Americas Greatest Rascist LAW?

Just left a comment over at BLUNTY, because in my haze riddled state, sometimes weird things pop into the head, here the link http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/bluntinstrument/archives/2009/05/yeah_sol_its_al.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

BUT theQ was. If in a country like America, you can become a citizen, fight and die for the country, maybe do GREAT things, by the establishments standards, why then unless you are born their, can you NOT BECOME THE PRESIDENT.

Is this not one off the greatest forms of Racism around?

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Americas Greatest Rascist LAW?

  1. You dont have to be a US citizen to fight and die in the US military. In fact many people join bc they think it will help their green card application.

    The ‘born here’ clause is (IIRC) in their constitution. It is one of their most important documents and it would be very controversial to change it. Especially when you consider that nobody born outside USA has even been nominated for President let alone been in a position where they could be elected.

    But saying that, they pissed all over their constitution when they established the Patriot act so maybe it wouldnt be such a big deal to change a few things here and there.

  2. Yeah its a big one, Patriot act, must do some reading on that one, its an item I suspect that will one day, hit the radar, like you say, getting into a position to run is hard enough and thats a big FILTE right there. Its a great document generally, but I guess, given when it was written its an item due for review IMHO..time will tell.

  3. I fail to see how this has anything to do with race. It simply dicriminates between ‘natural-born citizens’ and others who have acquired their citizenship differently. Two people could be of the same race where one is a nautural born citizen and the other a naturalised citizen. Only the natural born citizen under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution would be eligble to run for the Presidency. Nothing to do with the race of either.

  4. I’d rather be President of Microsoft….or the Mafia…..much more profitable…

    ….better toys to play wiht tho….being seppo dictat…umm…pres.

  5. AK: yeah, i kinda think its a quirk, left over sorta.

    Lerm: I’m 100% with ya, its nothing to do with RACE at all, it is discriminatory, on the basis of birth place only!.

    Barnes: my good man..Arnie…yeah, one consolation,,TF.

    Moko..wicked,,effin wicked toys.

  6. Clause 5. 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.

    It’s nothing to do with race. Did I miss something or do we not have an African-American President? Possibly the Republican Party’s next Presidential candidate will be Governor Jindal of Louisiana-an Indian (the Bharati kind)/American. Someday we’ll likely have a Latino president, or an Asian/American president, or even (God forbid) an Australian/American president.

    Now, leg-pulling aside, sometimes we have to try to read intent in documents. In this case, I think the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that a person running for the office was familiar with our principles, had served the nation in perhaps a lesser capacity, and had a vested interest in running the nation under those principles. Possibly the thought was to prevent some European royalty with a load of cash from coming over here, buying an election, and running the place as he saw fit.

    Your point is taken-if a foreigner cares enough to come here and fight for the place or has been of benefit to the nation by being an asset to the economy, and is smart enough, why shouldn’t he be allowed to have a shot at running the country? Perhaps the time will come when that issue will come up in the courts. I don’t know.

  7. YD: Yeah, I get where you are coming from, I suspect its one that will at some point, in he not to distant future surface. I also wonder if this would not break the essentially two party system you have over there open a bit, might also be a good thing as well.

  8. At the time it was to keep the Brits (and the Krauts I guess) out of the equation. Given they’d just had a war against foreign-born peeps and were an old enough country to have competent locally born statesmen able to take up government. Bill Bryson’s history of the American language – which I don’t remember the title of – is a good read re this.

  9. Therbs,, I gotta agree, but WHAT ABOUT ME!…

    Doc, yeah , I understand their driver for it, I do wonder if they will revisit it, but I guess 9/11 possibly killed that off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s