The past few news cycles have drawn attention to a clause in the American constitution that the President must be a natural-born citizen. I feel that vigorous debate over this could be healthy, but I am disturbed by the large number of people who shrug off the issue with a "Who cares?" I also am troubled by the way that many people interpret this clause and the rest of the constitution opportunistically.
I would not object to a constitutional amendment that allowed any U.S. citizen, of any age, gender, race, or digital format to become president. I would be willing to support the direct election of any citizen who the people chose — if the constitution were amended to prescribe that.
I watched last night's State of the Union address as I do each year; with a cautious optimism. I always wonder what, specifically, the President will choose to address, and, more pessimistically, I wonder if he will tell the truth. Last night's speech was marred by convenient truths at best and doublespeak at worst.
The President spoke of the need for unity while simultaneously sowing more seeds of division. Throughout the speech, he referred to those who do not agree with his talking points as "cynics," and "those who [tell] us to fear the future," but later in his speech conceded that "Democracy … doesn't work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic." Can we have it both ways? Can those who disagree with us be labeled as cynical fear-mongers, yet their views be respected?
