club so long as they gave 2 seats to the States who wanted them, the real barrier's that no one knows how to set up a Convention for proposing Amendments. So the turkeys would have to vote for Christmas.

121 That's seems like it would be constitutional, but it only 'fixes' the senate in the veterinarian's sense.

Maybe you could amend the Article V to remove the bit requiring equal represenation to the senate, and then pass a second amendment changing the representation to the senate.

Goedel thought that the US constitution was provably inconsistent. Perhaps this is what he meant.

And I see it's been answered, mostly. I'm not sure ethnic identity as we think of it was as big of a factor then, though I'm sure it became so as the 19th century went on. But in the late 18th and early 19th century you could still get foreigners established on thrones of other countries, like Otto, King of Greece.

I'm no scholar, but I should think the birth requirement had a very different import at a time when aristocracy was nearly universal outside this country. As immigrants arrived from (mostly) Europe, I can see the advantage in keeping, say, the Germans from bringing in a Hapsburg & standing him for the Presidency. [Dang! Pwned at the last instant!] I wouldn't be surprised if there was also some contemporaneous concern regarding some particular politician(s) who could thus be conveniently excluded, in sort of the same way the "two-terms" Amendment (I'm far too lazy to look up the number) responded to FDR.

And speaking of two terms...a new amendment setting out qualifications for the Presidency could take care of that nagging problem. Having no interest in a President-for-Life (even if he or she might be my own personal ideal), I'd recommend barring more than two consecutive terms, which I believe is the case in a number of states (including my own).

While I don't care much more than most of y'all about the birth thing, I truly believe there's no real reason to support it other than disliking Ahnold. Frankly I wouldn't mind if a few more Americans (including but not limited to our Presidents) recognized that however great, this nation is not the only one in the world that matters. It's a granfalloon, people!

Why not split the difference and require 35 years of citizenship? It gets Granholm in & makes Ahnold wait IIRC, which is fine by me, and respects the age requirement, which is also fine by me now that I'm over 35 myself & realized how stupid young people are these days (with the music, and the hair...)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was also some contemporaneous concern regarding some particular politician(s) who could thus be conveniently excluded

I don't have a cite, but my recollection is that everyone alive at the time of ratification was grandfathered in (so Hamilton, e.g., would have been eligible).

Right, citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are in regardless of birthplace, so Hamilton could have been president. (Or, according to some kids on The Wire, he was a President--otherwise, why is he on money?) I'm not sure what the method of naturalization was at that time; there were certainly foreigners resident in the US at the time.

I believe the first class of people excluding from naturalization (by legislation) were titled aristocrats, but my memory may be failing me.

excluding s/b excluded

128: I'm dubious about Wikipedia's claim that Otto, his advisors, and 3,500 Bavarian soldiers all fit onto the frigate HMS Madagascar Even if they were just shuttling across some trifiling Mediterranean distance, that must have been awfully cramped quarters.

I meant "why should it be a constitutional requirement now" but obviously the phrasing was quite sloppy.

The Canada jokes raise a point: there's no serious possibility of us going to war with a very large majority of the countries in the world in the next decade--even under this administration. There's a sig. % of countries that are our allies. Ogged happens to be from a place that the President's seriously considering bombing, but that's actually relatively rare. And if we're seriously considering bombing a country, the likelihood of voting for someone born there for President is close to nil. For God's sake, ogged's worried out loud about Iranians being denaturalized....

I don't have a real problem w/ a long residency requirement. My inclination is that it's not really necessary, but the amendment wouldn't pass without it, so...

It also might be worth pointing out that at the time of the Revolution, quite a lot of Americans identified as British subjects. The fear might have been that an English noble would immigrate, charm the pants off everyone, become President, and re-establish ties with England. Waste of a damn good revolution.

I'm sort of sympathetic to ogged's point for no particular good reason. No, being a natural-born citizen doesn't guarantee that you won't grow up to be a wannabe rootless cosmopolitan or become obsessed with your one-sixteenth "Celtic" past or just unqualified for politics. And an immigrant might have more invested in the U.S. than a natural-born citizen. But there's something vague and handwavy going on in the area of forming a national identity, about long-term commitment to the country, that seems to be useful. Something like what Rah suggests: natural-born or extended term of citizenship might work, but it's really not worth amending anything over.

This is really neither here nor there as the Bush and Clinton royal families trade the throne back and forth.

The reason for the provision: King George III had nine sons, only one of whom could possibly become king of England. The monarchy still had many fans in the United States in the 1780's, and it was quite plausible that one of the younger sons would be willing and able to emigrate and win an election here. Certainly they'd start with excellent name recognition. Younger sons of other European nobles would also have had a decent shot. The Constitutional Convention consisted of a highly unrepresentative group of anti-royalists, and they wrote the rules to exclude a plausible source of opposition candidates.

In other words, it was a transient concern of the Constitutional generation that has zero application today, and we're stuck with it. Of particular concern to my Kazakhstan-born son, who will otherwise be eligible to run in 2040.

On topic: I'm far less concerned with the hypothetical election of a foreign-born President than I am with the ways in which citizenship continues to be racially and ethnically marked, if not actually determined, in this country.

Before we consider the pros and cons of foreign-born Presidents, or in fact, any other issue that would require a constitutional change, perhaps it would make more sense to educate ourselves and others about the very real problems with the political process that are amenable to change by mere statutes, or even by extra-legislative action. I realize that people on this blog have a much higher degree of concern with those types of problems than the average citizen, but I don't see a great deal of actual real world action transpiring as a result. I guess it's just the Margin of Despair at work as usual, but I think it would be great if US citizen 'foggers thought about becoming election judges, actively participating in voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts and opposing the steady chipping away at democratic institutions that we've seen; and this type of action should not be undertaken only at the moment of crisis, but day-in, day-out when concerted effort could effect some real changes.

[/protect civil society harangue]

So is Otto's lover Jane Digby the source of blogger Digby's nom de plume? Digby is reputedly female.

This thread to the contrary I agree that it's not a huge issue. It's amazing how annoying I can be about low priority issues--my husband and I have been banned from discussing the electoral college since 2000 but I haven't so much as written my Congressmen about it.

136: Why have I never heard that before?

Not a single person commenting here has believed changing this provision was worth the trouble it would be.
But the can't-put-my-finger-on-it-but-I-like-it defenses of the damn thing, the mystic nationalism that seems to be provoked by thinking about it, has creeped me out a bit.

64 - Carter lost because he was unwilling to bomb Iran, which brings us full-circle to why Ogged is unsuitable to be President.

I personally think that nuking Canada at this point would be premature. No options can be taken off the table, however.

That shows admirable restraint, and is spoken like a true statesman. (But Jesus, Emerson, I thought we were friends.)

#7: I am not "relatively certain" but absolutely, 100 percent, certain on this point.

#141: I hear you, but let's face it: America just wouldn't be America without American exceptionalism.

141 - Presidents are like French wine. They need to grow in the exact right terroir to turn out right.

girls x and y will plausibly be excluded from the presidency on this basis, so I disapprove.

I don't think so; I think kids born to American citizens are eligible, no matter where they themselves are born.

Answers.

McCain was born in the Canal Zone. It was a US territory at the time, but still.

Kids born to American citizens are citizens-by-birth, no matter where they are born. So are kids born to Canadian citizens.

Not that this has come up in future daydreaming. ("We do not have to go to Canada to have the kids.")

#7, #143: There are Irish-American bars/pubs describable as "IRA bars". In Portland there's one, Biddy McGraw's -- a great place. But in Boston, according to a friend from there, it's a whole category. He'd learned to recognize them the minute he walked in the door.

Alameidasdottir #1 and Alameidasdottir #2 can never be the American President. Tragic, but perhaps ultimately best for everyone.

My mom often laments that Madeleine Albright can't be President. I suppose if the trade-off is no-Schwarzenegger, I'm willing to accept that.

150: "We doan't searve Booshmills. They doan't hire enough Catholics."

Come on, 153 comments and nobody has noted the obvious implication of the post, viz. that -gg-d is an anti-Semite?

girls x and y will plausibly be excluded from the presidency

Nope.

154: That thought had occurred to me. Marty Peretz in '08!

#7, #143: There are Irish-American bars/pubs describable as "IRA bars".

Oh yeah. I know that scene. And not just Irish-
American, but Irish-Canadian too. What? You thought we were all fiercely, or perhaps sheepishly, loyal to the Crown? Guess you've never visited [the name of this pub has been erased to protect the innocent] in Ottawa, the capital city of Canada, where they pass around the hat while somebody sings "Four Green Fields." I seen it with my own two eyes.

re: 150 and 157

We Brits prefer to think of the denizens of those pubs as 'bastards'.

In light of the post, I'd like nothing better than to see you all fight about this.

I have the woad, and the ginger wig all sitting ready ...

149: Only if the citizen parent has spent enough time in the US after attaining majority. Friend of mine whose parents moved to Australia when she was 17 discovered this when she tried to register her first child's birth at the American Embassy. Her kids had to apply for green cards just like any other "alien".

#158: ttaM, by currently applicable rules, I think we can now bomb Boston flat. Though Instapundit would probably prefer it if we just sent in SRR teams to kill the barman quietly.

re: 162

I don't think we need to bomb it totally flat. Maybe just a couple of hospitals. And the baseball stadium ...

what if the future president needs to bomb someplace but he can't because his mother lives there. Do we really want to put the damper on a presidential need to bomb!?

I have a friend born in Canada who was adopted by an American as an infant and never naturalized. She's about 50 years old with a 25-year-old daughter and in the last several years her alien status has become a real issue. She has never registered as an alien either, to my knowledge.

Ironically, she has no memories of Canada and would be quite willing to nuke the place if it became necessary to do so.

Use it or lose it, I say. Some of our nukes expire unused every year. What's the sense in that?

157 interests me. It stands to reason, because of immigration patterns, but I never came in contact with Irish identification in Canada as a boy, and don't think of it as being so characteristic of big city life there as it is in the Northeastern cities of the US.

I mentioned the Fenian invasion of 1867 here last week; Irish identity in the US was formed in 19th C and was public and above board in a way it probably couldn't have been in Canada in the same period.

it would be great if US citizen 'foggers thought about becoming election judges

Actually I am signed up to be a precinct officer this year, and this reminds me I need to call the BoE to find out when my training is.