Schwarzenegger 2020: Equal Opportunity to Govern

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, as is generally the case, it's defined by courts.

Actually, it's defined by Congress.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Congress can indeed pass a law that would purport to define 'natural-born citizen' and/or define who is eligible for the Presidency. If they did, the courts would then rule on the constitutionality of that statue (because someone would inevitably challenge it).

Depends on what the definition is. The 14th amendment limits how exclusive citizenship can be, but does not limit how inclusive it can be.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by RyanW

It occurs to me that the term "natural born citizen" isn't really defined. McCain's citizenship wasn't clear until he was about a year old, when a law was passed that explicitly and retroactively made all children born to American citizens overseas, so there is precedent for retroactively making someone a natural born citizen. If they really wanted to, Congress might be able to declare that the clause be read to allow anyone not born by caesarean.

In any event, it's more or less up to Congress and state election commissions to act on issues of presidential qualifications, so if they decline there isn't much to stop it. Courts have declared that no individual has standing to bring such a case.

I seem to recall that in the 18th century, "natural" meant "biological but not legal" eg. "natural brother" mean "biological brother but somebody's parents were not married at the time." So they could have been trying to avoid a Periclean citizenship law.

Probably the simplest thing would be to assume that the amendment was passed around 1900 (+- 20 years) as part of general horse-trading around the time of Progressivism and anti-immigration panic. But allowing someone who immigrated at the age of 21 would be a very significant change, that screams *DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON* to anyone familiar with classical and renaissance history.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Actually, it's defined by Congress.

Depends on what the definition is. The 14th amendment limits how exclusive citizenship can be, but does not limit how inclusive it can be.

I'm assuming that a rival candidate would have both legal standing and a pretty strong motive to challenge the constitutionality of a statue which made alt-Schwarzenegger eligible. After all, in the world of the setting, his political skill, charisma and popularity has grown by leaps and bounds from what it is in the real world and by the date in my setting (December 30, 2018), anyone who wants to run in 2020 must worry quite a lot about alt-Schwarzenegger.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm assuming that a rival candidate would have both legal standing and a pretty strong motive to challenge the constitutionality of a statue which made alt-Schwarzenegger eligible.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they'd win. There are a fair number of people who we categorize as citizens who the Constitution does not actually require us to categorize in that way, and that's pretty much a legislative privilege which the courts have deferred to. A law that made Schwarzenegger eligible might run into issues with being excessively retroactive (it's usually assumed that natural-born at a minimum requires being born as a citizen) but it's not otherwise beyond the powers of Congress.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Probably the simplest thing would be to assume that the amendment was passed around 1900 (+- 20 years) as part of general horse-trading around the time of Progressivism and anti-immigration panic. But allowing someone who immigrated at the age of 21 would be a very significant change, that screams *DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON* to anyone familiar with classical and renaissance history.

There were no Alien Space Bats at that time in the setting and even if there were, they wouldn't care about Schwarzenegger.

For the purposes of my setting, the nascent ASBs started their planning in 2005, only started to be able to provide what amounted to bonuses in GURPS terms by 2008 at the earliest, became really significant by 2012-2013 and by 2015, could effectively supply alt-Schwarzenegger by a constant +5 to all important political skill checks (and that of the Propaganda checks of his team).

This was not enough to enable alt-Schwarzenegger to run in 2016, although he was a lot closer than in our history. By that time, I imagine that alt-Schwarzenegger and the ASBs had formed a clandestine caucus of bipartisan politicians interested in widening the eligibility requirements for the presidency, as well as disseminating very skillful covert political propaganda in the favor of a constitutional amendment, an Equal Opportunity to Govern statue and/or a court decision with the same effects.

However, by the end of 2018, the effective pluses that the ASBs can supply are closer to +10 and they can also strategically adjust the skill checks of opponents by around -5, in especially important situations. Mind Control of individuals is possible, but very difficult, somewhat risky and to be avoided if possible, with more subtle supernatural influence (and, in GURPS terms, Influence) the preferred method.

Which is why I'm assuming that by the election for 2020, things will come to a head and alt-Schwarzenegger will try to run, with whatever consequences.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Yes, but that doesn't mean they'd win. There are a fair number of people who we categorize as citizens who the Constitution does not actually require us to categorize in that way, and that's pretty much a legislative privilege which the courts have deferred to. A law that made Schwarzenegger eligible might run into issues with being excessively retroactive (it's usually assumed that natural-born at a minimum requires being born as a citizen) but it's not otherwise beyond the powers of Congress.

I wasn't assuming anything about them winning or losing. I was noting that the courts would mostly likely be forced to rule on the constitutionality of any statue that allowed alt-Schwarzenegger to run. Hence, I felt it was plausible that discussion about such a court case, maybe only hypothetical by December 30, 2018 (because alt-Schwarzenegger has not yet officially declared his candidacy for 2020), might be something the PCs heard on the news.

The courts might well refuse to strike it down, whether because of lack of standing, the political-question doctrine or because they interpreted the Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment as allowing Congress the power to define 'natural-born' in that way.

[Donny Brook]

I have to say I"m a little lost on what the rules for 'plausibility' are in this discussion.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I have to say I"m a little lost on what the rules for 'plausibility' are in this discussion.

How do the ASBs accomplish their goal with minimal interference, as little expenditure of magical energy as possible and no overt weirdness?

What is, in other words, the path of least resistance for a paranormally-enhanced alt-Schwarzenegger to go from the Governor of California that existed in our world to a viable presidential candidate in 2020, with minimal impact on the rest of the world?

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by 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.

Come to think of it, it needn't seem that implausible to the people of the world. The Alien Space Bats, as well as manipulating the media to spread the claim, could insert various documentation at hospitals to "prove" it. I feel like this would take less work on their part then getting a constitutional amendment passed.

[Varyon]

After doing a bit more research, I came across something interesting. In 1784, the Maryland General Assembly granted citizenship to the Marquis de laFayette. In the text of this, it stated "the Marquis de laFayette and his Heirs male forever shall be and they and each of them are hereby deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Citizens of this State and shall henceforth be entitled to all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizens thereof." Considering the Constitution doesn't give a definition for "natural born," this at least establishes some degree of precedent in deeming someone foreign-born to be natural-born. While it may be a stretch and considered judicial overreach for the Supreme Court to use this to claim any naturalized citizen that meets the other requirements (35 years of age, residency of 14+ years) is eligible to run for President, it does mean they could judge it to be within the powers of individual State Legislatures (like, say, that of California) to confer "natural-born citizen" status to specific individuals, rendering them capable of running for the office of President. Alternatively, it could give Congress the ability to pass a law that defines "natural-born citizen" to include those who have been citizens in residence for 35 or more years, and the Supreme Court could uphold this.

Either option is likely easier than passing a Constitutional Amendment, and would generate much less flak than the Supreme Court creating a "Judicial Amendment." In the first case, you could have it be that the court rules against Ted Cruz, but in the Opinion they reference the precedent of Marquis de laFayette and indicate a State Legislature would have the power to confer "natural-born citizen" status to someone. Alternatively, perhaps someone in the Texas State Legislature got the idea (no doubt inspired by ASBs, and, look at that, there's an eddy of power right there in Galveston) to avoid the whole "Does he count?" issue by having the Legislature grant him "natural-born citizen" status, and that is what is being argued in court (the reason it would continue after he lost the fight for the Republican nomination could be due to the fact he might run in 2020, particularly if Trump were impeached, or 2024). In the latter case, perhaps the law passed in the House and there's discussion over if it will pass in the Senate - and if so, if Trump will opt to sign it into law or veto it.