• crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Natural born is a common misconception. Naturalized is sufficient - he can be president if he wants. 14th amendment clarifies this point.

    • geissi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Could you quote the part where it says they can become president?
      All I can find is that they become citizens:

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

      Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution explicitly states:

      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

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I understand, this is based on settled case law, Schneider vs Rusk, where it was decided that preventing natural born citizens from holding office such as president violates due process. As you quoted above, “All citizens naturalized…are citizens”.

        This is the lynchpin to progressive candidate Cenk Uygur’s bid for presidency in 2024. He expects this case law to be challenged and decided in the Supreme Court, and anticipates a victory there for himself and the 25million-some other naturalized citizens who wish to enjoy the due process they’ve earned.

        Personally, I think he’s right that Biden is a fool for ignoring the current 10-15 point deficit in the polls vs trump. Biden needs to get out of the way for literally any other dem to come in and sweep the election, and hopefully this will be how it happens!

        • geissi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          TY, that’s really interesting.

          So, of I understand correctly, it’s not exactly codified law.
          Even if the supreme court upholds that ruling, they could overturn it in the future?

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Court cases rule and set precedent based on interpretation of existing laws…in this case how the 14th amendment applies/changes section 1.5 from Article II about who can hold office as president.

            Supreme Court is usually expected to uphold this type of precedent by default, but as the highest court in the land, they can overturn it if/when Cenk’s case makes it to them.

            If they do uphold it, a later supreme court could reinterpret the existing law and overturn this ruling as a result. This was the case with Roe. Congress could codify this interpretation into law by amending the constitution with something even more clear than the 14th amendment, like “naturalized citizens can hold office of presidency.”

            To me the 14th seems pretty clear in its intent already, and I think the prior ruling clearly should stand…you’d have to have some wildly politically active judges to misinterpret something like that. Oh wait…!😅 so we shall see.

        • geissi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

          Didn’t double check but I think he wasn’t a citizen when the constitution was shipped.

          So going by the literal wording alone, he would not qualify.

            • geissi@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Someone else already commented that a court found that it would apply to naturalized citizens, so that is sufficient for me.

              However, the text itself says “at the time OF THE ADOPTION of this Constitution”, i.e. the specific point in time when it was adopted.