English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Clearly, the Constitution allows for anyone now, naturalized or not, to be President, conditionally: "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." Is it 1787 yet?

2007-07-31 01:07:46 · 3 answers · asked by theminchiman 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

3 answers

Clearly, you are incorrect.

There are two ways to qualify -- being naturally born, or being a Citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.

None of the people alive today (as far as we can tell) were alive in 1787, so none of them qualify under the second prong. That leaves the first prong (natural born) as the only way to qualify.

The comma before the "AT" is not interpreted to isolate the medial clause as an alternative under the temporal clause, but instead turns the subsequent temporal clause into a clarifying attribute of the medial clause.

The only reason the temporal clause and the medial clause exist is because at the time of ratification, there were no natural born citizens (none had been born as citizens, since the country didn't exist yet). Hence, without that second option, nobody would quality to be president until 1823.

2007-07-31 01:12:16 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5 1

Clearly because the constitution says that "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----

Arnold -if that is who you are referring to - in not a natural born citizen nor was he around at the time of the adoption of
the constitution.

That clause -at the time of the adoption of this constitution - was put in to allow those who had been residents of the United States for 14 years and had loyalty to the United States to become citizens upon its adoption. Without that clause , there wouldn't have been anyone eligible to be president. The constitution was signed 9-7-1787.

2007-07-31 01:26:27 · answer #2 · answered by yancychipper 6 · 0 0

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/avtyq

yes IMO 33 Female I find naturalized citizens know more about how our government works than people born to American Citizens because they have to pass a test to become an American (if you don't believe this just read some of the political questions on this site)

2016-04-09 03:28:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The law IS clear. NO one unless a natural born citizen may become the president of the United States of America. You are just misinterpreting the constitution.

2007-07-31 01:27:01 · answer #4 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 0 0

"At the time of the adoption of this constitution" means from that time onward. There is a reason for this. It is so that another country cannot send one of its citizens to America who will become a citizen and then, as president, influence the law in that country's favor. It is a very sensible measure to prevent America from being taken over by another country.

2007-07-31 01:17:16 · answer #5 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 4 1

"Get some rest and don't worry. I've been working undercover for a long time. They're six-year-olds. How much trouble can they be?"

2007-07-31 01:54:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I don't think Arnold was around "AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION".

Sylvester Stallone, maybe.

2007-07-31 04:58:30 · answer #7 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 1 0

Whatever....it's not going to happen.

Do you really want someone who wasn't even born in this country running it?

Not me...no thanks.

2007-07-31 01:11:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

ok so arnold's great grandfather would qualify if he was an american and not a nazi or is that a bush trait?

2007-07-31 01:10:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

Don C. hit it on the head.

2007-07-31 01:34:30 · answer #10 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers