Schwarzenegger 2020: Equal Opportunity to Govern

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

This is where the plausibility suffers. Having him be both a realistic candidate and the poster boy for a major constitutional change that is supposed to enable his candidacy is too much, IMO.

As much as possible, alt-Schwarzenegger should not be the poster boy for the legal or constitutional changes required.

However, no matter how well the ASBs try to hide his connection to the movement for changing the natural-born citizen clause, by 2018, there will be political observers who naturally link the very popular alt-Schwarzenegger and the movement to make people like him eligible. Even if he has not publicly said he is running and is not the front man for any legislation, court cases or constitutional change that is being discussed.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Icelander

As much as possible, alt-Schwarzenegger should not be the poster boy for the legal or constitutional changes required.

However, no matter how well the ASBs try to hide his connection to the movement for changing the natural-born citizen clause, by 2018, there will be political observers who naturally link the very popular alt-Schwarzenegger and the movement to make people like him eligible. Even if he has not publicly said he is running and is not the front man for any legislation, court cases or constitutional change that is being discussed.

That's still where the implausibility is. Having there be a clear beneficiary waiting in the wings for the change will invoke opposition to it. It would take massive (non-plausible) popular will to compel multiple state legislatures against such opposition to act quickly enough for the timeline you are left with at the tail end. But you wanted some implausibility to trigger suspicion anyway, right?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by RyanW

The courts would strike it down on the grounds that Congress has sole authority to regulate naturalization (which would also be Congress's argument, whether in favor of or opposition to the case in question).

I was unaware naturalization was under the sole purview of Congress (which does make sense), but if a State "upgrades" an already-naturalized citizen to natural-born citizen, would this step on the toes of Congress?

Come to think of it, that would make sense as part of the argument against it in court, with the Supreme Court perhaps ruling that it is acceptable, but only for an already-naturalized citizen (so that naturalization is still under the exclusive authority of Congress). If there isn't a good patsy for the initial court case, perhaps the ASB's get a State Legislature to deem a non-citizen to be a "natural born citizen" (possibly in a purposeful attempt to bypass the normal naturalization process), and the Supreme Court strikes it down, but in the opinion states that, while a State Legislature cannot grant citizenship, it certainly would be able to upgrade pre-existing citizenship to "natural born" status.

The precedent of laFayette isn't something usable as a legal precedent, as it predates the Constitution, but could be used as "this is what the Founders thought of as natural-born, specifically that it was status that could be specifically granted to an individual." While that probably doesn't carry any legal weight, it will lend a sense of legitimacy to the ruling, which I'd argue is much more important for getting the people of the United States behind it (or at least not strongly opposed to it).

Failing all that, of course, I think Congress would have the authority to pass a law that defines "natural born" as a status that can be conferred, or perhaps even one that is automatically conferred once someone has been a Citizen in residence for some number of years. While this is more difficult for the ASB's to pass through than a Supreme Court ruling, it's certainly easier than a Constitutional Amendment, and thus more plausible.

[Micahel Silverbane]

Originally Posted by Icelander

As much as possible, alt-Schwarzenegger should not be the poster boy for the legal or constitutional changes required.

Is there someone else who could reasonably be this poster boy? Someone who could 'take one for the team', be the person with standing to challenge the law or be publicly behind the effort to get the amendment passed, and then get horribly defeated in the previous election cycle due to public outcry from the 'no foreign influence' crowd?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Micahel Silverbane

Is there someone else who could reasonably be this poster boy? Someone who could 'take one for the team', be the person with standing to challenge the law or be publicly behind the effort to get the amendment passed, and then get horribly defeated in the previous election cycle due to public outcry from the 'no foreign influence' crowd?

My first thought was Ted Cruz, but I'm open to other ideas.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

The act discussed just now does not over-rule the constitution. There is no rule in the constitution saying the legislature can't declare someone to be natural born.

This is where US v. Adam Clayton Powell comes in. Powell was a popular Congessman from the Harlem area of NYC in the mid-60s. He was also given to scandalous behavior by the standards of the time.

There is a clause in the Constitution that says that Congress shall be the "sole judge" of the elections of its' members. The scadalized leaders of Congress (who were even of the same party as Powell) decided that meant they could "judge" Powell to have lost even if the vote totals said he'd won.

So they ejected Powell and Powell sued and the courts said that "sole judge" authority did not go as far as the congressional leaders thought it did. They could not proclaim something obviously false to be true just because they wanted to.

So they probably can't proclaim someone to have been born in the US when the facts say otherwise. Even saying"We're giving him the right to run for President even if he doesn't meet the Constitional criteria" is also back to trying to overrule the Constitution with statute. Not allowed.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

My first thought was Ted Cruz, but I'm open to other ideas.

No amendment is needed for Ted Cruz. The usual assumption is that natural-born citizen means 'born a citizen', and he was (his mother was a US citizen). Various people with axes to grind choose to argue that this isn't sufficient, but it's vanishingly unlikely that a court (or at least, a higher level court) would agree.

Incidentally, the only US statute to define 'natural-born citizen' was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which in fact specifically would have classed him as natural-born.

[Micahel Silverbane]

Originally Posted by Icelander

My first thought was Ted Cruz, but I'm open to other ideas.

I think you would be better off with someone who is definitely a foreign national or naturalized citizen. Possibly another celebrity (Manny Pacquiao, a boxer who became a Phillipino senator in 2016), somebody who many people think of as American (William Shatner, or maybe someone less famous than that, but that played a distinctly American character on tv or in film). Or an entirely fictional character.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

This is where US v. Adam Clayton Powell comes in. Powell was a popular Congessman from the Harlem area of NYC in the mid-60s. He was also given to scandalous behavior by the standards of the time.

There is a clause in the Constitution that says that Congress shall be the "sole judge" of the elections of its' members. The scadalized leaders of Congress (who were even of the same party as Powell) decided that meant they could "judge" Powell to have lost even if the vote totals said he'd won.

So they ejected Powell and Powell sued and the courts said that "sole judge" authority did not go as far as the congressional leaders thought it did. They could not proclaim something obviously false to be true just because they wanted to.

So they probably can't proclaim someone to have been born in the US when the facts say otherwise. Even saying"We're giving him the right to run for President even if he doesn't meet the Constitional criteria" is also back to trying to overrule the Constitution with statute. Not allowed.

That's not the same category of thing. A constitutional judicial power is different from the general legislative power which is much broader. Congress can and has proclaimed false things.

Bear in mind also, enacting someone to be natural born would only be questionable at all if they ever run for president.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

So they probably can't proclaim someone to have been born in the US when the facts say otherwise.

But the constitution does not say "born in the US". And it does not define what "natural" means.