Kurushimi

Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

So...what the heck is up with that "natural-born citizen" part. I've been wondering about this for a while. Why should a natural born citizen be any different than a person whose lived in America for almost all their life? =/

Doesn't really make much sense to me.

__________________


You can search it if you want, but you may want to skip the memories of your mom.
~ xkcd

GENERATION 4: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

gokusucks

I think they were doing whatever they could to make sure no British people could come in and try become president.

__________________
http://tinyurl.com/yslm43

Click the link. It's the right thing to do.

Kurushimi

That doesn't really make sense. The president is elected. If people don't want him, he won't win. If they do, he will. Disqualifying people because of where they are born is just stupid.

And they stopped fighting with the English after the Revolutionary War.

__________________


You can search it if you want, but you may want to skip the memories of your mom.
~ xkcd

GENERATION 4: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

gokusucks

It was really the best thing I could come up with, because I just don't know. It is kind of stupid though.

__________________
http://tinyurl.com/yslm43

Click the link. It's the right thing to do.

Ivan

gokusucks is right. Around the time this was written there were major conflicts with people from other countries or just other descents. A "natural-born citizen" in "America" could disqualify a Native American (lol) or Mexican or British person.

Now, it doesn't really make much sense. It probably could be removed and not have any major impact on the country, but the fact that it doesn't change anything is reason enough to not put effort into changing it.

Kurushimi

Actually, it was written right after the Revolutionary war where America's main problem was finding a suitable way to govern their new nation.

But come to think of it, maybe it was a way to show other nations that they could handle themselves, that they were a true nation. I mean, it wouldn't look to good for America, a new nation, if, say, a French person came to lead it. But even this problem could be solved by people...simply not voting for them. If they cared about this they wouldn't dare vote for a foreigner.

__________________


You can search it if you want, but you may want to skip the memories of your mom.
~ xkcd

GENERATION 4: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

Ivan

Considering America was founded by several people moving to a new continent, they were probably worried about several people of another country showing up and taking over.

Theoretically it's possible, but I doubt anybody gave a fuck at the time.

Dupe of USSJed

Thats absolutely retarded, in fact, its almost racist.

__________________

Kurushimi

Yes, I think I remember something about that in history class. In a letter written by Benjamin Franklin, if my history memory serves me correctly (and it usually doesn't). When you put it that way, it makes more sense.

Well, according to wikipedia, there was an amendment proposed back in 2003 (only about 220 years after this rule was made. They sure work quick) that would change this part of the constitution. It also says it won't take effect unless it is ratified in the next 7 years since it's introduction.

It's been 5 incase you're wondering.

__________________


You can search it if you want, but you may want to skip the memories of your mom.
~ xkcd

GENERATION 4: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

Masked_Felix

Huh?

America's constitution on the matter (still written the same way, just that the provision for the founding generation being exempt from the natural born rule) is the same now as it was then. Their only concern is that the ultimate leader of the country is indeed of the country in full. It's not racist at all, since any race can be American. They don't even have to be born here to be American. They just have to be born here to be the Executive leader. It's not even like it's really unfair. You can hold any other political position and not have been born in the country. The only thing denied is the most supreme position that one person can hold. It makes sense that is reserved for those who were born as citizens of America. Setting the highest standard for the highest position. That's all there is to it. Any race or gender can run and potentially win.

__________________

Ivan

In a time where so many people are still under the effect of scare mongering, I wouldn't expect to see an immediate change for several years.

Kurushimi

Setting the highest standard for the highest position? How does being a naturally born citizen make any difference...at all? What ever happened to egalitarianism? It's like a lesser version of a kingdom where only the royal bloodline rules. It's not quite as bad because there is a wider base of people who meet this requirement but it still denies people unnecessarily.

__________________


You can search it if you want, but you may want to skip the memories of your mom.
~ xkcd

GENERATION 4: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.