I understand that the official head of the Canadian government is the British monarch. In the US of A, the President, by law mus be born (not naturalized) as a US citizen, Being born in the US qualifies a candidate as a born US citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents, but having at least one us citizen as a parent also qualifies someone born outside the US as a natural US citizen.
Back in the 2000 presidential nomination campaign, Republican candidate John McCain face some birther opposition because he was born in Panama , Since both of his parents were US citizens he is a natural US citizen.
My understanding is that the then-recent example of Poland was also prominent in their minds. Poland had an elected king (once elected by the Polish diet, a monarch for life), but it could be any nobleman; and people outside of Poland would vie for the prize. Not only that but the diet had to vote unanimously to take any sort of action. As a result of lack of cohesion, Poland was at the time undergoing repeated partitions and would eventually be swallowed up by Prussia, Russia, and Austria.
As others have stated, it is to protect the US from being sold out by pro British politicians. Nowadays its nothing more than a patriotic stance. The whole "Murica for Muricans" idea.
We can't have any foreign born socialists, communists, Marxists, Islamists, Atheists, non whites and all undesirable heathens come to Murica and change our ways of life of God, country, guns and unlimited supply of fried foods.
You should try soul food. Then you'll really have something to pout over. (And possibly a heart attack too)
I'm not sure if that's a slam against or endorsement of soul food. Personally, I love soul food, especially the barbecue part of it.
Most whites-against-blacks racism has been against black males, so I wonder if it might have something to do with black men swinging major pipe. Jealousy in other words.
What does that mean???
What does it all mean???
@ Kairan Nierde;
"What does it all mean???"
That may be the true underlying question. "Of For and By the People." has certainly lost it's meaning.
Sorry, comment in wrong spot, damn that Bill Gates :)
Was a reply to a comment I didn't get, was just an honest question, ended up looking disrespectful, I assure you it wasn't meant that way, normally when I am being disrespectful it is more obvious and crude.
To the original post...for me personally I don't think out of 300+ million Americans it is difficult to find plenty of candidates for the position who can meet all the criteria for the position. I am much more concerned about who provides them the money for their campaigns, that is our major failing as a free nation, we end up in servitude to those who control the most money.
In many countries with multiple parties, sometimes the smaller parties turn into kingmakers. Imagine a four-party system where party A and party B each poll at about 45%, party C polls at 6% and party D at 4%. Parties A and B will compete for the favor of party C and party D will be ignored. Now, suppose party C is a really rancid anti-gay anti-women's rights party. Imagine the deal that ends up being made.
The deal-making in a 2-party system is already distasteful enough.
Look at America's so-called Tea Party, which isn't strictly speaking a party, it's a faction in the Republican Party. They actually function like a third party and look at how they are destroying the Republican Party from the inside, although in their case they aren't demanding the party to accept their ultraconservatism in order to build a winning coalition. They (as is true of all radicals, liberal or conservative) are demanding doctrinal purity, even at the expense of losing. A third party can do that sort of thing in the situation I described by refusing to form a coalition. The belief may be that if they let things go to pot long enough, the people in the middle may see things their way. It's a delusion.