Arnold Schwarzenegger Has His \"Terminator\"

¶ … Arnold Schwarzenegger has his "Terminator" eyes on the American presidency. The Governor of California recently campaigned with President Bush, and he told 60 Minutes reporter Morley Safer that he would "absolutely" consider running -- if he could. Arnold is prevented from even running for the office of Presidency because of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. The clause reads, "No person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President." However, Arnold Schwarzenegger is proving to be popular enough to warrant serious legal and political discussions about the validity of the constitutional clause. In July of 2003, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch introduced a proposed constitutional amendment into the Senate. Under Hatch's proposal, anyone who has been an American citizen for more than twenty years who is otherwise eligible for the office of Presidency can run and be elected. A similar proposed amendment was also introduced into the House of Representatives, with the provision that anyone who has been a citizen for at least 35 years can run for the highest office in the nation. In addition to these official proposals to amend the United States Constitution, several grassroots movements have sprouted up in favor of amending the Constitution. These grassroots movements focus almost exclusively on Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has clearly charmed the American public into rethinking the two centuries-old law. However, amending the constitution is no simple task. Not only does a constitutional amendment require a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses of Congress, it must be ratified the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (38 states). The United States constitution has only been amended 27 times. The controversy surrounding the proposed amendment regarding naturalized citizens centers on four main issues: general reluctance to alter the Constitution; national security; the special nature of the office of Presidency over other government positions; and the risk of introducing the measure only for a single candidate such as the charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In an October 6, 2004 article entitled "U.S. Lawmakers Consider Amending Constitution to Allow Foreign Born to Run for President," Deborah Tate addresses both sides of the issue. Opponents including Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California oppose the amendment seemingly because of a general respect for the sanctity of the Constitution. However, proponents of the amendment note that the law does not apply equally to other governmental offices, including the post that Arnold Schwarzenegger already holds: state governor. Moreover, Orrin Hatch, who introduced the proposed constitutional amendment into the United States Senate, is quoted as saying the current law is "artificial, outdated, unnecessary, and unfair." In addition to preventing someone as popular as Arnold Schwarzenegger from becoming President, the law also prevented such notables like Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright from running or assuming the office. In spite of the strong support that the proposed constitutional amendment is receiving, Tate states, "Most lawmakers believe Congress is not ready to act on a Constitutional amendment to change the birth requirements for presidential candidates." Changing the constitution would demand considerable and overwhelming support; currently, interest in the amendment might not be strong enough.

On the other hand, John W. Dean, writing for FindLaw.com, takes a strong stance in favor of the proposed amendment. In his article, "The Pernicious 'Natural Born' Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants like Governor Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents," the author argues that the current law is "an inappropriate boundary on a nation build by immigrants, a purposeless limit on the American dream." Arnold serves as a beacon of hope, a reminder of how outmoded the law is. The current public support for the amendment such as the 'Operation Arnold," proves that most Americans would be in favor of the amendment, regardless of their political affiliations or their feelings about Governor Schwarzenegger. Moreover, Dean mentions that other foreign-born politicians are garnering attention, such as Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-Michigan). Granholm was born in Vancouver, Canada, but attended the University of California and Harvard Law schools. Politicians like Schwarzenegger, Granholm, Kissinger, and Albright are "not accidental Americans," according to Dean. In fact, the author argues that foreign-born Americans "are often better citizens than those who take it all for granted, and they bring to the body politic the diversity that is our strength." Dean also notes that the amendment would remove some glaring inconsistencies in the current law regarding foreign-born citizens whose parents were American. Senator John McCain offers the most recent example of this controversy: McCain was born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. An 1898 Supreme Court ruling, in the case of United States v. Wong, held that such persons are not to be considered natural-born. However, a 1927 ruling (Weedin v. Chin Bow) ruled the exact opposite. Dean also lambastes the idea that the amendment would threaten national security, which is one of the main reasons cited for keeping the constitution as it is regarding natural born citizens becoming President of the United States.

In a less opinionated article, Sarah Frank of the Chicago Tribune addresses both sides of the controversy. The author notes that the amendment does have bipartisan support, although Schwarzenegger spells success for the Republican Party and though Orrin Hatch happens to be a Republican as well. Jennifer Granholm is a Democrat, and many Democrats in Congress support the measure. One of those Democrats is Representative John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, who views the current law as being "un-American." Furthermore, a Democrat from Arkansas, Vic Snyder, introduced a proposal for the amendment into the House of Representatives, proving that the measure does indeed have bipartisan support and that it does not exist solely so that Arnold may become president someday.

However, Frank notes the concern many politicians have over whether or not the amendment would threaten national security: "some members of Congress say they are concerned a foreign-born president would hold allegiance to his or her native country, which could be a threat to national security." Opponents state that to change this law would mean that there would be no checks on the potential for foreign influence or intrigue. To curb such fears, and especially fears that the Republican party merely wants the amendment to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger the chance to get on the ballot, many politicians are suggesting a ten-year hold on the implementation of the amendment if it were passed, as well as a 20-year citizenship provision. Interestingly, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a United States citizen for twenty years.

Several other articles have recently been published regarding this controversial but topical political issue. In "A Terminator in the White House?" published October 28 of 2004, the author hints that the amendment could not possibly be a Republican conspiracy intended solely for Schwarzenegger. Arnold has shown himself to be a social liberal, in spite of his conservative fiscal policies and his being pro-big business. Although Schwarzenegger campaigned heavily in favor of George W. Bush in the recent presidential election, the Governor of California supports abortion rights, stem cell research, gun control, and even gay marriage: "issues to which Bush is staunchly opposed." In a Mercury News article by Mark Gladstone and Ann E. Marimow entitled "Schwarzenegger keeps his distance from speculation," the authors underscore the fears that Arnold's involvement in the issue, including his recent public statements in favor of the amendment, could sully the proposition as it appears the amendment is being drafted solely for him.

These articles show that three or four main political issues are at hand in the controversy over a constitutional amendment allowing foreign-born citizens to be eligible for the United States Presidency. First, amending the constitution is never taken lightly; the document is viewed as sacrosanct, which is why it has only been amended 27 times. Proponents of the amendment in question generally favor change and progress and note that parts of Article II are outdated and even purposefully biased. Second, perhaps the strongest opposition to the proposed amendment regards national security. Opponents to the amendment claim that a foreign-born president could have conflicting loyalties and could even prove to be a traitor to the nation. Responses to this position include the proposition of clear rules for eligibility (from 14 to 20 years of being a citizen). Moreover, there is no reason to assume that a natural-born American President would be automatically loyal to the country. Third, Article II only applies to the office of Presidency. However, significant powers are given to senior White House officials and cabinet members, positions that can legally be held by foreign-born citizens. Foreign-born officers in other high-level positions such as Secretary of State can threaten national security as well. Moreover, presidential succession laws blur the relevance of Article II. As John Dean points out in his article "The Pernicious 'Natural Born' Clause of the Constitution," the Secretary of State is actually fourth in line to take over the office of presidency; a foreign-born Secretary of State such as Madeleine Albright could conceivably serve as acting president in spite of Article II. Fourth, a small but significant controversy surrounds the timing of the proposed amendment and its inevitable link to "the Governator."

The first issue, regarding the sacrosanct nature of the constitution, is one of the easiest to address. While amending the constitution should not be taken lightly or respond merely to the fluctuating passions of a rapidly changing society, many constitutional amendments are necessary to preserve and enforce the specific liberties and rights of citizens. For example, the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments applied specifically to the freeing of the slaves and were therefore requisite. Similarly, an amendment to the constitution that allows foreign-born citizens to run for the office of presidency represents the willingness of our society to grow and change. Article II, by preventing foreign-born citizens to run for president, does discriminate against those immigrants. Writers like John Dean and politicians like Orrin Hatch strongly support amending the constitution because it does not represent American values such as freedom and liberty for all citizens. Many of these articles also refer to the history of Article II and the original reasoning behind it. Drafted first by John Jay at the Constitutional Convention and heard by George Washington, then acting president of the Constitutional Convention, the measure was adapted without debate. At the time, the country's architects were worried that a British-born citizen might try to re-impose the monarchy in the Untied States. That was over two hundred years ago and such a fear is completely unfounded now.

Second, these articles show that amending the constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to become President would be far from a threat to national security. On the other hand, Dean notes that "in an ear of terrorism -- when an attack on both the President and the Vice President becomes all the more possible," clarifying the succession laws is absolutely necessary for the stability of the nation. If both the President and Vice President were assassinated and the next-in-line to the office (the Speaker of the House) were a foreign-born citizen, legal analysts and politicians would have considerable trouble interpreting the constitution. Thus, Dean and other proponents of the amendment turn the national security issue on its head. He states that amending the constitution would resolve the "tricky succession statue question," eliminating "constitutional ambiguity."

Furthermore, these writers illustrate a fundamental contradiction inherent in Article II: only the office of Presidency cannot be held by a foreign-born citizen. Any other high-ranking official can be held by a foreign-born citizen. Threats to national security do not come only from the office of Presidency. A senator, a congressman, and the Governor of California can have a powerful impact on American lawmaking and politics and can potentially infiltrate and undermine American political integrity. Therefore, Article II does not necessarily preserve national security. A natural-born President, moreover, could potentially betray his or her country regardless of having been born on American soil.