Plausible Differences in USA Constitution

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Clear definition of Natural born citizen...impact depends on definition. Most restrictive would be born on US soil of two American citizen parents. This hits Obama, Cruz. Mc Cain, George Romney and perhaps others. Impact is all in the definition.
This would mean, unless corrected by a modification of the 14th Amendment, that no freedman/woman or child of a freedman and or freedwoman could EVER become a U.S. citizen by birth, to this day. It means that no American Indian could EVER become a natural born American (which is sort of bad, considering we stole the place from them). It means that no person descended from those living in the Louisiana Purchase at the time of acquisition, in the areas acquired at the admission of Texas, and living in the territory gained at bayonet point from Mexico, in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.

It would disenfranchise anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the U.S. population.

In all likelihood it would result in, at best, a second revolution, and at worst the dissolution of the U.S. possibly as early as 1830, almost certainly by 1880. It would make the United States into a Western Hemisphere version of Sparta, with a tiny native population and a mass of helots.
 
This would mean, unless corrected by a modification of the 14th Amendment, that no freedman/woman or child of a freedman and or freedwoman could EVER become a U.S. citizen by birth, to this day. It means that no American Indian could EVER become a natural born American (which is sort of bad, considering we stole the place from them). It means that no person descended from those living in the Louisiana Purchase at the time of acquisition, in the areas acquired at the admission of Texas, and living in the territory gained at bayonet point from Mexico, in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.

It would disenfranchise anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the U.S. population.

In all likelihood it would result in, at best, a second revolution, and at worst the dissolution of the U.S. possibly as early as 1830, almost certainly by 1880. It would make the United States into a Western Hemisphere version of Sparta, with a tiny native population and a mass of helots.

IMHO, it would be more likely to result in either an amendment granting them citizenship, or a new constitution.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
IMHO, it would be more likely to result in either an amendment granting them citizenship, or a new constitution.
Very possibly. If the Constitution was changed it would likely resemble the 14th Amendment, Section 1, which is what actually established birth citizenship.
 
Term limits (National level, all elected positions) from day one.....politics was not a job option when the country started, you got a salary to pay the guy who ran your business while you served the country in office.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
This would mean, unless corrected by a modification of the 14th Amendment, that no freedman/woman or child of a freedman and or freedwoman could EVER become a U.S. citizen by birth, to this day. It means that no American Indian could EVER become a natural born American (which is sort of bad, considering we stole the place from them). It means that no person descended from those living in the Louisiana Purchase at the time of acquisition, in the areas acquired at the admission of Texas, and living in the territory gained at bayonet point from Mexico, in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.


I would certainly hope not. What I was raising was the possibility of defining "Natural Born Citizen" as it is used in the qualifications for president. The treaties adding territory to the Union and the post ACW amendments deal with citizenship. We have been talking at each other instead of to each other. Sorry.
 
This would mean, unless corrected by a modification of the 14th Amendment, that no freedman/woman or child of a freedman and or freedwoman could EVER become a U.S. citizen by birth, to this day. It means that no American Indian could EVER become a natural born American (which is sort of bad, considering we stole the place from them). It means that no person descended from those living in the Louisiana Purchase at the time of acquisition, in the areas acquired at the admission of Texas, and living in the territory gained at bayonet point from Mexico, in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.

It would disenfranchise anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the U.S. population.

In all likelihood it would result in, at best, a second revolution, and at worst the dissolution of the U.S. possibly as early as 1830, almost certainly by 1880. It would make the United States into a Western Hemisphere version of Sparta, with a tiny native population and a mass of helots.


Depends on whether it required two natural-born citizen parents. That would indeed be a problem. OTOH, if birth in the US to two naturalised parents was sufficient, then a law could be passed naturalising Freedmen, Indians etc, and their subsequent offspring could then qualify.
 
The argentinian constitution has the following paragraph: The Federal Government will encourage European immigration, and it will not restrict, limit or burden with any taxes the entrance into Argentine territory of foreigners who come with the goal of working the land, improving the industries and teach the sciences and the arts.

Could we have something similar in th USA but i.e

The Federal Government will encourage European immigration, and it will not restrict, limit or burden with any taxes the entrance into American territory of foreigners who come with the goal of working the land, improving the industries and teach the sciences and the arts.

The Federal Government will encourage Nordic immigration, and it will not restrict, limit or burden with any taxes the entrance into American territory of foreigners who come with the goal of working the land, improving the industries and teach the sciences and the arts.

The Federal Government will encourage Anglo-Saxon immigration, and it will not restrict, limit or burden with any taxes the entrance into American territory of foreigners who come with the goal of working the land, improving the industries and teach the sciences and the arts.

Similarlly could there be an article or admendment restrictring citizenship and suffrage only to whites?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
This was an amendment proposed by the dissenting members of the Pennsylvania ratification convention:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

Imagine how differently the country would be with that!
 
Top