Let's Change the Qualifications for Being President

I'll bet that, if you've read this blog before, you took one look at the title before clicking and said to yourself: This is going to be dripping with sarcasm.

Nope. (Okay, not much) I thought of this the other day. I think it could work very well.

I was reading a review of a book written by Samantha Power, former UN ambassador for the Obama Administration. (It was somewhat critical.) She was born in Ireland. That makes her ineligible for the presidency.

In my view, that's too bad. Here's someone with considerable governmental experience, very articulate and intelligent (what a concept!), certainly well-regarded amongst international colleagues, and of course a Democrat--and she can't run. (Not that there's any room this year.) But in 2024 or 2028? It might be just the right time for her. I mean, it isn't as if she doesn't know anything about living here.

Turns out she came to America at a young age. That means she's been a citizen here for at least 35 years.

Hmmmm. 35 years. That's the age that the Constitution says a person serving as president has to be.

So? Let's combine the two concepts. I propose to amend the Constitution thus: Any person can be president who has been a citizen of the United States for no less than 35 years. You can drop the age requirement: This takes care of that. And residency within the country for 14 years, as it also says? No problem.

How does that sound? If you come here as a kid, you get to be a citizen right away. The clock starts. If you were 6 and remained living here, you can run for president at age 41. If you were 15, you can run at age 50. Lots of people run for president between those two ages.

What if you come here at age 25? Well, get in the queue for citizenship. It'll take a while, maybe three or four years. All right: You take the oath at age 29. You get to run for president at age 64. That's younger than knucklehead president 45, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. It's younger than Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan were when they ran for the first time.

Why should we do this? Samantha Power would be just one reason. Arnold Schwartzenegger might be another. He was governor of California and a Republican, unfortunately, but--he's also woke on climate change. (He also divorced his wife, a Kennedy descendant, because he had a love child with his family's maid. But at this point, with 45 as the latest example, would it not be more forgivable?)

Beyond that: Henry Kissinger. Albert Einstein. More recently, Jennifer Granholm, Democratic former governor of Michigan, born in Canada (I mean, how foreign is that?). All born elsewhere, all brilliant people. All could have been possible candidates.

Lots of foreign-born people have been governors, too. You can look that up on Google.

Why should we do this? Because we're wasting enormous amounts of talent and enormous amounts of opportunity. Someone who might be one of our five greatest presidents might never get that chance. That hurts that person. That hurts the country.

It is also a nod toward what we've known for a very long time: That people who truly want to come here are very, very interested in improving their lives. They see this country as the place to do so. The very people who might look at this nation with fresh eyes, who might see something we don't see, are blocked from applying their thinking to advance us.

That advancement is exactly what we want. Right?

If you see this as a way to push back against the trashing that 45 has done against migrants, so be it. There are worse ways to wreak vengeance against someone that awful. There are few better ways to extend a new hand toward those who want in--to guarantee that, should they stick around long enough and advance themselves enough to become politically viable, they too can extend their hope to the ultimate goal.

If they come here for freedom, they come here, too, for opportunity--not without a price, but with the possibility that someone born here can also have. Native-born Americans will still have a head start on them, as they should. But after 35 years, if you're paying attention, you can be every bit the citizen, if not more, than anyone else.

America has always been known for its possibility. I don't see any reason to limit that, even about being president of it.

Yes, I know: Politically, it's DOA in the present Congress, 2/3 agreement of both houses of which would be the first step needed to pass an amendment. But adjustments have been made before. Political turmoil has been endured, and decent things have come from it. We can get through this time not just because we need to, but because new promise may be ahead (difficult to consider that as it is).

Let's do that. Let's look forward and commit ourselves to be better and to give that betterment some substance. Let's start here.

Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark