Wasn't the questionLots of wasted votes in swing states that were Biden voters in 2020.
It is the answer to its effect on Biden.Wasn't the question
I agree mostly. Still, I think his case is not without any merit. But, yeah, probably his case does not hold water in the courts.He can't run. Well, I guess he can run but he can never hold the office.
That was still not the questions.It is the answer to its effect on Biden.
I agree mostly. Still, I think his case is not without any merit. But, yeah, probably his case does not hold water in the courts.
Can you be president if you weren't born in the United States? If you were born overseas to American Citizens that counts too.But the second one was should he?
Again (and I even disagree with cenk maybe) his case is the 14th changed that.Can you be president if you weren't born in the United States? If you were born overseas to American Citizens that counts too.
I'm good with this.
No on both counts.Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur is running for president as I am sure a lot of you know.
The question is, is he allowed to?
Conventional wisdom says no, because the original text of the constitution says no.
Cenk's arguing, that the 14th amendment changed that, since it says all persons born or naturalized have due process right and equal protection. I guess he stipulates that naturalized citizens should be euqal to natural born americans in any way, and are made so by the 14th.
I think it is an intersting idea. I don't know one way or the other, but sure I think there is some merit.
And also, just why would it be a problem for someone to run the US who was grew up in your country from age 6, like he did. Or even Schwarzenegger, who I think came to your shores at like 18, as long as they are citizens.
Again, I don't know, and courts should decide, but it is interesting none the less.
So two questions are:
1. Is Cenk legally right?
2. Should naturalized citizens be allowed to run?
I appreciate a frank answer. Props. (And an opinon on the questions actually asked)No on both counts.
The 14th did not eliminate the established qualifications for the presidency in the Constitution. I hope he wins the case, President Obama would be able to run for a third term.
Second one was should heHe can run. He can’t legally hold the office though.
He is free to waste his time if he wants.Second one was should he
Sorry, I meant if you think naturalized citizens should be allowed to run?He is free to waste his time if he wants.
Thanks for the straight forward answer.He wasn't a natural born American, so no, he cannot be president.
anyone can run. Only natural born citizens can be president.Sorry, I meant if you think naturalized citizens should be allowed to run?
Should naturalized citizens be allowed to be pres?anyone can run. Only natural born citizens can be president.
No. The amendment did not change the qualifications for president which are there for good reason. That said Cenk can run for any other office. No body will complain and he may even get elected.Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur is running for president as I am sure a lot of you know.
The question is, is he allowed to?
Conventional wisdom says no, because the original text of the constitution says no.
Cenk's arguing, that the 14th amendment changed that, since it says all persons born or naturalized have due process right and equal protection. I guess he stipulates that naturalized citizens should be euqal to natural born americans in any way, and are made so by the 14th.
I think it is an intersting idea. I don't know one way or the other, but sure I think there is some merit.
And also, just why would it be a problem for someone to run the US who was grew up in your country from age 6, like he did. Or even Schwarzenegger, who I think came to your shores at like 18, as long as they are citizens.
Again, I don't know, and courts should decide, but it is interesting none the less.
So two questions are:
1. Is Cenk legally right?
2. Should naturalized citizens be allowed to run?
I am not sure your question, as framed, is possible to answer.Should naturalized citizens be allowed to be pres?
No. A general statement doesn't override a different, specific prohibition. If a specific provision of the Constitution is to be repealed, it must be specifically stated in the repealing amendment.1. Is Cenk legally right?
Sure. I think if 35 years of citizenship is good enough for a native American, it's good enough for a naturalized one. Maybe require renunciation of any other nationalities, but I'm not wedded to the idea.2. Should naturalized citizens be allowed to run?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?