jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (5 posts)

Why do you think the Constitution requires the president to be born in the US?

  1. Who is John Galt? profile image56
    Who is John Galt?posted 8 years ago

    Why do you think the Constitution requires the president to be born in the US?

    Is there any good reason to change that provision?

  2. gbychan profile image57
    gbychanposted 8 years ago

    Considering that the primary problem the colonial Americans had was that interests abroad - those of Parliament, the East Indian Company, etc. - were put above the interests and needs of the American colonies, I suspect it was a safety measure to insure that the president's loyalties were clear.

  3. dabeaner profile image55
    dabeanerposted 8 years ago

    gbychan mentioned an interesting and valid point: "... I suspect it was a safety measure to insure that the president's loyalties were clear."
    Too bad that being born in the U.S. doesn't really guarantee loyalty.  (Wilson, FDR, Cigar Clinton, Bush 1 and 2, Obama, Hilarious Clinton ... Pelosi, Boxer ...)

  4. vrajavala profile image59
    vrajavalaposted 7 years ago

    It has to do with National Security. The Commander-in-Chief simply cannot have any undivided loyalties.

  5. profile image46
    rastone1050posted 7 years ago

    According to the U.S. Constitution, it states that a president needs to be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. "Natural Born" means that he was born in the United States and that both of his/her parents are American's.

    Barack's precise location of birth is still being investigated. But according to the Constitution, he is not a "natural born citizen" due to the fact that his father was Kenyan born and held a British passport. Only his mother was American.

    Therefore, Obama is ineligible to serve as president.

 
working