Support NeoGAF

[Saturnman]

There are naturalized citizens who are great people, and US citizens who fight alongside the Taliban. If the average US citizen would fall for and elect a silver-tongued naturalized citizen, they could just as easily fall for and elect a silver-tongued US citizen-from-birth. The Constitution is basically discriminating against people based on something they can't control; their birth citizenship. I'm not cool with that.

There's no perfect system, but I understand the logic behind this restriction. I wouldn't trust an Israeli/Palestinian-born president when it comes to the Middle East issues, for example.

Discrimination can be good. You don't want to dilute your military with foot soldiers with poor physical strenght. It's something weaklings can't control, but for the sake of a healthy military, it's good to keep them out. When it comes to the highest office, I see no problem wanting an extra guarantee for the loyalty of your presidential candidates.

I see no urgency to amend the constitution, especially when it is an obvious ploy to get a particular individual to run for the highest office. There's no chronic shortage of candidates either. That's why this amendment won't pass.

 

[Boogie9IGN]

It has BEGUN

ARNOLD FOR 2008!

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

There's no perfect system, but I understand the logic behind this restriction. I wouldn't trust an Israeli/Palestinian-born president when it comes to the Middle East issues, for example.

Luckily, you would be free to vote for someone else. Or what about, say, a US citizen who spent the majority of their first 20 years in the middle east. Should they be denied the right to run as well?

Discrimination can be good. You don't want to dilute your military with foot soldiers with poor physical strenght. It's something weaklings can't control, but for the sake of a healthy military, it's good to keep them out. When it comes to the highest office, I see no problem wanting an extra guarantee for the loyalty of your presidential candidates.

But there's no guarantee as is. In fact, they have to take an oath of loyalty before they become citizens; something not required of me, for instance.

I see no urgency to amend the constitution, especially when it is an obvious ploy to get a particular individual to run for the highest office. There's no chronic shortage of candidates either. That's why this amendment won't pass.

That's not a good argument to be against it in my opinion, though. If the Constitution said females couldn't be President, I'd be against that too. One could point out that there are very few females who even attempt to be President and that there's no shortage of male candidates... but that wouldn't make the restriction any less flawed.

 

[Saturnman]

Luckily, you would be free to vote for someone else. Or what about, say, a US citizen who spent the majority of their first 20 years in the middle east. Should they be denied the right to run as well?

It could be an argument. Certainly, in my country, staying abroad too long can affect your rights as a citizen.

But there's no guarantee as is. In fact, they have to take an oath of loyalty before they become citizens; something not required of me, for instance.

Didn't you have to make the pledge of allegiance everyday at school?

You will find that the duty of a citizen are far different than those of a president. Most citizens will not be in situations of conflict of interest if they have dual citizenship. A US president has to make decisions that affects a whole collective and ones that might affect his country of origin.

That's not a good argument to be against it in my opinion, though. If the Constitution said females couldn't be President, I'd be against that too. One could point out that there are very few females who even attempt to be President and that there's no shortage of male candidates... but that wouldn't make the restriction any less flawed.

Does the constitution state why females shouldn't be president? Could it even make that argument, hypothetically?

Currently, you have a restriction for immigrants because their loyalty can not be guaranteed with the highest office, the risks are too great to take national security for granted. It's not an absolute, the country will not descend into anarchy if it weren't there, but with this restriction already in, I see no problem with it.

It would probably be better if other restrictions were in while we're at it. The president should know how to read, should have completed high school at the very least...

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

You will find that the duty of a citizen are far different than those of a president. Most citizens will not be in situations of conflict of interest if they have dual citizenship. A US president has to make decisions that affects a whole collective and ones that might affect his country of origin.

That is true. However, it doesn't seem a particularly bigger deal than many other things in politics. Siding on an issue or with a person due to party affiliation, being particularly helpful to one's home state, giving advantages to the people and corporations that have donated money to you. An exception might be in the case of a war with the immigrant-President's country of origin, but if the person really identified so much with the country, and relations were that bad, it doesn't seem there's any chance they'd be elected anyway.

Does the constitution state why females shouldn't be president? Could it even make that argument, hypothetically?

What if they're supposed to attend an important diplomatic meeting but they're agitated due to cramps? What if other male leaders wouldn't respect her? I'm sure people with this viewpoint have plenty of reasons they'd consider valid.

Currently, you have a restriction for immigrants because their loyalty can not be guaranteed with the highest office, the risks are too great to take national security for granted.

And by my thinking, their loyalty can be just as guaranteed as any other citizen's. That's the core difference in our thoughts, it seems.