Constitution, LEAVE ARNOLD ALONE!

The United States Constitution is explicit about just who is allowed to become a president, a senator, or a representative. The presidency, for instance, can only be held by someone who is 35 years old or older. That's an arbitrary limit, of course -- if a 35 year old can be a good president, then surely a 34 year old could be, too. More important than the number 35 is the implication that someone who is old enough to be a senator or a representative might not be old enough to be president; the presidency is for the experienced. One reason John Cox has failed to get much real recognition from the media (or from this blog, for that matter) as he has pursued the Republican presidential nomination is the fact that he has never held a major political office. He's not taken seriously -- he's not seen as "presidential" -- even though he is old enough to hold the office. Fewer people would so cavalierly dismiss an immigrant candidate for president such as Arnold Schwarzenegger as not being fit for the office, but the Constitution is bold enough to do just that. Article II, Section 1 states: "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." There is not much wiggle room here at all: presidents have to at least be 35 and they have to be natural born: no youngsters and no immigrants need apply.

Frankly, there is something discriminatory about the restrictions the Constitution places on who can be president. Simply put, all citizens are not allowed the same freedom to seek the highest public offices because of what the Constitution says. Are these limits on individual liberty reasonable and just or arbitrary and discriminatory? It is particularly hard for me to reconcile the 14th Amendment with the immigrant restriction -- that amendment declares that naturalized citizens ARE citizens of the United States. That is, a natural reading of the 14th Amendment suggests to me that there should be no difference between a naturalized citizen who immigrated to the United States from another country and a citizen who was born in the United States. Yet Article II, Section 1 forces naturalized citizens to be "citizens with an asterisk," like other citizens in most every respect except that they cannot become president. This seems a far cry from true equality under the eyes of the law.

The Constitution is not just a work of philosophy, however. It might seem more in keeping with the central themes of the Constitution to allow anyone to run for president, but there is at least one pragmatic reason why it might not be wise to do so. As I mentioned previously, the age restriction encourages the experienced to seek the presidency; these folks aren't necessarily the best-suited to the job, but at least they have records of public service which can be studied and judged. The immigrant restriction, on the other hand, probably is less a signal to people in the United States as it is to people who are outside it: it makes it more difficult for a foreign government to install a puppet as president. This may sound a little ridiculous, but I can imagine something like that happening (it certainly has historical precedent in other nations), especially if the foreign government finds an effective way of funneling funds into the United States in order to support their candidate. It would be difficult -- perhaps almost impossible -- to fool the American people, the government, and the media all at once, to be sure, but this scenario is still scary to me even if it is improbable. Additionally, it perhaps would have been easier for a foreign government to install a puppet at certain periods of American history than it would be now; that doesn't mean the Constitution is outmoded since it could be that America will again become more vulnerable to this in the future. My point is that the immigration restriction on who can be president probably has much more to do with domestic security than deliberately enshrined discrimination.

Discriminate it does, however. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a popular and dynamic governor, may well never be able to run for president even though he'd likely be a strong candidate; while personal views on the California governor vary wildly, isn't it a little disheartening to think that we would never even get the chance to consider supporting his candidacy without the Constitution being first amended? It's not as if Arnold is the only immigrant in politics, either; many otherwise exceptional candidates are undoubtedly barred by the Constitution from even seeking the presidency. While the Constitution may be saving the United States from being taken over from within by Austria, it is also denying Americans an opportunity to vote for good candidates. In my opinion, it would be better to combat foreign interference in American politics in other ways rather than make naturalized citizens less than natural born citizens.