This is a surprisingly illustrative anecdote.

America is incredible at "doing the right thing" when push comes to shove - regardless of policy, procedure, or legalese. In so many ways, going through life in the US means people figure out how to help you, unblock you, or ignore hurdles.

Allowing Arnold to become president if he was interested is clearly such thing - no sensible person would think it should be prevented - so it won't.

But unfortunately the whole procedure is not documented, relies heavily on systemic and entrenched privilege, and as the Trump administration revealed, and how the culture has evolved since then, can absolutely be mercilessly abused and taken advantage of by bad actors. The fact that the President could violate dozens of straight up laws, and not be charged with any crime is a mockery of the justice system. It really is "rules for thee, not for me".

As a white male, I find America (and to some degree Canada, which straddles the middleground) very convenient. As opposed to when I lived in Western Europe, and found myself facing an emotionless bureaucrat telling me "I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do."

But I also know a system with unwritten rules is never going to be equal, never mind equitable.

>The prof spoke in a way that implied this is an accepted truth in the legal community

So the law professor talked like a lawyer? :)

There would definitely be people who could argue standing, however. You could start with their opponents in the general election. More likely I think would be their primary opponents (probably initially at the state level). The Supreme Court could attempt to evade this by calling it a political question outside of the court's jurisdiction (they've done this in denying challenges to gerrymandered maps, although those are different in being acts of the states, rather than contesting an irregular election), or they could in theory deny cert and let a lower court's decision stand, although I think that's unlikely.

(IANAL)

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

The first few presidents were citizens of the US when the Constitution was adopted (previously, the US had been governed by the Articles of Confederation.)

This rule was enacted to prevent Alexander Hamilton from becoming president. He also wasn't born in the US. The term "naturalized" wasn't yet well defined.

The first American born president (born after the revolution) was Van Buren, the first 7 were born British citizens!

> I wonder why that rule exists and what benefit it provides. The first couple presidents couldn't have met it, so I wonder when it was introduced.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" from section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution (adopted 1789).

There is some legal debate about what "natural born Citizen" means now, but that has not fully been testing in court IIUC.

It's interesting because the US also has unconditional jus soli citizenship (if you are born on American soil, no matter what your circumstances, you are granted citizenship). Nearly all major countries in the Americas have jus soli citizenship, but very few countries outside the Americas do.

It’s an 18th century solution to the problem of foreign kings.

It was to prevent foreign influence. The first couple presidents all met it, having been born in territory that became the U.S.. Mexico also did similar things with property rights surrounding the end of the Spanish mission era, in effort to remove Spanish influence.

Yep, it seems like a bizarre relic of a bygone era. This actually made me wonder if there's any place else in the government with this requirement. As far as I know, it only applies to the president. But what about the Vice President? He or she could be promoted if the president leaves. Then what about the Speaker of the House (3rd in line and I believe there is literally no requirement for the job; they're not even required to be a member of the house). I'm sure someone's thought through this already and there's a plan in place, but I never had.