Interesting constitutional question

Does anyone know the history of the provision in the Constitution that prevents foreign-born citizens from becoming President (Article II, Clause 5)? I mean, why did the Founders place this in? I'm only asking because I'm curious as to the intellectual grounding of this provision. As you all must know, there is a movement to repeal this clause, so foreign-born citizens (read Arnold Schwarzenegger) could run for President. Frankly, I'm opposed to changing the Constitution to suit such short-sighted goals (can you imagine the uproar if the Dems tried this with Madeline Albright?), but I think a long-term case could be made to change the law. I'm not personally opposed to changing the law, and frankly the thing seems silly. I just have trouble with the idea of amending the Constitution, so that a popular Republican can seek the Presidency. The Constitution is not a rough draft.

I would hope that before actions like this are considered, that we would seriously investigate the history of the provision, which brings me back to my question. Does anyone know the history? Does anyone have any theories?

It was intended to prevent English loyalists from gaining the presidency. Obviously those born in England were more likely to be loyal to King George than the American-born.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think the constitution should be amended to allow those born outside the US to become president. I realize the concerns now are very different, but I think it's a good idea to reserve the office for the American-born. Perhaps it's a bit of paranoia on my part, but what if Al Quaeda or some other terrorist organization installed a mole who would run for the presidency.

I'm inclined to agree with most of your point about keeping things the same in order to keep our terrorist moles, although al-Qaeda could still corrupt American citizens who are natural-born (John Walker Lindh?). Nevertheless, while I do think the provision is a bit archaic, we should never change the Constitution on a whim.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, clause 5, in pertinent part: "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"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/ . . . and . . . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/03.html#1

that cites U.S. Supreme Court case law as to this issue.

As for amending the U.S. constitution regarding foreign-borns as president, I agree w/ you in general. The Framers wanted no loyalists or royals to intrude upon their attempts at their new sovereign country, and they were extremely distrustful of foreign-borns allegiance to and ability to carry forth the duties u/ sovereignty.

Distrust for foreign-borns has always been a part of this nation's heritage whether during times of war or otherwise. America has systemically shunned it's immigrants giving them a less legal status than its citizenry.

Also, changes to our constitution are not to be attempted lightly as is here by the suggestion that due to Arnold Schwartzenegger's popularity the constitution should be amended. Anyone who disagrees w/ this timing isn't being honest (or doesn't know American history), since it's only been raised of late due to Schwartzenegger, e.g., see, http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/10/10-14-04tdc/10-14-04dnews-13.asp

who could get people to vote for that bill-and he's not even officially backing it, just pretending to. People will vote for it with him in mind, then our machines will elect a Saudi Royal or something

And I'm pretty sure founders did it b/c they didn't want the U.S. to get like Europe (corrupt), like now!

Some Democrats like the idea of changing the constitution because, in part, it would allow Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan, to seek the office.

I believe on Hardball.

They put people into power to do as they were told from over seas. Other royals were doing it in the Americas also. Now doing that in Iraq is not the same. Those people are not Christians so we can rule them from over seas. Oh sorry we are not on to that are we. I some times for get what laws go to what people. Fr. and Sp. were both in No and So Am at the time and they did not want any of these people ruling . They were also into the voters and people who made the laws etc coming from the same place and returning to that place fast. George Washington could have stayed for ever but I think he said something on this.It all has to be in the federalist Papers and their are a lot of those things.

and i think it's a good idea.

it didn't prove a challenge way back then, when quite a lot of american citizens were not born in the u.s.

nowadays, can we really not find someone qualified among the more than quarter billion u.s. born??

then again, look who we wound up with....

"The Constitution is not a rough draft."

Actually, of course, it is. Or, as we put it up here, the Constitution is a "living tree". If it weren't, it would be outdated the day it was adopted. Just like anything else human beings do.

Life is change, change is life. The notion that a bunch of rich white guys people over two centuries ago knew what was best for people in the year 2004 is reasonable only if we believe they had crystal balls and were, well, perfect. I can never understand why you guys down there don't think you're at least as qualified to organize your own affairs as those guys in the 1780s were to organize theirs. They were mortals! And they still had slavery, and had never seen a television ...

Someone here asks whether there really aren't enough qualified candidates for the office among the native-born. Hmm. I wonder whether there aren't enough white male applicants for that managerial job without having to go opening it up to women and people of colour ... . The thing is that individuals are entitled to equal treatment as a first principle -- and then any justifications for unequal treatment must be made. Which there often are ... but they have to be demonstrated.

Your founders & framers quite undoubtedly had their reasons for this provision ... and just as undoubtedly had no actual concept of equality rights. The idea that the law, let alone a constitution, should not discriminate among people based on personal characteristics really just hadn't much occurred to them. And yet it's kinda fundamental to 21st century thought. Discrimination on the basis of country of origin is frowned on.

Just FYI, the Canadian constitution contains such express guarantees of equality before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law, that a constitutional provision like this would make the entire constitution a complete hash. Arbitrary exclusion of an individual from an important role in the political life of the country is not consistent with equality. Any citizen who is eligible to vote and not disqualified from membership in the House of Commons (basically, by being convicted of a criminal electoral offence) may become Prime Minister of Canada; there are no separate age limits or other qualifications to be met.

Now mind you, the fact that your president is head of state as well as head of government complicates matters somewhat. And that certainly is what your founders & framers were looking at: the royalty-like aspect of the position and person. So there is no direct comparison to a non-presidential parliamentary system. Our 1982 constitution adopts the monarch of the UK etc. as our head of state and of course we can just as easily disown him/her -- and we'd certainly do just that if the UK became a colony of something else with a "foreign" monarch installed by the colonial power, for instance.

France has a presidential parliamentary system: a president and a prime minister; I've never heard of a requirement there that the president be a native-born citizen.

"I just have trouble with the idea of amending the Constitution, so that a popular Republican can seek the Presidency."

That's understandable. But would you have had trouble with giving women the vote if it meant that the Bush twins would get to cast a ballot? Abolishing prohibitions on interracial marriage if it meant that Clarence Thomas could marry Ann Coulter? The right thing to do is the right thing to do, even if it has perverse effects one doesn't like or benefits someone unworthy in the short term.

I'm not attempting to tell any other people what it should do about its own constitutional arrangements, mind. Just saying how it looks from the outside.

Rights is rights, and they're for everybody. Even people one really doesn't like. One might say *especially* for people one really doesn't like.

Actually, I used the wromg metaphor. I should have perhaps said that the Constitution is not silly putty, as if it could be altered lightly. While my instincts tell me that it might be a good idea to reconsider this provision, I wanted to be sure of the original purpose, as to see if there wasn't some reason why the Framers put it there.

I agree with you that the right thing to do is the right thing to do. If letting foreign-born citizens be President is right, then it is right. One does have to consider motive, however. It seems that many are doing this for their own short-sighted goals. If it's right, then it's right, and we ought to act on principle.

BTW, I would never repeal any good law for personal agendas. That's point. The Bush twins, and all women, should all rights protected under the Constitution. Interracial couples should have every right to marry. I encourage interracial couples. If Clarence Thomas and Ann Coulter want to get hitched, that's between them.

"the Constitution is not silly putty, as if it could be altered lightly."

Absolutely. Doing that is when one does end up with a dog's breakfast -- like a constitution that enshrines equal protection, and then expressly denies equal protection to, say, partners in same-sex conjugal relationships.

There's always going to be something of that in a constitution. The Canadian constitution, for instance, grants express rights in various matters (e.g. education) to speakers of English and French -- but not of Hindi.

More problematically, the 1867 constitution, which continues under the 1982 constitution, grants express rights to protestants and RCers as regards separate publicly funded educational systems in various provinces -- but not to Muslims or Wiccans or anybody else.

The provision in question was absolutely essential to the pact that was the basis for the formation of Canada: a pact between two peoples, with guarantees of collective rights to minority groups.

But when looked at from the modern perspective of individual rights, and especially the very strong guarantees of equality -- equal benefit of the law -- in the Canadian constitution, that provision is a big problem. In fact, the UN Human Rights Committee has found Canada to be in violation of international rights instruments because of this situation:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/55/a5540vol2.pdf
-- RCers and protestants who are minorities in some provinces have publicly funded separate schools (they may not discriminate in admissions), but Muslims, Jews, etc., receive no public funding for their schools.

Essentially, the constitutional guarantee is an anachronism in a multicultural, tolerant society which values and fiercely protects both individual rights and freedoms and collective cultural and religious rights. In Canada in the 21st century, no religious minorities need publicly funded schools to protect their religious freedom or preserve their identity.

But it is a little high-handed for an international body to rule against the fundamental bargain struck by the founding peoples of a nation, nonetheless. The recognition of collective rights expressed in that bargain, and the culture that grew out of it, are, after all, what made Canada the tolerant and multicultural society and exemplar of modernity that it now is.

Of course the proper solution, now, is to do away with the guarantees of funding for *any* religious groups. The Constitution is a living tree, and that dead wood absolutely needs to be removed.

With the Catholic Defence League lurking under every rock, in particular, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Although in Newfoundland, which had previously had a completely denomination-based schools system (11 different and completely separate systems), a referendum was held that resulted in a constitutional amendment in 1997 abolishing the entire denominational structure in favour of a single public system. Small population and particular events (scandals about abuse in denominational schools) made this possible.

Anyhow, that's how I, an admitted outsider, would see your constitutional citizenship requirement for the office of president: dead wood, and inconsistent with the fundamental values otherwise expressed in that constitution. I do recognize the special situation that results from the fact that this office is the head of state, but even then I don't see the requirement as consistent with a modern, tolerant, multicultural state that values equality.

The Holy Roman Emperor (Basically the Ruler of Germany) was always an elected position. More often than not the previous Emperor's son was elected Emperor (Through not always the case). Poland had the same system in place in the to centuries before the American Revolution.

In both systems Foreign born Kings were elected and these foreign born Kings would use their power as King to use the Resource of Germany and Poland to benefit their home Country. Thus the fear that a Foreign born President would favor his own country over that of the US. Given that American had a long history (even than) of short periods of Naturalization, a fear existed that a foreigner could bride his way to the Presidency and once in office use the office for another's country's benefit.

Poland of the 1700s is a good example of this. Poland's King were also the King of Saxony (Hereditary in Saxony, elected in Poland). IT was the Czar (and in the later half Czarina Catherine the Great) who actually paid the bribes to get the Saxons elected. Thus the King of Poland were indebted to Russia and would favor both Russia and Saxony interest over Poland's (And was one of the reason for the Three partition of Poland between Russia, Austria and Prussia, two before the adoption of the US Constitution, the last After the Adoption of the US Constitution).

Germany demonstrated the other problem of Foreign kings, not one that favored foreign countries, but one that foreign countries would prefer the Central Government to be constantly weaken so that the Foreign Countries could better interfere (and form alliances) with the local Governments (i.e. the "Kingdoms" of Prussia, Saxony, Palatine, Bavaria, Austrian etc). Germany basically dissolved under its Elected Foreign Kings with the Foreign Kings preferring to strengthen their won Country over that of Germany.

These were recent history to Europe, in just the previous 100 years prior to the Adoption of the Constitution, and thus while no one feared foreign born Senators or Members of the House, there was a fear of a Foreign born President.

AS to the Federalist papers this seems not to have been a problem for the issue just does not arise in the Federalist papers for the concern over Foreign born President had been addressed, thus the only issue was what power the President should have instead of who should be President.

REMEMBER THIS HAMILTON WHO IS ONE OF THE WRITERS OF THE FEDERLIST PAPERS HAD BEEN BORN IN BERMUDA AND THUS NOT ELEGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSITUTION. This is my biggest argument against changing this part of the Consitution If Alexander Hamilton was more than willing to be excluded from the Presidency how is The Governor of California more important than Hamilton?

The Federalist Papers:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

A search able copy of the Federalist Papers:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm

The Anti-federalist papers:
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm

For instance, let's say that a popular Canadian wants to be President. Let's say we amend the constitution to get her into office. Now, let's say that Canada is developing nukes to use against us. Ms. Canadian would be hesitant to attack Canada, because it's her homeland and her family and friends live there.

See the problem?

Yeah. It's called xenophobia, most places.

Isn't that what led to Japanese-Americans (citizens of the US) and Japanese-Canadians (citizens of Canada) being interned without trial a half-century ago? Damned foreigners; you just never can tell when they might stick a knife in you while you're sleeping.

Now, a native son like, oh, George W. Bush, he'd never do anything to harm the U.S. His friends and family live there, after all. Of course, if you're not one of his friends or family members, you might want to watch your back, no matter now USAmerican you might be ...

Funny how the danger to USAmericans presented by a George W. Bush is just so much more clear and present than the danger likely to be presented by permitting foreign-born USAmerican citizens to run for president, eh?