Why Not Arnold?

headshot

Does Canadian born Ted Cruz qualify for the office of President of the United States? Depends upon what the founders meant by the term “natural-born citizen.”

The simple answer would appear to be that only those born within the United States qualify for the presidency.   Unfortunately, the founders are long gone, legal scholars say there is no specific answer in the Constitution (which leads one to believe the framers thought anyone reading the document would automatically infer their meaning was that the office was limited to persons born on U.S. soil without extenuating circumstances),  and the courts have never issued a ruling. It will be interesting if Donald Trump or some other party forces the issue with a lawsuit which may be the only way to answer the question.  Eventually, it could go to the Supreme Court.  From what some legal experts are saying,  it might.

Until then,  if Cruz can run for President,  why not Arnold Schwarzenegger?   Sure, Cruz had an American mother, but isn’t the baseline issue that both men were foreign-born?   Do you really think the framers whould choose Cruz over Arnold, a man who came to the U.S. with next to nothing and turned himself into a superstar through hard work and sheer will while Cruz spent his adult life feeding at the public trough?

Since the system continues sinking futher into disrepair and the Republican debates are all about entertainment value generating revenue for the  networks, we might as well go for it with a pro.

President Schwarzenegger, striking a blow for American men by putting the beefcakes back where they belong.  In the White House.  Booo-Yah!

One thought on “Why Not Arnold?”

  1. Ron, the contradiction I’m seeing — and still waiting to hear raised by someone in the running Birther Debate — is, how about geography, as well as parentage?

    The point made by Donald Trump, that “anchor babies” born to women who’ve just arrived in the US in time to deliver, are clearly recognized by immigration authorities as “natural born” American citizens, “by birth.” Trump and many conservative “nativists” oppose this view — that the geographical definition of citizenship, WHERE one is born — is wrong and unfair.

    That view, by the way, is how most European nations deal with those born to immigrant groups. For example, children and grandchildren of Turkish immigrants in Germany are NOT granted German citizenship, even though born in Germany.

    Israel’s Law of Return is based on the Jewish core value that to be a Jew — by birth — is based upon whether or not one’s mother is Jewish. Orthodox rabbis decide Who is a Jew, but children of Jewish intermarriage with Gentiles — in particular, marriages of Jewish men to non-Jewish women — continuously have a hard time getting accepted for Israeli citizenship, as they immigrate from all over the world.

    About 15 years ago the Los Angeles Times reported, based on data from the American Jewish Congress, that HALF of all American Jews are married to non-Jews. Talk about “mainstreaming” into the broad American culture! — but think about the difficulty so-called “half-Jews” encounter when they try to immigrate to Israel.

    So, if Parentage, rather than Geography of birth is the critical factor to Birthers, then Ted Cruz and John McCain are clearly “naturally born” US citizens, because they both have at least one US-born parent.

    And Trump, who’s made much of Obama’s geographic place of birth (Hawaii vs. Kenya), can’t have it both ways — and neither can anybody else. On Left, the assertion that every immigrant baby born in the US is a “naturally born” American citizen is just as wobbly as the parentage argument on the Right.

    Until the Supreme Court decides what, exactly the Founders meant — and did not mean — by “naturally born,” Arnold Schwarzenegger’s eligibility to be President will be an open question. And probably Ted Cruz’s, as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.