So once again, I was thinking during this weekend about witch hunts, discrimination, etc. I was reminded of this article/bill ( I don't quite remember that part) that proposed removing the requirements necessary to run for President of the United States. At first, there was a lot of opposition to this proposal. Many people were saying that such a prestigious job should not be left open to everyone, especially while the requirements for the Senate and House positions still hold. There was also concerns about high school students being able to run and international conflicts, as this proposal would allow immigrants to run as well.
As time progressed, support for this proposal started to come forth. Many people said that it would be unlikely for a high school student to run because it requires a great amount of money and that such candidates would never make it past the preliminaries due to their inexperience. Also, the American people are capable of voting for the most competent candidate (and then the election of Bush was brought up as a rebuttal).
So what do you think? Are these requirements unjust and discriminatory? Should they be abolished? (Keep in mind that the requirements for running for President is that the person has to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old and has lived in the United States for at least 14 years.)
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The requirements are only leaving out a bunch of people who, if given the chance, would be able to run the country's affairs both effortlessly and successfully. But if we, as the American people, want certain requirements for the head of our nation, then...sure, why not? As long as we keep in mind that we MAY be excluding some very intelligent people, the rules seem to be something that I can live with.
I think the American people would be wise enough not to elect a clearly incompetent high schooler. But if that high school were to be mature and clearly wise beyond his/her years, I have no problem with having him/her as my president! Age is merely a number. But then again, lots of things seem to be measured by numbers.
(Sam Maliha)
The original purpose of having the 35 year age minimum was to attempt to guarantee experience, which is pretty essential and necessary for a leader of a nation. A person could certainly be younger and qualified to be president, but it is a safeguard that the nation has set for itself.
Also, the American public attitude and opinion is easily swayed. We have all seen and experienced the affects of the media, and we all know the role that hysteria can play. If you need an example of when the public made a very unwise move, just take a look at Hitler. Granted, they didn't elect him, but they elected his followers, giving him a lot of control and power. The public is not always a bright group.
Again, we are easily swayed. One safeguard against this is the electoral college, ensuring that the vote is not left entirely in the hands of fleeting popular opion. But, these requirements may be attempts to put further safeguards on who the public can choose as its president. They may exclude some perfectly qualified leaders or include some that are thoroughly unqualified, but chances are good that they are more beneficial than detrimental in the long run. When it comes to choosing the leader of our nation, it's probably better to be safe than to realize later that we made a mistake.
Emily T.
As previously memtioned, the purpose of establishing a minimum age for running for the office of president was to encourage more experienced candidates to run. I am pretty sure anyone who is thinking about becoming the next president would keep in mind that this position requires a great amount of effort, knowledge, and dedication. Therefore, I don't think that anyone who is inexperienced, for example, high school students, will attempt to run for this office. Then why bother to change the law if we already know this change is not going to affect anyone.
Personally, I disagree with current restriction regarding one's citizenship. What is the difference between a citizen and a 'natural born' citizen? Why is it that a citizen of one country must discriminate against another person who holds the same country's citizenship? A 'unnatural' citizen may know more about this country and have more chance to be successful than a 'natural' citizen. Just because one's parents were abroad when he/she was born or one became a citizen later in his/her life does not necessarily mean that he/she cares less about the country or must be forbidden to run for presidency. Is this discrimination or what?
(Jennifer Park)
In response to Jenn:
I guess when it comes down to discussing qualifications of a natural born citizen versus a new citizen, we have to start defining things. It can get messy. We start asking ourselves: What is America? What is patriotism? What MAKES someone patriorism. Maybe the rules have been put in place in order to avoid this sort of debate. Although, I must say that I do agree. What if someone from another country, driven by their passionate love for America, chose to become a citizen of our nation? What if this person had enough admiration for the United States to become a dedicated president? I guess, as of now, the world will never know. But what do you guys think?
(Sam Maliha)
In response to Sam's last comment, I honestly do think that, sometime in the future, the requirements for running for President may be altered in order to allow those citizens who are not "natural born" citizens to run. I agree with Jenn that natural born citizens are not necessarily any more capable of being President than are those who are not natural born.
In addition, if I am not mistaken, the idea of such an alteration has already been brought up or mentioned in passing when discussing Arnold Schwarzenegger's potential for running for President. You may recall from our readings during the "American Dreams and Nightmares" Unit that Schwarzenegger is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Austria and moved to the US at age 21. Thus he CAN be (and is) governor of California but he CANNOT be President. He may eventually be given the opportunity to run for President, though, if the US population deems this a possibility. Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
By allowing non-natural born citizens to run for a seat in the Senate, but not for the presidency of the United States, are we, as the American people, allowing this to happen in order to distinguish between a high position (presidency) and one that is on a lower scale (a seat in the Senate)? Is this a different way to look at this kind of discrimination?
(Sam Maliha)
I feel that it could seem easy to make an arguement that America is being discriminatory, but that was not the purpose of the rule about being born here. That rule was made so that the candidate would know America, its history, culture, and problems. Also having been born here, the person running would hopefully have a dedication to America rather than another country.
I'm not saying that there are foreign born people who would use the position as President of the United States against us. I simply think the rule was made as a safe guard. Even if we change the rule about being foreign born we should definitely keep the living in America for 14 years rule.
(Kelley Volosin)
Though I understand why Kelley could believe that being a natural born citizen would better "know America, its history, culture, and problems," I wholeheartedly disagree. In a recent study commissioned by Ruth Bater Ginsburg and her foundation it determined that only 25% of Americans could name the three branches of government and their general functions. This, as opposed to the 75% of Americans who can name the American idol judges. This is completely astonishing to me. These are natural born citizens and they don't know a thing about the way our country is run. Contrarily, I'm fairly sure that Eric, who's not a natural born citizen, could give you a fairly precise analysis of the American government. Whether or not someone was born in the country has very little, if any bearing on their knowledge of American politics or their patriotism. This restriction seems illogical to me.
Molly Dunbar
I definitely agree with Molly that a foreign born person can have more precise knowledge about America than a natural born citizen. Also, another group of citizens discriminated against by this policy is people adopted from other countries. Certainly for this particular group of people, America IS their home.
Although I think that the natural born part of the regulation is unfair, I think the part that a person has to be a US resident for 14 years is reasonable. I believe that to know something well involves one's actual experience in something.
Jennifer Park
Well, whether it is "logical" or not to change the requirements to run for President, many people in America would cause an uproar if such a change actually occurred.
You might remember how Dr. B discussed the ideals of nationalism in our class a little while ago, how it was the idea that we are a nation bound by a common past and common future. But thinkers such as Voltaire scoffed at this notion, saying that in reality "nationalism" was nothing more than an idea that had no real basis. After all, we still can't fully answer the question: What defines an American?
Similarly, one reason these requirements have been made and stay is due to nationalism, the idea that we want someone from our country to be running it. As some people think: whether that person is the most capable or not, at least he's American. And although foreign born citizens may actually know more about the government, the fuzzy idea of nationalism and patriotism precludes their holding the national office.
Simply the act of removing the requirements would probably do more harm than good. Perhaps the system isn't perfect. But it's been working pretty well for the last 200 years, and the last thing we want to do in a time such as this is to quibble over the technicalities of the presidential requirements.
PS: I loved the shoutout you gave me, Molly. :)
-Eric Wei
Post a Comment