Stance Essay #2

Joshua G. Buchanan
POLS 1101
J. Dawson
April 6, 2009
Debate 6 Qualified To Be President?
For centuries America has been referred to as the country of dreams, the new world, and a place where anyone can accomplish any feat; however when it comes to attaining the oval office, and what is regarded as being the most powerful position of them all, a large percentage of American citizens already have their dreams extinguished. While the Constitution allows for all American citizens to actively participate and even achieve such high political positions as Secretary of State, Article II Section I of The Constitution reads “No person except a natural-born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.” At the Constitution’s inception, the concept of a naturalized citizen obtaining the title of Commander In Chief was absurd to say the least. As time has progressed, the political landscape of America has seen multitudes of foreign-born citizens rise to power and continually add to legislation and the overall well-being of the nation. Logically the next question to arise would be: why does the Constitution restrict such great politicians from the opportunity of becoming President of the great nation of which they represent? Matthew Spalding and John Yinger each have opposing ideals concerning this issue, and each presents their case before Congress in an attempt to finally resolve this matter of debate.
Matthew Spalding, Director for the Center of American Studies and The Heritage Foundation, provides his testimony during hearings on “Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans,” before the U.S. Senate committee on the Judiciary. Spalding is in agreement with the current standards and limitations provided by the Constitution. Spalding commences his statements by citing quotations from President George Washington pertaining to America’s welcoming of foreigners and those who seek prosperity. While one may initially believe Spalding is endorsing a change, he immediately continues by providing an example of the downfalls of ambitious foreigners: Poland in 1772. It was during this time that the secret services of Austria, Prussia, and Russia had connived to engineer the election of their own choice for king, whereupon the entirety of Poland was partitioned and divided among the three powers. Spalding then provides several examples of how those involved with the Constitutional Congress had vehemently debated over the issue of allowing foreign born citizens to become President. Charles Pickney, George Mason, James Wilson, and Alexander Hamilton each proposed their own unique variations and opinions towards the issue; however one viewpoint prevailed and was adopted in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Spalding concludes by saying the founding fathers selected these actions on the basis of national self-defense; it was too large of a risk to allow a foreigner to rise to power. Spalding strongest statement is as followed: “while the practical circumstances have changed- there is not threat of a foreign royal king taking the reins of power- the underlying concerns about foreign attachments and favoritism, and the need for absolute allegiance and loyalty in the executive, still make sense.”
John Yinger, Professor of Economics and Public Administration, Syracuse University, holds an opinion in stark contrast to that of Matthew Spalding. Yinger opens by reciting a phrase from the Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal.” Yinger continues by reinforcing the fact that every citizen in America is equal and shares equal rights, even that to the White House. John Yinger outlines several points to his debate. The first argument is centering on establishing the founders’ doubts about the natural-born citizen requirement. Yinger does this by attempting to depict the establishment of the grandfather clause to be one of revealing the Founders did not want to prevent all naturalized citizens from running for President. The grandfather clause grants presidential eligibility to any “Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.” This clause gave eligibility to tens of thousands of naturalized citizens, including seven of the people who signed the Constitution. Yinger believes this wording of the clause effectively proves the founder’s were not wholly intent on restriction eligibility to only native-born citizens. Yinger’s next course of action is to display that second-class citizenship for naturalized citizens violates the equal-rights principle. Yinger’s briefly describes several debates concerning the issues and then moves into providing examples of demonstrated trust in naturalized citizens. Yinger quotes several founding fathers, including George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, pertaining to their lack of concern about nativity. Foreigners also received several high-federal positions, which Yinger proceeded to express. The third phase of Yinger’s argument involves arguments for and against removing the natural-born citizen requirement. However, instead of going into detail of the argument against removing the natural-born citizen requirement, Yinger simply states this opinion is wrong and false and emphasizes his repudiations with excerpts from papers writing by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who express similar convictions. In conclusion, Yinger’s final point is one of a simple matter of equal rights: “the principles on which our democracy is founded need to be protected, extended, and reaffirmed.”
One cannot discredit nor ignore the achievements and strides gained in the political arena by naturalized-citizens. Both men provide an excellent debate and insight into their respective ideals. Could it be possible that the most appropriate and logical course of action is a paragon which incorporates both views? In a perfect world perhaps yes; however, this world is not perfect, far from it to be honest. Professor Yinger can speculate for eons over the Founding Fathers’ feelings toward naturalized citizens, the only fact one can rely on is the end result of the Constitutional Congress; the Constitution, mainly Article II Section I. This section clearly states the requirements for those desiring to acquire the title of President of the United States. While present-day America is a far cry from 1772 Poland, the heart of man will never change, with greed and power reaming at the forefront of man’s downfalls. History is bound to repeat itself, and even back in 1787 the Founding Father’s knew and respected this fact. The creators of the Constitution were aware of the potential positive impacts naturalized-citizens could have upon America and these beliefs were reflected by allowing naturalized-citizens to become members of both Congressional Houses and even on the state and local levels. America is the land of equality where every man is created equal, and restricting the presidential requirements to solely natural-born citizens does not infringe on this ideal. American should be run by one who is American. If one were to immerse themselves within the activities on Capitol Hill, the end result would be one of realizing most of the power resides within the Congressional Houses, which naturalized-citizens are allowed to be a part of and actively participate.