[drewse]

Yes, I definitely agree that this clause seems a little bit arbitrary. Currently the requirements for the position are...

1) be at least 35 years old

2) natural-born US citizen

3) have lived in the US for at least 14 years

One possible alternative would be to get rid of the 1st requirement, but to add another requirement of having to have lived in the US for a certain number of years as a child (under the age of 18), since we could agree that experience from growing up in the US is very important. Something along the lines of this...

1) be at least 35 years old

2) have lived in the US for at least 6 years as a child

3) have lived in the US for a total of 14 years

[JustACommenter]

I agree that the clause seems unfair, but if you try to put yourself in the mindset of the founders, it's actually a challenging problem. What makes someone an American? It was clear that it is not ethnic identity and it's not where your ancestors are from, which were the main options prior to the founding of the US.

Also, do be aware it was created with people in the room who were aware of its consequences. Alexander Hamilton signed the document that made it law, and it prevented him from becoming President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_%28Un...

[alanh]

Dare I suggest all 3 clauses are unnecessary, and we should let the voting public & electorate college decide if the candidate is good enough that any foreign-ness could be overlooked?

[drewse]

That is a very good point that I failed to consider. However, it brings up the old debate on whether the people of a nation are sufficiently educated to make the right decisions for their nation as a whole. I believe that they are sufficiently educated and have the right to make the decisions they want, but I'm not sure if everyone believes this quite yet. We're definitely headed in that direction, though, if you look at how far we've come.