Schwarzenegger 2020: Equal Opportunity to Govern

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Icelander

On the other hand, there is little to suggest Constitutional Amendments exist as a practical possibility in modern US politics.

In the past half century, constitutional change in the US has happened exclusively through courts.

"Constitutional change" hasn't happened, though. Alternative interpretations of the text isn't the same as actually changing it, and I don't think something like this would ever be remotely plausible through the courts.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

On the other hand, there is little to suggest Constitutional Amendments exist as a practical possibility in modern US politics.

In the past half century, constitutional change in the US has happened exclusively through courts.

Constitutional change has not happened through the courts. The boundaries of what's what is considered constitutional has changed, but not in a way that obviously contradicts the constitution.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

It would still not work because you could not get three-quarters of the state's to agree to such an action. Such an amendment would be a basic violation of a fundamental principle of the US Constitution that is meant to protect the US from foreign domination. It would not fly in the states of the former Confederacy (plus a number of other states), so it would not succeed because of deep seated fears concerning foreign interference (and other factors). Any attempt by ASBs to force such an issue would likely cause armed insurrection throughout the USA.

You could limit it to people who have held high political office and lived in the U.S. for 35 years. I mean, that's stricter than the rules for Senators who actually get to make the laws.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

It would still not work because you could not get three-quarters of the state's to agree to such an action. Such an amendment would be a basic violation of a fundamental principle of the US Constitution that is meant to protect the US from foreign domination. It would not fly in the states of the former Confederacy (plus a number of other states), so it would not succeed because of deep seated fears concerning foreign interference (and other factors). Any attempt by ASBs to force such an issue would likely cause armed insurrection throughout the USA.

It's a fact in the setting that Schwarzenegger is legally allowed to run in the 2020 Presidential Election, so it's our job here to come up with the least-implausible means by which this could occur. If an Amendment successfully passing would result in large-scale armed insurrection, the Supreme Court making a unilateral decision to the same effect is going to cause that on an even larger scale.

Given that the current requirements for being President include being 35 years of age or older, requiring someone to be a naturalized citizen* for 35 years seems like the least obtrusive change, and as previously noted has the advantage of rendering Schwarzenegger ineligible in 2016 but eligible in 2020, allowing one to place the passing of the Amendment earlier in history than the Trump administration, if desired. It seems to me this would be at least as effective at preventing foreign influence as the "natural born citizen" clause.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Amendment needs to have been accepted with no complaints. Part of the news broadcasts and the like the PC's hear might have language such as "the controversial 28th Amendment," and there could even be news of violent protests and the like related to it (Icelander's setting has markedly more violence than our world). Occultists may well have gotten involved in manipulating some of the groups planning some sort of (small-scale) armed revolt in response to it. There's even the possibility of some of Kessler's Night Riders having previously encountered such groups (might make an interesting anecdote for one or both of the senior Night Riders in "Driving Miss Piggy" to share with Kit).

*I'm not clear on exactly how this would work for the children of immigrants. Do they become naturalized citizens upon their parents becoming the same, or do they have to wait until they are of legal age to become naturalized?

Originally Posted by Icelander

On the other hand, there is little to suggest Constitutional Amendments exist as a practical possibility in modern US politics.

Yes, this is problematic. Still, I feel it's outright impossible for the Supreme Court to fully contradict the Constitution and get away with it, so when the alternative is outright impossible, you have to go with the option that's only mostly impossible.

Of course, given that impeaching a Supreme Court Justice requires 50% of the House and 75% of the Senate, it's possible they could get away with it (no Democrat is likely to vote to oust a Democrat Justice while there's a Republican President in office, and the Republicans are likely disinclined to vote to oust a Republican Justice at a time when it's extremely difficult to get a nominated replacement through). That does require a certain degree of cooperation on the part of the people, so to minimize the impact on the setting's current day you'd need to have the case go through some time after the 2018 elections (otherwise I expect you'd see a much different House and Senate being elected, with campaigning based more heavily around the idea of judicial overreach). This would mean it's very likely a big deal in the news around the time of the Galveston events.

[Fred Brackin]

Besides what the others have said about Constitutional interpretatyions not actually changing the text of the Constitution (much less outright nullifying things written in it) the text has been changed (or at least added to) by amendment in the lst 50 years.

Even if you ignore the 27th and it's bit about Congressional salaries as unimportant the 26th Amendment comes in under your deadline having been ratified in 1971.

That was the one giving 18 year olds the universal franchise and it did it in 100 days. There really wasn't any counterargument to "If they are old enough to draft and send to Vietnam they ought to be old enough to vote.".

So if you have a really good argument you can get real constitutional change through the Amendment process.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Constitutional change has not happened through the courts. The boundaries of what's what is considered constitutional has changed, but not in a way that obviously contradicts the constitution.

Dredd Scott v. Sandford doesn't explicitly contradict the Constitution?

That's an example chosen because it is presumably not controversial among many readers, as changing social mores mean that more or less everyone reading this will agree that the court legislating was a bad thing. It's important to realize that modern judges are not a different species, however, and continue to be influenced by public opinion and politics as much or more than the actual law.

From a legal standpoint, even today, a lot of the currently accepted legal precedents have similar relations to the actual text of the Constitution as Dredd Scott v. Sandford. It's just because the majority strongly agrees with them, few people object to the fact that what the court is doing is legislation, not interpretation.

Relatively few countries have Constitutions which have much to do with how their system of government actually works. That's a bad thing from a philosophical and jurisprudential point of view, but from a practical point of view, it seems to be just human nature.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Or the ASBs just convince people that he's actually natural born.

He is. He is not a clone. You don´t need ASBs to realize that.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It's a fact in the setting that Schwarzenegger is legally allowed to run in the 2020 Presidential Election, so it's our job here to come up with the least-implausible means by which this could occur.

I argue for "natural born" only excluding clones, possibly those born by caesarean and those without natural conception and pregnancy, from divine immaculate conception to artificial fertilisation. That´s clearly the strictest possible interpretation based purely on the written text.

[Andrew Hackard]

The general discussion about Constitutional change is off-topic for this thread and for the forums in general. You may continue to discuss the topic if it is narrowly constrained in terms of how you could create a GURPS setting where Schwarzenegger is elected President and what the ramifications of such a change might be.

This is your warning. If the thread drifts again, it will be locked.

[ravenfish]

Could a story be spread that Arnold was born in the United States and spirited away to Austria as an infant? Equally ridiculous stories have been put forth about the births of kings, so they might be suitable for a president.

EDIT: Of course, usually such stories were put forth after the king had seized the throne, and were sometimes put forth in such a way as to make criticizing them bad for one's health. Even without compulsion, though, people happily believe many things that are far more implausible, and that (presumably) without Alien Space Bats manipulating the media to propagate such ideas.