this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
162 points (93.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7117 readers
471 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, the "natural born citizen" clause in a hard requirement in the Constitution, how that's interpreted does have some room for debate. It seems you're intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying...
It seems you're saying diametrically contradictory things.
You say things are absolutely hard and when soft edges are pointed out you then say "nothing is hard".
I was talking about two distinct things, yet you conflate them.
It's the same thing:
if "natural born" is a hard requirement despite never being defined or tested.
You said it was a hard requirement, I pointed to evidence of the rules being murky unclear and in many ways arbitrary to which you responded that nothing was hard.
On having that contradiction pointed out you now claim to be arguing two to more things.
To be more clear, here's the relevant text of the Constitution:
That is the set of hard and fast requirements to hold the office of President.
The definition of natural born citizen is somewhat debated, but the general consensus is that it includes:
There are more links there to show the general consensus. But since it hasn't been tried in higher courts, the definition isn't "hard and fast," but the requirement to be a natural born citizen absolutely is. Those are the two different things, the requirement is hard and fast, and the specific definition of the requirement isn't, and probably won't be even if it is tried in higher courts because there's always going to be some exception to whatever definition is provided.
It's like saying murder being against the law is a hard and fast rule, but the specific definition of murder could be subject to debate (i.e. one person's self-defense could be considered murder, and vice versa). The definition can have some flux while the law that uses those terms can be strict.
A requirement can't be strict if its own definition isn't.
Yes it can, that's literally the entire basis of constitutional law. We can bicker about the interpretation of the words, but the words themselves aren't subject to change, and we make the requirement more strict through case law. That's the whole reason we separate the legislature from the judiciary, the legislature create the laws, and the judiciary defines the edges of the interpretation of those laws.
If there's a strict requirement that candidates be "scrombled" but no definition of what scrombled means, it never gets tested, and the only guy challenged on it is as a proxy for his being Black, there isn't any hard rule at all.
Rules can only be strict if they have established parameters.
There are no defined parameters for "natural born".
Could argue it only applies to clones.
But they do. The agencies that monitor such things have policies, and those are the defacto parameters until someone challenges them and we get a court ruling. That's how things work in government, the legislative branch passes a law, the executive interprets the law, and the judicial branch hears cases when people disagree with the executive branch's interpretation of the law.
What are the policies for what "natural born" means?
If there were clear parameters as you claim why did McCain supporters have to bother with Senate Resolution 511?
The resolution was made to prevent a legal challenge. Policy is not law, it's policy, and policies can be challenged in the courts. So to avoid a potentially drawn out legal challenge, the Senate clarified their understanding of the law to avoid the whole thing.
They probably didn't need to make the resolution in order to allow McCain to run, and the judicial branch likely would've found that McCain was, in fact, eligible, such a legal suit could stall or change (i.e. in the court of public opinion) election results, hence the resolution.
Why would they fear a challenge if the parameters were clear as you say?
Why wouldn't they? Even something that seems like an open and shut case can take months or even years in court to resolve. That takes time away from campaigning, as well as likely reduced support for the accused. It's the same idea as a smear campaign.
So to avoid drama, they made that resolution so his candidacy wouldn't be questioned.
So there aren't clear parameters.
There are. We're going in circles at this point.