Week 5

"But modern day naturalized are barred from the presidency simply because they were born in the wrong place to the wrong parents. This must, and someday will, change." Akhil Reed The New York Times

The author means by this quote that immigrants once naturalized should be able to serve as the president of the United States. I agree to a degree with the authors statement. When the author brings up Hamilton as an example of someone who migrated and was allowed to run for president he leaves out that in this case Hamilton was still just a young adult when he came to the then colonies. Hamilton also fought during the revolutionary war helping to develop the foundation of the United States which would make there be little to no reason in his case to doubt his loyalties. However in the case of recent immigrants or ones who have migrated after living a majority of their life (Say a 50 year old) in a foreign country it would be hard to really tell where their loyalties lie. I am not saying that every immigrant who would want to run for leader of the United States would have bad intentions, but that they may subliminally favor there home country in foreign affairs. 

For example lets say that a 50 year old Swedish man/ woman immigrates here, and eventually gains citizenship. They have a previous political background in their home country and good finances so it is not hard for them to fall into American politics. By the time they are 65, lets say, they decide to run for president and win. If they have to complete a trade deal with Sweden they may be more inclined to accept a deal that favors them, or to not hold them accountable for transgressions that may deserve sanctions. 

In finally I do agree with the authors point that migrants who do come here say as children or at an age where they can still spend a majority of their life in the United States before running fro president should be allowed to. However there should still be certain restrictions to prevent electing an unfit leader.

Week 4

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The author of this the preamble to the constitution, Gouverneur Morris, a founding father of the United States likely had different ideas for whom this would apply to then we do today. He presumably meant for this to apply to his comrades, other Anglo Saxon males (Perhaps females too to some degree). However because of his broad use of "We the People" instead of, "We the Anglo Saxon People" or "We the Men", he allowed for the meaning of his words to be adapted and changed with the growing country. Written over 200 years ago, the countries views on race, sex, gender, religion, have definitely changed. Without this ambiguous meaning it would have meant a suppression of the rights of emerging minority groups, which would have left the country in a much darker bigoted age.

The interpretation of these words apply to so many today. Ranging from Women, to Blacks, Minorities (Religious and Racial Groups), the LGBTQ+ community, and more. Despite many/ most of these groups not yet receiving their full constitutional rights, the fact that the possibility for them to receive them means a lot. Many countries constitutions, such as Saudi Arabia, are not so widely applicable. In the case of Saudi Arabia a monarch is recognized as the supreme leader of the land and Islam is the states only recognized religion, leaving no room for anyone who does not fit these limitations to be welcome to any rights.

Constant fights for more rights for oppressed groups are constantly being fought for, and are only able to be fought for thanks to the grammatical wording of the preamble of the Constitution. Be it purposeful or not this ambiguity has left the door open for this countries progress within the expansion of civil rights. It has by no means created a utopia type country, however it has at least made it possible for a universally free country, as long as the citizens of the country continue to fight for their constitutional rights.