Given that the Constitution expressly prohibits foreign-born Americans from serving as POTUS, and that there is no mention whatsoever about a woman occupying the office, would it be a fair assumption to say that, had the Founders entertained the idea that women would one day achieve the political and societal equivalency of men in America - as did legal immigrants, in every other fashion - they would have expressly forbid that as well? At a glance - and possessing an admittedly inadequate level of knowledge of Constitutional interpretation and history - it seems to me that the idea may have been to limit presidential access to white American-born men. They never specified that a black man could never hold the office either, but as several of them owned black men, isn’t it possible that they viewed it as self-evident and not requiring of expressed clarification? Was their choice of wording a serendipitous oversight, brilliant foresight or something in between?
I don’t think a single one of them would object to a black female president in today’s America, just as I doubt they would object to Arnold running for the highest office today in a country built on immigration.
I’m curious to read what the more Constitutionally learned think about Article II and the 12th Amendment as they relate to those not mentioned.
Basically, it was originally meant as some small protection to keep our government free from foreign influence. Had nothing really to do with race, sex, etc. except at the time the only persons allowed to vote were white men. Presumably, they would only vote for white men. As the ability to vote expanded, so did the potential list of candidates.
When the text is crystal clear, intent pretty much goes out the window. It is pretty tough to have different interpretations of the following:
“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.”
When the text is crystal clear, intent pretty much goes out the window
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ! ! ! HA HA HA HA HA! ! !
Art, please stop, you’re killing me.
Nobody even needs to offer any different interpretations, though they could surely imagine some. The simply need to ignore that clause, as they do others.
I think that it is just about time that a new amendment gets added to our constitution, and I don’t mean one defining marrige. I think that Arnold is popular enough to at least have a look at it, since the original one seems to be out of date, and not hip to the times…Seems to be in league with the abolition of slavery, and womens right to vote. The residencey requirement would still be relevant, possibly lenghtened to 20 to 25 years to insure no carpetbaggers…
The text is clear as could be, but you’re either dodging or have missed my question altogether. There is intent behind every article of our constitution, and since we’ve gone on to amend that document, determining intent is relatively important to that process. Maybe not so much to the questions I posed, but certainly in terms of deciding whether or not the concerns that resulted in the elimination of naturalized citizens from potential candidacy are still valid today. You can make a strong argument that the protection the framers were seeking could, in today’s world, prohibit leaders of major multinational corporations from holding office.
Who would you feel would better fit the framers’ ideal for ensuring protection from foreign influence, Governor Schwarzenegger or Jerry Thompson, Citgo’s CEO?
“Maybe not so much to the questions I posed, but certainly in terms of deciding whether or not the concerns that resulted in the elimination of naturalized citizens from potential candidacy are still valid today.”
I would say that those concerns are not valid today. Regardless, the text is crystal clear and an amendment would be required to change the policy. I wouldn’t have any problem with such an amendment, but it is hard to see one coming to pass. The effort involved in such an exercise is enormous compared to no gain worth mentioning. It is not like there aren’t enough people that can meet the hurdle.
"You can make a strong argument that the protection the framers were seeking could, in today’s world, prohibit leaders of major multinational corporations from holding office. "
You lost me there. What does one have to do with the other? If the American people want to elect someone from such a background, the Founders have not and did not try to raise any barriers. If Jerry Thompson wants to make a go, tell him to put on his longjohns and head for New Hampshire.
Now, were immigration to get further radically out of control, then you might have a point. A really good point as I think about it now.
The idea of the Founders was to prevent foreign influence over the domestic condition. Understandable then, when the US was the flea rather than the dog as it is now.
What does one have to do with the other? I guess it’s only relevant if you’re willing to consider intent, and the intent (as I understand it) behind that article prohibiting naturalized citizens from assuming the presidency was to prevent foreign influence or allegiance from reaching the White House. Today, with a global economy and multinational corporations dominating a post-Isolationism America, that safeguard seems to have lost its efficacy, if it had any to begin with.
I guess you have a point, but the text is pretty clear. It was one easy safeguard the Founders thought best to put in place. The Founders never thought their Constitution would guarantee anything if the future citizens didn’t live up to their responsibilities. No piece of paper can guard against that.
The Founders put the First Amendment in place, yet later generations still gave us McCain Feingold. What is a poor Founder to do?