Full Answer Section

1. Preventing ambitious foreigners from seizing power: There was a fear that individuals born and raised in other countries might come to the U.S. with the explicit intent of gaining political power for their own (or a foreign nation’s) agenda. The “natural born” clause aimed to create a barrier against such ambitions.
2. Ensuring familiarity with American values and institutions: While not explicitly stated, an underlying assumption was that someone born and raised in the United States would have a deeper understanding and appreciation of American ideals, culture, and governmental processes, making them a more suitable leader.

It’s important to note the “grandfather clause” that exempted those who were citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, acknowledging the contributions of foreign-born patriots who were instrumental in the Revolution (like Alexander Hamilton, though his birth circumstances still provoke debate regarding the “natural born” clause).

How does this requirement relate to contemporary America?

In contemporary America, the “natural born Citizen” requirement is a subject of ongoing debate and occasional controversy:

1. Symbolic vs. Practical Relevance: In an increasingly globalized world, the practical necessity of this clause is often questioned. With modern communication and intelligence, the idea that a naturalized citizen is inherently less loyal than a natural-born one seems less compelling to many. However, it retains symbolic weight for some as a safeguard of national identity and sovereignty.
2. Exclusion of Talented Individuals: Critics argue that the requirement arbitrarily excludes a large pool of talented and dedicated naturalized citizens from the highest office. Many immigrants have made significant contributions to American society and may possess the skills and experience to lead the nation, yet they are permanently barred from the presidency.
3. Ambiguity and Legal Challenges: The lack of a clear constitutional definition of “natural born Citizen” has led to occasional legal challenges and political speculation surrounding the eligibility of candidates born outside the U.S. (e.g., John McCain, Ted Cruz), even if they were born to U.S. citizen parents. While the consensus generally upholds their eligibility, the ambiguity can be a source of partisan contention.
4. A Nation of Immigrants: In a country built by immigrants, the clause can be seen as contradictory to the American ethos of opportunity and inclusion. It creates a “second-class” citizenship for naturalized citizens in the context of the presidency.

What should be the qualifications for President?

This is a normative question with no single right answer, as it reflects different values and priorities. Here’s a common perspective and some alternative considerations:

Current Qualifications (as per Constitution):

• Natural born Citizen
• At least 35 years old
• Resident within the U.S. for 14 years

Arguments for current qualifications:

• Age: Ensures a certain level of maturity and experience.
• Residency: Guarantees familiarity with American life and challenges.

Arguments for rethinking/additional qualifications:

• “Natural Born Citizen”: As discussed above, many argue for its abolition, allowing any citizen (naturalized or otherwise) who meets other criteria to run. This would align with the idea of equal opportunity.
• Experience: Some argue for a minimum level of public service experience (e.g., former governor, senator, or high-level executive branch official) to ensure a candidate has a proven track record of leadership and understanding of governance.
• Education: While not a constitutional requirement, a strong educational background (perhaps in law, economics, or public policy) is often implicitly valued. Some might propose a minimum degree.
• Mental and Physical Health: Given the immense demands of the presidency, some have suggested formal assessments, though this is highly sensitive and could be politically weaponized.
• Financial Transparency: Stricter requirements for disclosing financial holdings and potential conflicts of interest could be considered to ensure integrity.

Ultimately, the qualifications for President should aim to strike a balance between ensuring capable leadership and maintaining democratic accessibility. Many would argue that character, leadership skills, and a commitment to the Constitution are more important than the circumstances of one’s birth.

How would you go about changing the qualifications for President?

Changing the qualifications for President would require amending the U.S. Constitution. This is a difficult and deliberately arduous process, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. There are two primary ways to propose an amendment, and two ways to ratify it:

1. Proposal Methods:

• By Congress: A proposed amendment must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is the most common method historically.
• By a National Convention: Two-thirds of the state legislatures (currently 34 out of 50 states) can request that Congress call a national convention to propose amendments. This method has never been used to propose an amendment.

2. Ratification Methods:

Once proposed by either method, an amendment must then be ratified by:

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures (currently 38 out of 50 states). This is the most common method of ratification.
• Three-fourths of state ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, for the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition).

Therefore, to change the “natural born Citizen” qualification, the steps would be:

1. Build broad political consensus: There would need to be significant public and political support across both major parties to even begin the process.
2. Draft a constitutional amendment: This amendment would specifically modify or remove the “natural born Citizen” clause from Article II, Section 1.
3. Passage in Congress: The amendment would need to pass both the House and Senate with a two-thirds majority.
4. Ratification by states: Once passed by Congress, the proposed amendment would be sent to the states for ratification. At least 38 state legislatures (or state conventions, if Congress so chose) would need to vote to approve it.

Given the deeply entrenched nature of the Constitution and the political divisions in contemporary America, changing something as fundamental as presidential qualifications would be an enormous undertaking. It would require a compelling national consensus on the necessity and benefits of such a change.