Natural born

Within the U.S. Constitution lies a confusing rule. The rule states “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President.” Except for a few minor debates in the past, the issue of a presidential candidate’s place of birth has never been a real issue. All of the former presidents have been born within the territory of the U.S.\nThis could change in 2008. \nYou see, Sen. John McCain – the presumed Republican nominee – was born outside the U.S. in the Panama Canal Zone, officially considered a U.S. military installation. An article in The New York Times last week asked if this would disqualify McCain from becoming our next president. Unfortunately, the article provided no answer, only more questions.\nThe fact that McCain was born outside the U.S. has brought to light this lesser known Constitutional rule, and the need to change it.\nWe live in an ever-more globalized world, and the chances of a family living and working overseas is increasing. There are now almost 7 million Americans living outside the U.S. Are we saying their children – born overseas – cannot be president? \nThe rule is outdated and tries, as far as I can tell, to prevent electing a president with conflicting allegiances. For example, an American presidential candidate born and raised in, let’s say Portugal, would be more likely to have allegiances to his former country than a “natural-born” American.\nThis, of course, is nonsense. \nIf we continue to allow this rule, then we are severely misguided on the true threat to a president’s allegiance, and that threat is quite simple: money. Money-driven desires turn government official’s allegiance away from their country. Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent for more than 20 years, is perhaps the best example of this. He was caught selling intelligence secrets to the former Soviet Union in what has been described as “possibly the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history.” Did he do it because he supported the U.S.S.R. over America? No. Rather, money was a “primary motivation.”\nWhen elected officials do what is best for certain companies’ or friends’ pocketbooks, as opposed to their country, it illustrates the more dangerous, monetary motivations for mixed allegiances. It is never difficult to find politicians willing to sell out their country to fill their coffers. Just a few examples are Duke Cunningham, who took almost $2.4 billion in bribes, and former state Sen. John Ford, who recently was sentenced to five and a half years behind bars for bribery. Oil company executives even met and talked with Vice President Dick Cheney while he was making energy policy. Talk about mixed allegiances. \nSo let’s get rid of the misguided “natural born” citizen rule in the Constitution and instead focus our efforts on preventing our president and the lawmakers under him from being corrupted by money. Because for many, monetary allegiances are far more powerful than national ones.