I will say though, Arnold's more generally-made points are good ones.
Additionally, I do appreciate that he takes responsibility for the pathos that was post-war Austria. And he is right, that the slope is a very slippery one, from democracy, to chaos -- on to totalitarianism. It is over seven minutes long, but well worth the watch time.
[He may be making a bid to be the 2024 candidate, in a "reformed" Republican party. But I'd never vote for him, based on his record as California Governor; even so, he does make solid points here.] And if it changes even one rabid Baby-T supporter's view. . . it is a worthwhile effort.
As sad as the story of Arnold's childhood is -- and there still remain ten or so dark days ahead -- I remain, in turn. . . filled with optimism, for America's future, post the dotard.
नमस्ते
5 comments:
Arnold doesn't qualify under the Constitution.
You were right. It is worth watching.
For Anon. — the Article II Section 1.5 clause has never been litigated directly. “. . .No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States. . . .” is not free from doubt.
The clause after the “or” may well include naturalized citizens, like Arnold.
The current Supremes might well decide the electorate can choose not to elect him (or his party may choose not to nominate him), they think birth citizenship is that central to being POTUS.
In any event, I think he’s not a fit for this GOP.
It might make entertaining gossip fodder though.
Namaste. . . .
OK so it's not been litigated.
I still think he's likely ineligible. Article 2 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;"...
I think the addition of "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" can only apply to those already alive in 1789. Otherwise this clause and other wording is superfluous as the Constitution could otherwise have just said 'No person except a citizen of the United States.' Period. Which would have included both natural born and naturalized citizens then and into the indefinite future. Instead I think it limits it so that it no longer applies to naturalized citizens at the present.
This clause was needed in 1789 as there were no natural born citizens and there would not be any who met the age requirement until 1824. So if you take into account life expectancy. I don't believe that past around 1860 or so anyone other than a natural born citizen would be eligible.
I think it would be interesting to look at the Presidents and see when the last one who was an immigrant was born. I bet that he would have been born prior to adoption of the Constitution, and that it was someone elected between 1824 and sometime in the 1850's.
Thanks Anon., and of course, yours is the majority view. And I think it likely correct.
To be honest, my fear is that supposed "originalists" (but actually activist wolves, in originalist sheeps' clothing) at the Supremes (Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas and Alito) might convince Roberts to join them and say (5-4) that the original clause's time limitation was to address the unique problem of being a newly formed nation, just as you said -- but now, over two centuries later, all "naturalized" citizens would have been eligible, exactly because. . . of the passing of time.
Nevermind that the natural construction of the actual sentence logically requires the opposite conclusion. We've seen several Orwellian constructions of language at the Supremes (specifically the final decision upholding the core of the re-worked Muslim Ban 3.0), to suggest this now right shifted court might ignore the plain meaning to get to a result they favored.
There was a law review article in 2003 when Arnie was floated as a possible Bush 43 successor that made the argument he should be allowed to run "and let the political sphere" decide a question that (it argued) the courts shouldn't get in the way of the people's right to choose a leader. . . I may see if I can find that one, again (I read it in 2003, but didn't find it with a quick Google search).
It is, as you point out, a poor argument.
All of that said -- given his health/heart issues, I'd imagine he'd be unappealing. . . since next time should be a "next gen" (much younger) candidate.
I'd never vote for him, but he's. . . not wrong, above.
Namaste, and do stop back!
Post a Comment