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.

Larry Craig's Dilemma

I have no doubt that many politicians take their role of "public servant" very seriously, but at the same time I think even the most idealistic public servant must also recognize that politics is a career not so unlike other professions. It's no coincidence that Chris Dodd and Mitt Romney followed in their fathers' footsteps by becaming politicians; were they not merely continuing the family business as many children do? Certainly politics is a strange sort of business in that it has a penchant for attracting diverse members of other professions; the presidential race is a good example of this for though the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker have yet to enter the race, the doctor, the lawyer(s), the businessman, the soldier, and the preacher are just a few of the current candidates who are currently seeking the presidency. On the other hand, Larry Craig is an example of a politician who has spent most of his life in politics -- he is a career politician if there ever was one. His name has become associated with scandal and hypocrisy, but the senator from Idaho is ignoring all calls for his resignation and attempting to hold on to his political career for dear life...perhaps, in part, because he has no other career to fall back on.

All things considered, I consider the act which has led to Senator Craig's fall from grace to be, if Craig did indeed commit it, a rather slight offense, though shameful for a married man that publically espouses "family values." Accused of soliciting sex in a public bathroom, Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct but now maintains his innocence and is attempting to withdraw his guilty plea in what will likely be a protracted legal fight. The sordid details of the case have captivated the media's imagination, but frankly solicitations that are much more direct and public occur in bars, clubs, and on college campuses every day. It would seem unfair to me to end someone's career for a single offense of that nature, but this is another example of how politics can differ from other professions. There seems to be no rule as to whether a politician can survive a scandal, no matter how mild or horrendous the offense; some, like Ted Kennedy, have thrived post-scandal while others, like Dan Crane, have been essentially forced to give up politics altogether. It has been hinted in some media reports that Craig will not seek reelection, so perhaps he won't even give the public a chance to reevaluate his character and worth as a candidate...but he still faces a dilemma regarding his immediate future in politics. Members of the Republican Party have called for Craig to resign in light of the scandal, ostensibly for the good of the party; Craig, however, has stated that he would like to complete his term and clear his name, despite having previously announced that he intended to resign in September.

Should Senator Craig stay or go? I think the answer to the question depends on whether we think of Craig as a public servant or as a man. Craig the public servant is clearly hampered by the scandal -- he has shocked constituents and angered colleagues. Even if he does somehow prove himself innocent, his willingness to plead guilty falsely and to change his mind both on his plea and resignation is not likely to impress anyone. Can he effectively serve under these circumstances? On the other hand, the remainder of Craig's present term could be his last moment in the public spotlight; it is likely the last gasp of a long career. No wonder he wants to do everything he can to heal a reputation and secure a legacy. While it would be nice for Craig to put the public interest ahead of his personal interests, it's doubtful that Craig's decision will have any major impact on the nation. So I can't fault him too much for acting as he has, because he is first and foremost a human being...it's just that politics happens to be his career, and that makes everything difficult!

The Modern Militia

"The Militia" is referred to several times in the United States Constitution, but it is rarely mentioned in modern American political discourse. Nonetheless, the citizen armies of the states do continue to exist; the United States Code deems all members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia to be part of the organized militia and all male citizens or intended male citizens who are at least 17 but not yet 45 years of age to be part of the unorganized militia. Thus, I am a member of the militia myself merely by virtue of my American citizenship, my gender, and my age! As a newly realized militiaman, I thought it would be worthwhile to devote a blog post to the concept and role of the militia in the United States.

The Constitution is quite clear in designating the militia as at least partially at the behest of the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the responsibility "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" although the states are explicitly given the authority to appoint officers and train the militiamen. At the same time, the Congress also has the authority to raise armies and maintain a naval force. Thus, there is a recognition that state militias alone may not be sufficient to provide for the national defense, but at the same time state militias are not left to look purely after the interests of the individual states. In cases of crisis, state militias have a responsibility to look after the national interests as well. Furthermore, according to Article II, Section 2, the President is Commander in Chief of the militia when they are called into action, just as he is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. With this being said, what is the proper role of militia versus the proper role of the military? Why do we need both?

I have thought for a long time that the primary purpose of the militia was to combat a federal government that had shown itself to be tyrannical. My current studies have led me away from this conclusion, for it makes no sense that an armed force would fight against its own Commander in Chief. The militia can hardly check the power of the federal government if they themselves are beholden to it. On the other hand, the militia system might have been able to make it more difficult for a military leader to assume tyrannical powers because the militia is not a standing army of professional soldiers who are perpetually on duty. However, the fact that the Constitution explicitly allows for an Army and a Navy in addition to the militia undermines the capability of the militia to prevent the rising up of military tyrants. Ultimately, I think a natural reading of the Constitution suggests that the militia should continue to fulfill the two major roles it continues to fulfill today: to respond quickly to crises within their home states (as, for
instance, when a state's National Guard assists in evacuation and disaster relief) and to supplement the military in a time of national crisis (state militias could very easily be the first line of defense against an unanticipated invasion).

While I don't feel the current existence of both a permanent standing military force and a militia is unconstitutional, this is certainly not the only arrangement that would be possible. There are at least a couple of major disadvantages to maintaining a standing army. As I alluded to earlier, standing armies can give ambitious military leaders the muscle they need to seize power -- this is perhaps not something most Americans are particularly afraid of at this moment, but military dictatorships are still common around the world. Secondly, permanent standing armies make foreign invasions tempting for expansionistic governments, so nations with standing armies are likely to go to war much more often than those without them. There are also disadvantages to relying on the militia alone, however. I think the existence of the militia as well as the absence of a standing federal army would tend to encourage secession and ultimately the creation of many small, weak states. Secondly, I think it is harder to maintain a strong militia than to maintain a strong standing army unless, ultimately, each state ends up having its own permanent standing army of professional soldiers rather than the part-time band of armed citizens the militia has traditionally been. Any weak point in the chain -- a single state that fails to fund and train its militia properly, for instance -- could lead to a national disaster. All in all, the present compromise seems reasonable.

Although it is legal, I wonder if the current deployment of National Guard members in Iraq agrees with the spirit of the Constitution. The militia is a defensive rather than an offensive force, a reactive rather than a proactive army. To take Guardsmen and Guardswomen from the states they protect into a foreign country seems to be a misuse of a militia and damaging to the safety of the states. Some states have State Defense Forces to ensure that there is always a force available to those states even if much of the National Guard is occupied elsewhere, but I'm not sure this should be necessary.