Cooper’s language about how it should have been the "progressives" leading the protests against Davis reminds me of similar comments by leftists like Norman Geras and Christopher Hitchens regarding Iraq. For the second time in the last year, on the most pressing, widely followed, definitive political question of the moment, the liberal-left has clung to a reactionary defense of institutional and special interests rather than standing up for the values it pretends to believe in.

Just out of curiousity what legal arguments, if any, could be made for arnold running for president? I hope this has not been discussed some other time and I missed it.

Article. II. [Section 1.] Clause 5. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Constitution of the United States of AMerica

I really did not need a rewriting of the Article. I already know that. The question is not what does the article say, rather what arguments, if any, could be made for Arnold running for presidents? Merely rewriting the Article, does not answer the question.

The Constitution’s provision is rather unambiguous. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that there’s any possibility Arnold could evade it. There’s been some discussion recently led by Sen. Hatch about revising it, and Hatch even mentioned Arnold in a recent statement on the subject, but the prospects for action seem rather small.

So, the 14th Amendment does not get in the way of such a black and white clause?

"So, the 14th Amendment does not get in the way of such a black and white clause?"

On just what basis would it? The 14th Amendment is directed at the States. The Constitution of the United States of America is SUPPOSED to define the limits of the Federal government, including the qualifications for Federal offices and the methods of selecting Federal officers. Truly not "rocket science", although the Federal Judiciary tend to try and make so.

"Article. XIV. [Proposed 1866; Ratified Under Duress 1868]"

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, I am beginning to lose all respect for Senator Hatch. I doubt if he will ever reach his life long ambition of sitting with the Supremes, so he seems to be bent on slowly going over to the "Dark Side" and destroying the Republic.

Incidently, how will Wes "the Supreme Being" Clark get past the "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" part of Artile II Section 5? As NATO Supreme Commander, his worship resided in Brussels, Belgium, I believe. Hmmm! Maybe someone should send Liberman, Dean, and Kerry a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America with appropriate phrase of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 circled. If nothing else it will give Judge Andrew Napolitano, on FoxNews, something to talk about.

"The 14th Amendment is directed at the States."

All well and good, except the 14th made us U.S. citizens first and state citizens second. Thus the amendment is saying that no STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the UNITED STATES (it should be noted that you convienently left this out of your rebuttal). Note the emphasis on the state not interferring with national rights.

If you do not believe it, then explain how the Supreme Court could possibly disregard a state law in favor of a "national" interpretation of the Constitution? How could the Court make decisions against individual rights, instead favoring a national agenda. I admit there other variables as to why, but certainly it is clear that the 14th does, in fact, give the states less rights.

I cut myself off too soon on the previous post.

Ultimately, what I am saying is that could it not be interpreted that a citizen who has become a United States citizen, even if not born in it but has all the other qualifications otherwise, has the rights to pursue their life and liberty afforded them by the national government? Because we are national citizens first and state citizens second.

"Thus the amendment is saying that no STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the UNITED STATES (it should be noted that you convienently left this out of your rebuttal). Note the emphasis on the state not interferring with national rights."

Again, what is about "no STATE shall make or enforce" that you are having such a difficult time understanding. How the Congress wish to amend the Constitution of the United States of America to change the provisions of "Article. II. [Section 1.] Clause 5", they would have come right out an done it. As they did "Article. II. [Section 1.] Clause 3" in the 12th Amendment changing how President and Vice President are selected. Or the 20th Amendment setting the term of the President and Vice President. Or the 22nd Amendment "term limiting" the President. I cannot understand why anyone would believe that if the Congress intended to change the provision of Article I requiring that the President of the United States must be "a natural born Citizen", they wouldn’t just come out and state so in an Amendment, but instead would resort to some sort of a "penumbra" in an Amendment directed at prohibiting States from treating freed slaves as "second class citizens". Since the last slaves were imported to the United States around 1810, by 1868, the vast majority of slaves were natural born Citizens.

BTW, States do not have "rights", only people (persons) have "rights". States and all governments have "powers" and "authorities". The 14th Amendment merely establishes who are citizens and that States do not have the "authority" to treat their citizens differently before the laws. If they do, the U.S. government has the "authority" to "enforce" citizen equality before the law in the States. Please note that the 14th Amendment did not extend sufferage to citizen that were female. A separate Amendment, the 19th in 1919, was required for that.

The balance of the 14th Amendment could never be construed to change the Article I "natural born Citizen" constitutional qualification for the office President. It merely added additional exceptions to existing qualifications. Had the Congress intended to change the "natural born Citizen" requirement they would have said so in Section 3 where these additional exceptions were established.

"Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

"Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

"Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

"Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Despite your concept that 5 of 9 unelected black-robed potentates can Amend our Constitution by edict, that isn’t the so. The Constitution of the United States of America can only be Amended (changed) thusly:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Perhaps if you are so keen on seeing "Conan for President", you can start a movement to properly Amend the Constitution of the United States of America in order to allow an Austrian citizen, such as Arnie, to run for President of the United States.

Even if the Supremes think that it would be stylish to have a body builder actor for President of the United Strates, they will find no means of making it so, if he is not a "natural born Citizen" in the 14th Amendment. Of course, they might find such a "right" in the "penumbra" secreted in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which can only be ciphered by those Justices who have been issued their secret "Penumbra Decoder Ring"!

Mr. Lang:

Again I am having no problem understanding “no State shall” I apparently have better understanding, or you are in denial about the meaning of the Amendment. Also, I am not advocating Arnold for President: however, he is a good example of a potential case.

The argument might go something like this:

“I am a citizen of the United States and I have the privileges and rights of the other citizens of the United States. It is true I have been naturalized in the United States, but the 14th Amendment grants me all the rights and privileges of a natural born citizen. This also means I have equal protection of the laws. For these reasons, I wish to run for the office of the President of the United States of America. I meet all the requirements, I have been a citizen for fourteen years, and I am over 35 years old.

If my naturalization has granted me citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment grants me the privileges and immunities of a natural born citizen, then to say that I cannot run for president because I am not a natural born citizen is to say that I do not have equal protection of the laws.

Because the Fourteenth Amendment grants me citizenship and I am a citizen of the United States, I have the equal protection of the laws. I, due to my citizenship as granted by the Fourteenth Amendment, am a citizen of the United States, and I am 35 years old, and I have held residency for fourteen years. I am eligible to run for the presidency of the United States.”

I apologize for some of the redundant statements, but I believed they needed to be emphasized. I am not saying I agree with the argument, merely that this is a possibility as to how the argument could be.

I also realize the implications if something like to this were to be permissible. Yes, I know what the Constitution says and it is pretty plain in this case. However, the plainness of any case has never stopped those who look at the Constitution as something to get around.