Schwarzenegger 2020: Equal Opportunity to Govern

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anders

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.

In order to determine how plausible various paths to a point where Schwarzenegger can run for President are, I kind of need to know whether or not modern Americans consider the 'natural born clause' important or controversial.

I realize that political opponents will always try to make insignificant details into scandals, but I've never noticed any widespread public sentiment to the effect that Ted Cruz, to take a random example who would be legally barred from the Presidency, was completely unsuitable as a candidate just because of his place of birth.

In an alternate world where Arnold Schwarzenegger was significantly more popular and politically powerful than in ours, would a significant number of actual voters* care overly much about his place of birth?

Obviously, he'd have to somehow overcome the legal obstacle to taking office, but I don't have a good handle on how much of a political problem being born in another country would be.

Is there a widespread perception in the United States that if Alexander Hamilton or James Wilson had been allowed to run for President, something terrible would have happened?

*The correlation between Internet outrage and actual voting is pretty low.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Varyon

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.

It is in fact the biggest news in my campaign that isn't explicitly about the PCs or the actions of their enemies, which is why I wanted to feature it in the background.

I haven't defined the exact mechanism; but ASBs, working through Ted Cruz and on behalf of Schwarzenegger, have been preparing the ground for Schwarzenegger 2020. The news cycle at the end of 2018 and start of 2019 is dominated by either a Supreme Court case which will functionally determine whether a foreign-born person can run in the 2020 election and/or the progress of ratification for a Constitutional Amendment that would enable the same thing.

I am looking for assistance in defining exactly what the news would be about on or about the 30th of December, 2018.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Is there a widespread perception in the United States that if Alexander Hamilton or James Wilson had been allowed to run for President, something terrible would have happened?

Not a relevant question. Anyone who was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted was specifically considered eligible for the Presidency.

As for the rest of it, you can't separate the candidate from the process necessary for them to run in this case. Even people who might not have had an objection to the idea might be put off it took (what they viewed as, at least) blatant judicial overreach for him to be eligible.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

Not a relevant question. Anyone who was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted was specifically considered eligible for the Presidency.

The question is nevertheless relevant when it comes to answering whether birth on American soil grants some quality that is important when it comes to evaluating if someone is American enough to be President.

I'm genuinely trying to get a feeling for how Americans view this issue, because the complications that arise for the Alien Space Bats will rise from the sentiments of voters. Without having thought much about it, I considered this a sort of legal technicality, one of a great number that exist in all legal systems, but not one that many people felt strongly about.

Is that untrue? Are there many, even in 2018-2020, that feel strongly about the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution?

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

As for the rest of it, you can't separate the candidate from the process necessary for them to run in this case. Even people who might not have had an objection to the idea might be put off it took (what they viewed as, at least) blatant judicial overreach for him to be eligible.

That is possible, of course.

I do not get the impression that jurisprudence is a deciding factor for a very large section of the electorate in any country, though. It seems to me that legal arguments against the validity of a candidate are advanced predominantly by those who have already decided against them.

And, in any event, a hypothetical legal case manipulated by the Alien Space Bats would presumably be in the name of someone other than Schwarzenegger. Some or all of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Kamala Harris or Tulsi Gabbard might even lend their support to an Equal Opportunity to Govern statue passed with the authority of the Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Would the surprising (but not theoretically impossible) result of the Supreme Court upholding such a statue as constitutional automatically mean that a significant part of the electorate would find it impossible to vote for anyone who benefited from that ruling?

How high a percentage of the electorate do you believe could not vote for a candidate who was born outside of the United States, before or after such a controversial ruling?

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Icelander

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

It did not at the time directly contradict the constitution.

As it predated both the Fourteenth Amendment and Paul v. Virginia

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In order to determine how plausible various paths to a point where Schwarzenegger can run for President are, I kind of need to know whether or not modern Americans consider the 'natural born clause' important or controversial.

It's considered important enough that people get into arguments about it for edge cases (e.g. John McCain) or where it's possible to introduced FUD about the issue (Barack Obama). Schwarzenegger is not an edge case nor are there any real disputed facts, he's just not a natural born citizen.

If for some reason he ran anyway and won there's a fair chance everyone would ignore the issue after the fact (if he's popular enough to win, clearly there's a majority who don't think it matters) but there would be formidable obstacles to achieving it (a slew of lawsuits about ballot eligibility, and even if he got past those things, enough people who think it matters that he probably can't win an election, it only takes a few percent).

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Anthony

[E]ven if he got past those things, enough people who think it matters that he probably can't win an election, it only takes a few percent).

This is the important part, I think. Even assuming he got on the ballot, and won a primary, even 5% of the population being hardline on this issue (and I think that's a low-to-reasonable estimate) would sink the candidacy.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

This is the important part, I think. Even assuming he got on the ballot, and won a primary, even 5% of the population being hardline on this issue (and I think that's a low-to-reasonable estimate) would sink the candidacy.

Well, maybe.

I think a lot would depend on the percentages in swing states.

Consider also that a candidate who carries California can afford to lose some swing states and alt-Schwarzenegger is significantly* more popular in California than his real world counterpart.

*By the end of 2018, alt-Schwarzenegger has Intuitive Statesman 3-4, Charisma 4-5, Status 5-6 and a Reputation that comes out noticeably in the Advantage column. His Politics and Public Speaking skills are at around 20 and he has a Propaganda team operating somewhere in the 20s. Aside from the legal obstacle, he's clearly the candidate with the mostest, thanks to the Alien Space Bats.

[Donny Brook]

You could just say that it was part of the 26th amendment in 1971 and no such candidate happened to come up until now.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, maybe.

I think a lot would depend on the percentages in swing states.

Consider also that a candidate who carries California can afford to lose some swing states and alt-Schwarzenegger is significantly more popular in California than his real world counterpart.

Maybe, but no sane Republican would ever bank on winning California. The narrowest margin in a presidential race in the past 30 years was still 10 points.