Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The United States election process
Electoral process us politics
The United States election process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The United States election process
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states that no person except a natural-born citizen shall be eligible to run for President of the United States. This was due to John Jay, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, who wrote a letter to George Washington in 1787 arguing that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army should not be anyone but a natural-born American (Schneider 6). The Founders were concerned that subversive enemies could force the fledgling republic back to foreign monarchical rule. Delegates did not want the United States to suffer the same fate as Poland, which in 1772 had been partitioned among Austria, Prussia and Russia after agents of those countries bribed Polish nobles to elect a disloyal king (Schneider 6). The Founding Fathers of the United States, however, clearly state that, “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. This equality extends not only to all natural-born American citizens, but should also extend to foreign-born Americans. This foundational idea of equality contradicts the Constitution. All American citizens should have the equal and same opportunity to strive to hold the highest elected office in the United States. By looking at the role immigrants have played in American history—particularly sacrifices that have been made by foreign-born American citizens on the battlefield, easier access to candidate information through media during elections, checks in the Constitution, and modern diplomacy—we see that foreign-born American citizens are not only loyal to America, but also have the capability and passion to serve the United States as President without American citizens needing to question loyalty and intent. The orig... ... middle of paper ... ... People. USHistory.org, n.d. Web. 28 July 2010. Isaacson, Walter. "Henry Kissinger - Biography". The Nobel Prize in Peace 1973. Nobelprize.org. Web. 3 Aug 2010. Kasindorf, Martin. “Should the Constitution be amended for Arnold?” USA TODAY [Los Angels] 3 Dec. 2004. Web. 30 July 2010. King, Martin Luther. “Letter From Birmingham Jail." Letter From Birmingham Jail 1963. Stanford.edu. Web. 1 July 2010. Office of Governor. “Biography.” Governor Jennifer M. Granholm State of Michigan. Michigan. Gov,n.d. Web. 28 July 2010. Schneider, Bill. “President Schwarzenegger—a potential blockbuster”. CNN.com, n.d. Web. 28 July 2010. The Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The United States Consitution. U.S Constitution Online,n.d. Web. 28 July 2010. U.S. Department of Labor. “Elaine L. Chao.” Hall of Secretaries. Web. 28 July 2010.
Although the U.S. Constitution states that “all men are created equal,” during America’s early days it only applied to upper class white men. This upsets many people in the United States. When the Constitution first came into play, only the rich white men were treated right. As the years progressed, more and more whites
After the preamble the second part of the Constitution is the seven articles which describe the elements of the Constitution. One of the articles gives the legislativ...
On the other hand, those whose natural born status is unclear “could become entangled in a battle over the meaning of the natural born citizenship clause in a variety of ways.” Similarly, increases in international adoptions and births of citizens living abroad would benefit from constitutional amendment. As constitutional standards remain ambiguous, the legal risks remain. The provision should make children born abroad to United States, naturalized citizens, and children born in other countries who are subsequently adopted by a U.S. citizen eligible for presidency. Thus, such factors should signal the significance in constitutional
In the political world today there are so many different opinions about several different topics. The topics that I will address to you will be, should the 22nd Amendment be repealed and also should the foreign born be allowed to run for president. In both topics you may have your pros and cons, but I am strongly against the both of them because I feel that the Constitution should not be taken advantage of. Government should not be allowed to manipulate the Constitution to suit his or her needs. While making adjustments to the Constitution to allow different things to take place for convenience doesn’t leave any form respect of the Constitution. There should be a line drawn to keep this from happening for years to come on these issues and others as well. Some will like for the 22nd amendment to repealed to keep who they like in office, but my feeling towards this is give other the opportunity to make our world a better place. There are more than enough qualified people to make a difference for our country no need to stick to one person who eventually will get tired of it anyway. In addition, with the foreign born, this issue came to play all over Schwarzenegger getting backed up by Congress and other governors in California to try to make necessary changes to the Constitution (CNN News, 2004).
This amendment was created during the reconstruction phase attempting to reunite this country after the brutal battles of the Civil War. Henretta and Brody emphasize how the Republicans were progressing in a direction to sanctify the civil rights of the black community. These authors contend the vital organ of the document was the wording in the first section. It said “all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens.” No state could abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”; deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; or deny anyone “the equal protection of the laws.”2 Imagine the problems that could arise in the country if repeal were to come to a realization. Henretta and Brody point out how the wording in section 1 of the document was written in a way that could be construed as inexplicit. The reason for this was for the judicial system and Congress could set an example for balance in due process here in the
In Chapter 8 of Major Problems in American Immigration History, the topic of focus shifts from the United States proper to the expansion and creation of the so called American Empire of the late Nineteenth Century. Unlike other contemporary colonial powers, such as Britain and France, expansion beyond the coast to foreign lands was met with mixed responses. While some argued it to be a mere continuation of Manifest Destiny, others saw it as hypocritical of the democratic spirit which had come to the United States. Whatever their reasons, as United States foreign policy shifted in the direction of direct control and acquisition, it brought forth the issue of the native inhabitants of the lands which they owned and their place in American society. Despite its long history of creating states from acquired territory, the United States had no such plans for its colonies, effectively barring its native subjects from citizenship. Chapter 8’s discussion of Colonialism and Migration reveals that this new class of American, the native, was never to be the equal of its ruler, nor would they, in neither physical nor ideological terms, join in the union of states.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first piece of United States federal legislation regarding immigration and it provided a national and uniformed rule for the process of naturalization. Under provisions of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it granted citizenship to “all free white persons” after two years residence and provided that the children of citizens born outside the borders of the United States would be “considered as natural born citizens” (Naturalization Acts, United States, 1790-1795). This was an important piece of legislation that encouraged immigration necessary for the continued growth and prosperity of the republic. The individuals that it was intended to attract and protect were European whites, specifically men who would bring skills and participate in the emerging manufacturing and mining labor
The United States was a recently forged nation state in the early 1800’s. Recently formed, this nation state was very fragile and relied on the loyalty of its citizens to all work collectively toward the establishment and advancement of the nation states. Many members of the nation state gave great sacrifices, often their lives, to see that the united states was a successful and democratic. However, the United States, was fundamentally a mixing pot of all foreign people (excluding marginalized Native Americans). This early 1800 's flow of new “Americans” continued as people sought new opportunities and escaped religious or political persecution and famine. One notable
Madison, J. (1787, November 27). Federalist, no. 10, 56--65. Electronic resources from the University of Chicago Press Books Division. Retrieved May 22, 2010, from http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s19.html
The Charters of Freedom, “America’s Founding Fathers Delegates to the Constitutional Convention” (December 22, 2013)
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
America is sometimes referred to as a "nation of immigrants" because of our largely open-door policy toward accepting foreigners pursuing their vision of the American Dream. Recently, there has been a clamor by some politicians and citizens toward creating a predominantly closed-door policy on immigration, arguing that immigrants "threaten" American life by creating unemployment by taking jobs from American workers, using much-needed social services, and encroaching on the "American way of life." While these arguments may seem valid to many, they are almost overwhelmingly false, and more than likely confused with the subject of illegal immigration. In fact, immigrants actually enhance American life by creating, not taking jobs, bolster social service funds through tax payments, and bring valuable technical knowledge and skills to our country. If we are to continue to excel as a nation, the traditionalists who fear an encroachment of foreign-born Americans must learn to accept that we achieved our greatness as a result of being "a nation of immigrants."
The United States is a country known for its variation of nationalities and ethnic races. After extensive research, and questioning I discovered that my ancestors originated from Norway and Switzerland. My family migrated to the United States in the late 1800’s from Norway due to social, economic, and religion reforms as well as, a surplus in the population. Learning of my ancestor’s migration to America has very much influenced my views on the existing immigration problems that the U.S. currently faces.
United States. National Archives and Records Admin. Bill of Rights. Washington: 1 1791. Web. 10 Jun. 2010.
Will and in this essay the author challenges the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants. Will argues that the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to any person born in the United States, is being misinterpreted. He explains how this misinterpretation leads to the actual act of illegal immigration. For example, by essentially rewarding the children of illegal immigrants with an American citizenship Will demonstrates how this provides an incentive for illegal immigration. The author makes clear the idea that when the 14th Amendment was written in 1866 it could not have included illegal immigrants since that concept did not exist at that time. He continues by using Indians as an example of people not included in the 14th Amendment since Indians and their children owed allegiance to their tribes. Finally, the author uses a decision by the Supreme Court in 1884 that declared both person and country must consent to the citizenship; therefore, if the source is illegal then the child should not be considered a