It can't be done, because we must be assured that your allegiance is to America. The number one test to this question of simply being a citizen is whether or not you would bear arms against your former country if we went to war with it. If your response is even hesitant, or not committed, then you aren't even worthy of being a citizen, much less president.
I can agree that you can not choose the country you were born, but you can choose where you want to stay and pledge allegiance.
but in fact, naturalized citizens are one of the most loyal groups. So, if you are 101% loyal to the US, but a naturalized citizen, you can't run, but if you are a US born citizen who hates the USA, he can run.
Basically people are afraid of the idea of a "manchurian candidate" as it is. It certainly isn't a popular idea amongst Americans and because of that it holds no value to the candidates seeking votes. I would enjoy watching them attempt to answer this question because it isn't a common one. 5 Stars !
I think this is a common misconception of the requirements for president. The constitution says that they have to be a natural born citizen OR(that's an extremely important conditional) a citizen of the United States having to have lived here for at least 14 years and is 35 years of age.
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." Article 2 Section 1 of the US constitution!
"No person except a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES." You see how there's a distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen? If one is not a natural born citizen, but is a citizen, then that must mean that they are a naturalized citizen, a legal resident citizen. The candidate has to be a natural born citizen OR a citizen of the United States. If either condition is met, then they can be president. Hence, the OR.
However, I guess it is possible that they threw a monkeywrench in the constitution with an amendment somewhere down the line. However, the original constitution, to my knowledge, did not exclude non-natural born citizens.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
It does not say only a natural born citizen are elligible for presidency. "Only those born a US Citizen are eligible for the Presidency." That is what a natural born citizen IS, but it says OR a citizen of the united states. It makes a DISTINCTION between natural born citizen AND a citizen of the United States. It cannot be interpreted any other way.
The second part of that is misinterpreted, I think, to mean a natural born citizen having resided elsewhere besides the United States, but it means what it says, they have to have lived here for 14 years, in this country, to be elligible. That is pursuant to the first part of a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, which is separate from natural born citizens.
It also says "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" and was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to mean only those Born a US Citizen can be president. If you have complaints about that file a case with US Supreme Court.
What was the earliest supreme court case on it? If it were shortly after the government was formed, then I would imagine that the decision was more in the favor of what the founding fathers wanted.
I disagree because it doesn't take into account the people who were not born here at the time of that adoption who were just immigrants, and besides that, that is entirely moot because at the adoption it said that natural born citizens, and citizens(not natural born), were elligible.
It is also able to be interpreted that at the time the US Constitution was ratified those people at that time were eligible. Therefore it is legal to place that regulation.
It is actually reasonable since there is only 1 president. The Constitution allows and type of US Citizen to be in any other office including Congress. Therefore it balances out. Holland doesn't have a Federal Republic, it has a Constitutional Monarchy instead. Therefore its a family running the show.
Ideally, if the balance of powers had not been almost entirely eroded, it wouldn't have mattered if an immigrant held the presidency because congress could put checks on his favoritism or whatever to his native country.
Wrong. There is still a debate at the US Supreme Court about what "Natural Born Citizen" means. It change every so often. However currently only those born a US Citizen can be president.
LOL, that's some real "That depends on what the meaning of is is" shit! That's just reich-wing Nazi's trying to re-interpret the constitution so they can legalize they're bigoted policies.
I think the "section I of art. II" is against the bill of rights or Article One, that ensures civil rights for everyone.
and; Americans; it's a democracy, if it is someone you don't trust, don't vote for him/her!!!
Well it's time to renew the constitution, but preserve Art.1(Bill of rights), but change Art.2 so that we can actually BE the land of opportunity.
Remember, i wouldn't vote for the person I don't trust, but it's the opportunity to have the RIGHT to try!
BendikHolden 3 years ago
the question is what is a natural born citizen?
zanmato666 4 years ago
It can't be done, because we must be assured that your allegiance is to America. The number one test to this question of simply being a citizen is whether or not you would bear arms against your former country if we went to war with it. If your response is even hesitant, or not committed, then you aren't even worthy of being a citizen, much less president.
jmounadi 4 years ago
I can agree that you can not choose the country you were born, but you can choose where you want to stay and pledge allegiance.
but in fact, naturalized citizens are one of the most loyal groups. So, if you are 101% loyal to the US, but a naturalized citizen, you can't run, but if you are a US born citizen who hates the USA, he can run.
Is that fair?
BendikHolden 3 years ago
"We can't choose where we're born, but we can choose where we live and where we give our allegiance" - Jennifer Granholm
video4CNN 4 years ago
Basically people are afraid of the idea of a "manchurian candidate" as it is. It certainly isn't a popular idea amongst Americans and because of that it holds no value to the candidates seeking votes. I would enjoy watching them attempt to answer this question because it isn't a common one. 5 Stars !
j0eg0d 4 years ago
I think this is a common misconception of the requirements for president. The constitution says that they have to be a natural born citizen OR(that's an extremely important conditional) a citizen of the United States having to have lived here for at least 14 years and is 35 years of age.
heinj98 4 years ago
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." Article 2 Section 1 of the US constitution!
heinj98 4 years ago
"No person except a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES." You see how there's a distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen? If one is not a natural born citizen, but is a citizen, then that must mean that they are a naturalized citizen, a legal resident citizen. The candidate has to be a natural born citizen OR a citizen of the United States. If either condition is met, then they can be president. Hence, the OR.
heinj98 4 years ago
Therefore, the constitution does not exclude non-natural born citizens from being president.
heinj98 4 years ago
However, I guess it is possible that they threw a monkeywrench in the constitution with an amendment somewhere down the line. However, the original constitution, to my knowledge, did not exclude non-natural born citizens.
heinj98 4 years ago
Article 2, Section 1
Article 1:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
MessianicJewishGuy 4 years ago
Only those born a US Citizen are eligible for the Presidency.
MessianicJewishGuy 4 years ago
It does not say only a natural born citizen are elligible for presidency. "Only those born a US Citizen are eligible for the Presidency." That is what a natural born citizen IS, but it says OR a citizen of the united states. It makes a DISTINCTION between natural born citizen AND a citizen of the United States. It cannot be interpreted any other way.
heinj98 4 years ago
The second part of that is misinterpreted, I think, to mean a natural born citizen having resided elsewhere besides the United States, but it means what it says, they have to have lived here for 14 years, in this country, to be elligible. That is pursuant to the first part of a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, which is separate from natural born citizens.
heinj98 4 years ago
It also says "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" and was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to mean only those Born a US Citizen can be president. If you have complaints about that file a case with US Supreme Court.
MessianicJewishGuy 4 years ago
What was the earliest supreme court case on it? If it were shortly after the government was formed, then I would imagine that the decision was more in the favor of what the founding fathers wanted.
heinj98 4 years ago
I disagree because it doesn't take into account the people who were not born here at the time of that adoption who were just immigrants, and besides that, that is entirely moot because at the adoption it said that natural born citizens, and citizens(not natural born), were elligible.
heinj98 4 years ago
It is also able to be interpreted that at the time the US Constitution was ratified those people at that time were eligible. Therefore it is legal to place that regulation.
MessianicJewishGuy 4 years ago
Whatever, I'm tired of this debate. I got some ice cream, and I'm gonna kick back and watch a movie. Later.
heinj98 4 years ago
It is a question of "Natural Born Citizen." It has been there since the beginning.
MessianicJewishGuy 4 years ago
In that case, I'd rather be under Holland's leadership! Cause, those people are something we're not. FREE!
heinj98 4 years ago
It is actually reasonable since there is only 1 president. The Constitution allows and type of US Citizen to be in any other office including Congress. Therefore it balances out. Holland doesn't have a Federal Republic, it has a Constitutional Monarchy instead. Therefore its a family running the show.
MessianicJewishGuy 4 years ago
Yes, but they have freedom there. lol
heinj98 4 years ago
If anyone can get into congress or other parts of government, why would the founders have made the Presidency any different?
heinj98 4 years ago
Ideally, if the balance of powers had not been almost entirely eroded, it wouldn't have mattered if an immigrant held the presidency because congress could put checks on his favoritism or whatever to his native country.
heinj98 4 years ago
Wrong. There is still a debate at the US Supreme Court about what "Natural Born Citizen" means. It change every so often. However currently only those born a US Citizen can be president.
MessianicJewishGuy 4 years ago
LOL, that's some real "That depends on what the meaning of is is" shit! That's just reich-wing Nazi's trying to re-interpret the constitution so they can legalize they're bigoted policies.
heinj98 4 years ago
Adolf Hitler, the far far far far far right hated Jews, the reich-wing hates everything that's different. Their first idea is "Shoot it!"
heinj98 4 years ago