A Footnote

Hendrick Hertzberg has an interesting footnote to the welcome demise of the effort to get California to split its electoral votes. This went down in part because of Arnold Schwarzennegger's decision to oppose it. And what may have motivated him?

Anybody remember the first Republican debate, on MSNBC back in May? I’ll bet Arnold does. He was in the front row at the Reagan Library when Chris Matthews asked the ten candidates if they would support changing the Constitution ever so slightly to make naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency. The vote onstage was eight to one against. (The one was Giuliani; McCain said he’d “seriously consider it,” which I count as an abstention.) Eight to one, in other words, in favor of crushing the ultimate and perfectly legitimate dream of the distinguished Governor of California.

If I were Schwarzenegger, I wouldn’t lift a finger to help these bozos.

It's good to see what's probably our dumbest constitutional provision finding a way to do some good for the world.

Comments

So while I too am totally unable to come up with principled, reasoned arguments for the US-birth requirement for presidents, one thing I've always thought interesting is that there's a pretty disastrous international history of foreign-born rulers coming to power in quasidemocratic states. Napoleon was a Corsican, Hitler was an Austrian, Stalin was a Georgian, etc...

Admittedly our democracy is a bit more robust than the first French Republic or Weimar Germany, but if anyone can explain that surprisingly damning track record I'd like to hear it. The historical origin of this constitutional quirk is pretty interesting too. As far as I can tell the Founders were just trying to avoid the example of Poland, which eventually lost its own semidemocratic government (and independence!) when the nobles became too accustomed to electing as King Russian-born lovers of Catherine the Great.

Posted by Nick | September 30, 2007 2:46 PM

I'm sure he's right and it has nothing to do with Maria telling him how to think.

As for the "dumbest constitutional provision", Arnie still has citizenship in another country. If MattY thinks that through as hard as he can, he'll realize that Arnie has an "out": if things get bad in the U.S. he's got another place (besides the fabled Brazil) to go to. 86% of U.S. citizens don't have that option*, and would thus hopefully tend to think things through in more depth.

And, it's clear to those of us who follow these things that many politicians - especially Democrats - have divided loyalties, whether born in another country (youtube.com/watch?v=FgbCB8QlQWw) or whether home grown (youtube.com/watch?v=3jwqQ8DtlPQ). And, foreign governments push dual citizenship as a way of obtaining power inside the U.S.

* Yes, that's right: a phenomenal 14% of our population (40 million) could be dual citizens if they wanted to.

Posted by TLB | September 30, 2007 2:50 PM

I don't know if it quite qualifies as the "dumbest provision," perhaps one of the most anachronistic. Nick is correct that it was to keep a foreign puppet winning the office, something that was common not only in Poland, but in the age of the Hapsburgs and Hanovers very common in Europe. It was especially used to keep weaker states, which the US would have qualified as at the time, as entangled vassals to the major powers.

Come to think of it, Matt probably owed James Madison an apology.

Posted by AJ | September 30, 2007 2:57 PM

Nick: "So while I too am totally unable to come up with principled, reasoned arguments for the US-birth requirement for presidents, one thing I've always thought interesting is that there's a pretty disastrous international history of foreign-born rulers coming to power in quasidemocratic states. Napoleon was a Corsican, Hitler was an Austrian, Stalin was a Georgian, etc..."

But, of these leaders, only Hitler was elected in anything resembling a democratic fashion (and even that is dubious). Napoleon and Stalin both came to power by force, so no constitutional provision would have stopped them. And the Weimar Republic was doomed, Hitler or no Hitler; the Treaty of Versailles meant that it had zero legitimacy from the outset. It was not inevitable that the leader who emerged would be as evil and disastrous as Hitler was, but it was inevitable that the Republic, associated as it was with the hated Treaty, would come to an end.

The native-birth provision may have made sense in 1787, but it makes no sense now. We're no longer a naive infant republic that might easily be swayed by slick foreign leaders. We have a national tradition of self-rule dating back well over two centuries, and that's enough to trust the people to elect for President whomever they choose. Neither post-Revolutionary France nor Weimar Germany nor Soviet Russia had this tradition of ordered liberty to fall back on.

TLB: "As for the "dumbest constitutional provision", Arnie still has citizenship in another country. If MattY thinks that through as hard as he can, he'll realize that Arnie has an "out": if things get bad in the U.S. he's got another place (besides the fabled Brazil) to go to. 86% of U.S. citizens don't have that option*, and would thus hopefully tend to think things through in more depth."

The problem with this argument is that it proves too much and leads to a morally repugnant conclusion. The same argument could just as easily be applied to justify barring Jews from the Presidency, since, after all, they can always seek refuge in Israel if things go to hell...

President Bush has apparently bought a large quantity of property in Paraguay, apparently as a final refuge against possible war-crimes charges. As far as I know, no Republicans have called for him to be impeached on that basis.

Posted by Josh G. | September 30, 2007 3:03 PM

"but if anyone can explain that surprisingly damning track record I'd like to hear it."

Can't explain it, but I think going back further there were many more foreign born leaders then immediately come to mind. I think Catherine the Great would fit as an example.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | September 30, 2007 3:08 PM

Neither Stalin nor Napoleon was foreign born. Corsica had been annexed by France shortly before Napoleon's birth, and Georgia had been part of the Russian Empire for many years before Stalin was born.

Posted by William Burns | September 30, 2007 3:14 PM

The natural born thingy is in the constitution because of what happened to Poland.

One can think of several more pernicous and idiotic elements in the constitution.

Posted by David | September 30, 2007 3:16 PM

I am a U.S. citizen who has never lived in the states except for the first six months of my life. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to know that the Constitution considers me more eligible to run the country than someone who has spent far more time in the states than I but was born somewhere else.

Posted by Joo-Hyun Kim | September 30, 2007 3:28 PM

As I read the transcript, both Giuliani and Duncan Hunter said yes, making it 8 to 2. (And what's with the Times not being able to figure out who answered second in that passage?)

Posted by DonBoy | September 30, 2007 3:36 PM

I can think of lifting it, but not for Ahnuld. Or Jen Granholm. Or anyone I've ever heard of; only in principle.

A smart politician would get behind the idea strictly with a trigger provision. "No person born before ratification of this amendment by two thirds of the states shall be eligible" or somesuch.

(Given the machinations that put Arnold in Sacto, and the aborted "hey, let's divvy up the biggest D state by district" mishmash, I'm not holding my breath for an R to say this.)

That's like with Congressional pay raises, right? This Congress can only raise the pay for the next one, Politburo-like reelecton rate not withstanding.

Posted by ThresherK | September 30, 2007 3:43 PM

Out of curiosity, are there any countries where you don't have to be a native born citizen to vote? I've googled it a little and can't find any details.

Posted by justaguy | September 30, 2007 3:47 PM

The same argument could just as easily be applied to justify barring Jews from the Presidency, since, after all, they can always seek refuge in Israel if things go to hell...

I'd never vote for a Jew that I thought had dual loyalties, or higher loyalty to Israel. I would never vote for a Jew, or anyone else for that matter, that had dual or triple, or even quadruple citizenship.

If that somehow makes any American that thinks that way "anti-Semitic" or "anti-dual citizenship Mexican" in certain transnationalist progressive's minds - so be it.

As for the Constitutional provision, it was to prevent the foreigner of wealth or power, or running as an "outsider reformer" (Stalin and Hitler) from taking over our country. Not an entirely bad idea. The only objection would be that we suffer from eliminating Arnold and George Soros and Golda Meir from our choices because we cannot find a decent selction from our native-born population of 270 million and must have the other 30 million...Which is ridiculous.
We allow Americans born overseas to one or more American parent (Ralph Richardson, McCain) to be President. We allow someone to run even if their parents or even they are lifelong welfare parasites. We allow what plops out of an illegal alien to become President. Unlike most nations - we do not restrict leadership on the basis of blood, religion. We allow immigrants to serve any post in Congress and in any position in the Judiciary. Generous enough, while still keeping the likes of George Soros, Arnold, Trotsky in exile - or other hyper-ambitious foreigners away from running our country.

Arnold seems benign. But in 100 years with China dominating - we wouldn't want a defeated, broke country to have a Chinese Viceroy installed as President, would we? Or see a Mexican Hitler run for President as leader of New Aztlan - would we?

Fortunately, the Amending process is so broken in gridlock and we have so many higher priorities than serve Arnold's vanity that we don't have to worry about him or some foreign-born billionaire or Oil Sheikh ever ruling over us.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 30, 2007 4:04 PM

Here's a reason, which may or may not be "good."

Americans, IMO, have a big, if sometimes latent, xenophobic streak. It's always there to be tapped, not in every American necessarily, but in enough. The only reason Arnold is in a position to think about the presidency is because of his rise to fame as a muscleman and actor. Try to find another naturalized citizen who came to the US from Austria in the 1970's who could be a legit presidential candidate. I tend to, at the very least, not mind rules and regulations that get in the way of people voting for candidates whose qualifications are so dubious. In the case of naturalized citizens run for the presidency, I don't see any serious candidates emerging who don't have a resume like Arnold's (and yes, for the record, I don't think Granholm or Albright could become serious pres. candidates).

Maybe a decade or two things are different. Having a non-white and/or female president might be a start toward moving some attitudes -- even though it wouldn't directly implicate immigration, it may change people's thoughts about who's "supposed" to do what. But I don't think we're there right now, and the fact that this discussion is always about the star of Jingle All the Way I think supports this notion.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 30, 2007 4:06 PM

Whoops, I forgot Meir was American-born before she fitted her loyalty to the right country for her. OK. Substitute Tony Blair or Putin..

Posted by Chris Ford | September 30, 2007 4:09 PM

"We allow Americans born overseas to one or more American parent (Ralph Richardson, McCain) to be President."

McCain's eligible because he was born in what was then a U.S. territory: the Panama Canal Zone. Having an American parent doesn't confer eligibility on someone by itself.

Posted by Juan | September 30, 2007 4:23 PM

Arnold can still convert to Catholicism and run for Pope.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 30, 2007 4:38 PM

By the way, I told you this was a waste of time to worry about. If Arnold couldn't get a good anti-gerrymandering referendum through in 2005 because the state is so Democratic, this wasn't going to fly in 2008.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 30, 2007 4:41 PM

"McCain's eligible because he was born in what was then a U.S. territory: the Panama Canal Zone. Having an American parent doesn't confer eligibility on someone by itself.

Posted by Juan | September 30, 2007 4:23 PM"

True, but IIRC having two American biological parents when born abroad makes one a native born citizen. I know a kid who was born legally in the Bahamas during his parents' vacation (technically, in the airspace above it. Also, who goes on vacation when 9 months pregnant?) and is still considered American-born.

Posted by Reality Man | September 30, 2007 4:44 PM

Reality Man,

Perhaps in your example this was because a U.S.-owned/flagged plane is considered U.S. territory, just as a U.S.-flagged ship is. Being born on U.S. territory is the key, not who your parents were. That's why the children of illegal aliens from Mexico are considered citizens.

Posted by Juan | September 30, 2007 4:51 PM

Re: Out of curiosity, are there any countries where you don't have to be a native born citizen to vote?

I think you probably mis-worded this, since most (all?) democratic countries allow naturalized citizens to vote.

Re: True, but IIRC having two American biological parents when born abroad makes one a native born citizen.

True. George Romney way back in '68 was in that position (born in Mexico to two Americans) during his short-lived presidential run. I think if you have a child abroad you have to file a "Certificate of birth abroad" to qualify the child as an American citizen though. Some people neglect to do this and it can create hassles when the child tries to get a passport later on in life.

Posted by JonF | September 30, 2007 5:04 PM

It boggles my mind that a provision that has real impact on maybe 10 people can qualify as the dumbest constitutional provision. How about providing for a district to be the seat of government but no providing for the residents of the district to have representation in said government?

Posted by crack | September 30, 2007 5:09 PM

The requirement in the Constitution is that you are born a citizen, so you are in no way disqualified if you are born to two U.S. citizens living abroad (or in an airplane) It's an urban myth.

"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."

Posted by John DE | September 30, 2007 5:49 PM

We lived in Britain for awhile in the '80's. At that time, anyway, commonwealth citizens were free to vote in Britain - we had Canadian friends who had that right.
Also, our son was born in Britain while we lived there, and he is considered a native born American - we had to get him a US passport when we wanted to bring him back to the states. He does have the right to play on the English cricket team, though.

Posted by Peter | September 30, 2007 5:56 PM

Re Chris Ford

As usual, Mr. Ford is 100% wrong. Golda Meir was born in Kiev, Ukraine (then part of Russia) so would not have been eligible to run for president of the US.

Posted by SLC | September 30, 2007 6:01 PM

With that last post, I've decided that "Chris Ford" is a parody troll. It's the only reasonable explanation for so many boneheaded comments.

Posted by Sharon | September 30, 2007 6:03 PM

Let me revise my previous comments, I was in a hurry, so my statement that Golda Meir was born in a small town outside Sao Paolo in 1983 and from there led a Jewish banker cabal to fake a neo-Confederate secession in western Mississippi, that was incorrect. I see now that Golda Meir was actually born in Antarctica in 1692, and therefore her nearly successful 1968 run for the governorship of Oklahoma would still not have made her eligible to run for the presidency of the U.S.

Posted by El_Cid | September 30, 2007 6:24 PM

""...Chris Ford" is a parody troll..."

I agree.

"We're no longer a naive infant republic that might easily be swayed by slick foreign leaders."

I disagree.

"Arnold can still convert to Catholicism and run for Pope."

Youch! What that supposed to be funny? Especially since he is Catholic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger

Posted by Rihilism | September 30, 2007 6:36 PM

El_Cid wins the thread.

Posted by Biff | September 30, 2007 7:29 PM

Biff, while I appreciate your comments, let us not distract ourselves from the important theme here, and that is people who possess sextuple or more citizenships while maintaining nonuple or more loyalties who may run for President.

Posted by El_Cid | September 30, 2007 8:00 PM

Not that I really care about Meir, but I did recollect she was an American citizen, teaching in Milwaukee, I think - before she headed off to Israel.

And my point was about the wisdom of not letting foreign-born become President is in part predicated on dual loyalties or worse. Not, empirically, that there is anything wrong with being a Zionist, to wish to be a Soviet, or a transnationalist that sees their highest loyalty to the UN and "human rights international law" - just that they be in a position where their beliefs do not cause harming of US citizens and their Constitution. Which is more likely as Americans risk by being assigned a lower significance by such people who have loyalty conflicts of interest..

Jennifer/SharonWith that last post, I've decided that "Chris Ford" is a parody troll. It's the only reasonable explanation for so many boneheaded comments.
Posted by Sharon

Unfortunately, as a dumb bitch who cannot make an argument, you are reduced to snarky one-liners.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 30, 2007 8:09 PM

The logic contained within these comments is crystal clear and unquestionable, and I now conclude that it would be dangerous for us to attempt to elect Golda Meir as our President. Her divided loyalties and perhaps even to some extent her current deadness may interfere with Meir's abilities to defend our national interests.

Therefore, I am canceling Meir 2008, and re-launching it as Ben-Gurion '08 'Road To Zion' Express. However I am currently having a hard time convincing him to run on what may be a more successful combined Zion / Lost Cause ticket with Samuel Tilden.

Posted by El_Cid | September 30, 2007 8:28 PM

Matthew--um, the commentators above are right.

You forgot Poland.

(Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night, try the veal!)

Posted by grumpy realist | September 30, 2007 8:52 PM

Findlaw's Annotated Constitution says that probably any child of a US citizen qualifies as a "natural born citizen," even if only one parent is a citizen, and even if the birth takes place abroad:

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

The analysis strikes me as reasonably convincing . . .

Posted by rea | September 30, 2007 8:53 PM

Chris Ford--what a foul-mouthed, pathetic, unintelligent, sniveling little racist and misogynist you are--so bankrupt in imagination that you can't even do invective properly, but are reduced to whining in dark conrners and under rocks,"the dumb bitch said mean things about me".

Posted by rea | September 30, 2007 9:10 PM

Come on Sailer, Arnold lives (and attends mass) in the same diocese you do. He can't convert to Catholicism if he's already Catholic. That's like taking the GED after you already graduated from high school, its madness. :o)

rea, you're correct. Doesn't matter if one or both parents are citizens and where on the planet you're born--- even one US parent gives US citizenship. Natural born citizen means you didn't have to go through the naturalization process. So to make it simple, if you hold a US passport and you never had to take a citizenship oath, you too can run for president.

The outer edge of the law would infants born abroad who are adopted by US citizens. They get their citizenship automatically upon adoption, thus they don't go through the naturalization process. Since their American parents are named on the birth certificate and the courts very strictly treat biological and adoptive children alike, they could probably run too.

Posted by beowulf | September 30, 2007 9:34 PM

Chris Ford, the liar, will be wishing he had dual citizenship when HRC initiaties the rightwing nutjob blogtroll Inquisition in 2010.

Posted by fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency | September 30, 2007 9:58 PM

I think going back further there were many more foreign born leaders then immediately come to mind.

That's because the 'foreign-born chief executive' wasn't really an issue until the transition from the dynastic state to the nation state. Foreign marriages were the order of the day, and that usually brought along territorial possessions for heirs. The English brought in a Dutch prince and a Hanoverian monarch in the space of 30 years. In a sense, the American constitutional rejection of the dynastic state set up the model for Europe.

A smart politician would get behind the idea strictly with a trigger provision. "No person born before ratification of this amendment by two thirds of the states shall be eligible" or somesuch.

That's a smart idea, but there's a catch-22: if there's no potential candidates, no-one will give a shit about getting the amendment through congress and the state legislatures. If there is a potential candidate, there's a built-in opposition.

I'd have a time-based trigger that isn't as severe: perhaps 'no person over the age of eighteen at the time of ratification by two-thirds of the states'.

Findlaw's Annotated Constitution says that probably any child of a US citizen qualifies as a "natural born citizen," even if only one parent is a citizen, and even if the birth takes place abroad:

With the emphasis on 'probably', since it's never been tested. Which means, in the concept of the presidency, that it's not an urban myth, but rather a case that just hasn't happened yet. That raises an interesting question: would someone in an edge-case situation -- say, a citizen by adoption -- contemplate a presidential run, or more importantly, win support for it, if that person could be denied the presidency by SCOTUS?

It boggles my mind that a provision that has real impact on maybe 10 people can qualify as the dumbest constitutional provision.

Yeah, because it's prima facie obvious that a nation of immigrants shouldn't be led by one. I'd support it, just because Chris 'Whack O'Mole' Kelly would shit his insides out.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 1, 2007 12:14 AM

'Findlaw's Annotated Constitution says that probably any child of a US citizen qualifies as a "natural born citizen," even if only one parent is a citizen, and even if the birth takes place abroad:'

The Supreme court found in Witches V. MacBeth that children produced by caeserian section do not count as "natural born".

Posted by Njorl | October 1, 2007 10:12 AM

Nobody now living qualifies as "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." If I remember correctly, that makes Zachary Taylor our last legitimate President.

Posted by CJColucci | October 1, 2007 11:35 AM

I don't know that this qualifies as stupider than what follows: the age requirement. In a democracy, anyone who can vote ought to be able to vote for themselves. If you're qualified to decide who can hold office, how can you be unqualified to do so yourself?

But I tend to be an absolutist about this and I think any regulation that prevents the voters in their wisdom from picking who they want is wrong-headed.

Chris Ford's loon-ball concerns are actually a good example. If the majority of Americans decided that Golda Meir or Vicente Fox should be president of the U.S., why on earth shouldn't she or he be? Democracy and all that.

Posted by witless chum | October 1, 2007 1:10 PM

The premise of the thread is cockeyed since the movement was originally funded by a Giuliani supporter, and Giuliani was the 1 GOP guy who supported Arnold's back door into the presidency.

Yes, that makes Giuliani Arnold's back door man.

I say that to see how many people have to get a brain bleach this late in the thread.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 1, 2007 1:56 PM

Isn't the Electoral College the worst provision in the constitution?

Posted by Rob Mac | October 1, 2007 2:14 PM

I think that the prohibition in the Constitution against voting for fictional entities or impossible characters should be lifted.

Posted by El_Cid | October 1, 2007 2:24 PM

"If you're qualified to decide who can hold office, how can you be unqualified to do so yourself?"

witless chum, I think maybe you have the idea behind "representative democracy" a little skewed. The point is for everyone to choose those few among them best qualified to run the place. One's ability to see those qualifications in another isn't the same as having them oneself. Age might or might not be a qualifying factor (35 does seem somewhat arbitrary), but would you want an 18-year-old president? I didn't when I was 18, knowing even then that I was just competent to vote and not much else.

Posted by Huntington | October 2, 2007 3:31 PM

Thank God Arnold can't run for president. He's a supreme crook who came into power under one of the shadiest scandals in California history. He was brought in by Ken Lay to stop the billions of dollars that Enron was going to be sued for over their rigging of the energy market.

It worked and Arnold dropped the lawsuit. He's a lying creep who bragged about kicking nurses butts and called concerned citzens "girliemen." Watching Democrats slobber on this hypocrite is disturbing. But typical in California where we love our B-Movie actors.

Posted by christian | October 3, 2007 2:19 PM