Print

Mail

wiki links

Dissent builds in US over law against non-native leader

Comparisons between the actor who would be California governor and the actor who was California governor usually end with the same codicil.

Even if Arnold Schwarzenegger wins the recall election, he can never rise to the presidency, as former president Ronald Reagan did. Not necessarily because he lacks Reagan's political savvy, but because he was born in Austria.

But in the legislative carousel of Washington, everything is open to debate, even the 216-year-old constitutional requirement that presidents be native-born citizens. That article is encountering rising resentment from some lawmakers who regard it as antiquated and discriminatory.

Senator Orrin Hatch called it "decidedly un-American" to allow only native-born citizens to hold the highest office in the land.

"Ours is a nation of immigrants," Hatch argued on the Senate floor this summer when he proposed a measure to eliminate the requirement.

Citing the former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, the Bush cabinet members Elaine Chao and Mel Martinez, and Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm, Hatch said, "None of these well-qualified, patriotic US citizens could be a lawful candidate for president."

A similar proposal in the House would also eliminate Article II's "natural born" requirement, which Hatch said "was driven largely by the concern that a European monarch, like King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to rule the US."

Under Hatch's proposal, anyone who has been a US citizen for at least 20 years and a resident for at least 14 years could be a candidate for commander in chief. The House version, sponsored by the Republican Vic Snyder calls for a candidate to have been a naturalized citizen for at least 35 years.

Snyder said he considered the Senate proposal an encouraging sign, but conceded that Congress was not likely to act on the measure soon.

"I think this is going to be a process of educating members," he said.

Both proposals would require amending the Constitution, which has been done only 27 times, most recently in 1992 with the ban on midterm raises for members of Congress. A constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate. Then at least three-quarters of the state legislatures must ratify it.

Jeffrey Rosen, an associate professor of law at George Washington University, said the new proposals faced challenges. Not only is the Constitution extremely difficult to amend, Rosen said, but immigrants in the US have historically reaped far fewer rights than native-born citizens.

"Aliens don't have a very broad political constituency," Rosen said. "We learned that after 9/11, when Americans were perfectly willing to tolerate restrictions on aliens."

But Noah Feldman, an assistant professor of law at New York University, said amending the provision would bring the Constitution in line with American values.

"It's discriminating," Feldman said of the current requirement. "It's creating, in a way, a kind of second-class citizenship. I think we now recognize that once you're a citizen, you're a citizen."
This story has been viewed 1777 times.