Hacker News Reader

Comment by ralfd | Hacker News Reader

Is Pope Leo eligible to be voted President of the United States?

Is he the first US Citizen to be head of a foreign state or have their been others?

Edit: Did some googling and found Toomas Hendrik Ilves was a naturalized US citizen who renounced his citizenship before becoming an Estonian ambassador and later President of Estonia. Not seeing any who actively held US citizenship while being head of state.

This is some excellent trivia. Thanks!

If my memory doesn’t fail, there has also been an American adventurer called William Walker who doubled as president of Nicaragua back in the 19th century

Just read a little about him, seems like a very weird guy who basically invaded Nicaragua and Bolivia on his own and declared himself president. It looks like he never had full control over the country and wasn't recognized as the valid president by most other nations, but he does seem to be the next closest.

Boris Johnson was also born an American citizen, but renounced it before coming prime minister. Not technically head of state (the queen was), but close enough.

Golda Meir was the Prime Minister (head of government) of Israel after having naturalized in the US when she was 19.

Looks like she gave up her US citizenship when she moved, as did Boris Johnson who was also mentioned. So I haven't seen anyone who retained citizenship and was a recognized head of state.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

This doesn't seem to comment on preexisting titles if I'm reading it correctly?

I'd read it as requiring the Pope to renounce his title if he wanted to be President of the US unless congress votes that it's OK.

But also the emolument clause is effectively unenforceable and the whole "insurgent" ruling basically made it impossible to challenge a presidential candidate. If Trump wants a 3rd term, for instance, I'm not sure what mechanism would prevent him at this point.

That just prevents the awarding of titles by the US, and prevents people already holding an office of the US from accepting a title. It doesnt seem to me to prevent anyone already holding a title from being eligible for office.

FWIW this has been read out of the Constitution. I doubt it would be applied in practice.

Does that mean a president could be knighted, as long as it's a queen or princess doing the knighting?

Quick googling on honorary knighthood:

> [Honorary knighthoods] are a way for the UK to recognize the achievements of individuals who are not UK citizens. They are awarded on the advice of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and are conferred by the Crown.

> In the US, accepting a title of nobility from a foreign state is prohibited without the consent of Congress. However, this prohibition is different from accepting an honorary knighthood, which is more of a recognition or award rather than a title of nobility.

"foreign State" still would seem to prohibit that.

Why would that even be a good thing? Religion is inherently above politics. Politics is concerned for the temporal good of its subjects.

Religion is concerned for the ethical and spiritual good of its subjects. Politics are short sighted and can never produce a paradise. Religion can produce a paradise in the soul of one even in the worst political and economic circumstances.

Jesus was homeless and broke.

That doesn't seem to mesh with the fact that religion has historically been deeply tied to politics and governance. Meddling in political affairs is a routine thing for organized religions. The very existence of the Pope is a power play designed to make the Church's power seem more legitimate and justified than politicians.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn

The existence of the Pope is inherent in the need for doctrinal and disciplinary unity. Otherwise when there's a dispute over whether to obey a pastor or whether he's correct about something in faith or morals, there's no arbiter, so the church splits in two, and it continues on the pattern of cancer. Naturally there will be faithless people in the church who use such positions as if they were political, but only because "if there is no resurrection, then let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" and politics is the most obvious way of ensuring that luxury.

How does this account for the numerous splits from the Church in the last 2 millennia?

Fallen human nature and all its corrupt motives accounts for that. The most obvious being that a good number of religious leaders have no interest in truth and are fine with causing division as long as it profits them.

I thought your thesis was that the Pope was supposed to protect the Church from that.

sure, why not?

Because he is the head of a foreign nation, and will hold that office till death. You cannot be head of multiple nations at once.

Tell that to King Charles.

> You cannot be head of multiple nations at once.

Says who? Is it actually prohibited in the us constitution?

The british monarch is head of state of multiple nations, and has been for over a century.

I think the more fitting example from that island is the personal union whereby the monarchs of England and Scotland happened to be the same person, but England and Scotland were still separate states. This started with James VI and I who became king of Scotland in 1567 and became king of England in 1603. This state of affairs continued (with I guess some de facto if not de jure interruptions) until the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, after which time the monarch held one title over one state.

Throughout that time and afterwards, the monarch of England & Scotland was often also the monarch of other territories too, so that "one title" is eliding a bunch of stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain

Napoleon - Emperor of France and King of Italy

King George VI/Queen Elizabeth II/Charles III - Monarch over several British Commonwealth realms.

Wilhelm II - Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia

To name a few who disagree.

The grand title [1] of Karl Franz Josef Ludwig Hubert Georg Otto Maria [2], the last Emperor of Austria is over 120 words:

His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem, etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friaul, Ragusa and Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trento and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and on the Windic March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodeship of Serbia

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_title_of_the_emperor_of_... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Austria#Titles,_s...

> and will hold that office till death

Ratzinger resigned.

If you "relax" your notion of what is a "nation", even POTUS is at fault at this rule - USA has states (50), territories (5), unhabited territories (9), district (1), and a lot of extra-continental bases and even disputed territories. [0]

I believe USA also claims land around any Apollo device at the Moon. [no source]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...

If we're talking about claims to the moon, the Bishop of Orlando is Bishop of the Moon, because the Apollo missions took off from Cape Canaveral, in the Diocese of Orlando.

Macron. France and Andorra.

That's a republican idea (with a small r), or maybe a nationalist one. Monarchs on the other hand had a habit of collecting titles. If you only had one title as the head of one political entity, you were obviously a very insignificant leader. Conquered territories often continued to exist as separate entities that just happened to have the same monarch, rather than being annexed into the dominant country.

Otto [von] Habsburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Habsburg)

By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria; Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria; King of Jerusalem etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukowina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Silesia, Modena, Parma, Piacenza, Guastalla, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, Friuli, Dubrovnik and Zadar; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenburg etc.; Lord of Trieste, Kotor and the Windic March, Grand Voivod of the Voivodeship of Serbia etc.

His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin

To be president you have to be a resident for the previous 14 years, so he wouldn't be eligible unless he moved here today and waited 14 years. He'd be 83 at that point.

Quora says:

> Interestingly, the Constitution does not specify whether the 14 years have to be consecutive, nor is the 14 years must occur immediately before the person becomes president. Herbert Hoover, for example, lived in London from 1910 to 1917, and when he ran for election in 1928, he had only lived, on his return, to the U.S. for 11 years. This did not disqualify him from the presidency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com