I wasn't aiming for absolute technical accuracy and don't think it was expected. I'm well aware of the specific technical limitations related to age, time living in the US, and citizenship requirements.

I'll not argue as to the correctness or morality of such a requirement.

>I wasn't aiming for absolute technical accuracy and don't think it was expected.

I understand. It's just something that is frustrating. Having two classes of citizenship is something that affects many parts of life, especially if you decide on a career doing anything that requires a security clearance.

We have more than two classes.

Ask anyone "convicted" of a felony. "Accused" of a mental disorder.

I put the scare quotes because most convictions are plea bargains that the accused are bullied into by prosecutors and police stacking and inflating charges and the overall lack of competent and affordable legal representation.

Laws are being passed now that permit the suspension of constitutional rights without due process if you are accused of or ever seek help for many mental disorders.

Sensationalistic fear of the 'boogeyman' has destroyed many of our political processes.

Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office? I suppose an atheist is very unlikely to become president of the US any time soon, but I always wondered what would happen if one did get voted in.

I certainly don't think so.

There's a clause that explicitly bans religious tests for federal public office[1], and a landmark SCOTUS case clarified that state governments cannot do this either[2].

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

> Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office?

No, in addition to the clause which directly prohibits religious tests, there is no clause which does anything like that; the required oath or affirmation is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No supreme being required or even directly relevant. You may be confusing the Presidency with Alcoholics Anonymous, which requires acknowledging a “higher power”.

> You may be confusing the Presidency with Alcoholics Anonymous

I do that all the time.

No. Several presidents were sworn in using documents like the Constitution and the Magna Carta instead of the Bible.

No, that’s not a thing.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That’s it.

“So help me god” is not part of it, despite some tradition. Not all presidents have used bibles or sworn to a god.

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

Several of the Founders we're not even Christian, hence Adams calling Paine a "filthy athiest" (untrue: he was a Deist).

There are states outlawing atheists from holding state offices, but the oath of office for US president does not contain religious references. It is specified in the Constitution.

Oaths of office for other federal positions do contain the phrase "so help me God," but so far as I know there has never been a problem omitting it; I had several friends in Federal service do so.

I'm sure the congress would find a workaround if that came to be. Perhaps you'd just have consider it (the swearing in) just a part of the ceremony and not part of a belief? Of course, an atheist zealot would probably have an issue with that, but I imagine the kind of atheist to get elected would be the pragmatic kind.

> Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being ... ?

Quite the opposite. The first amendment's establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion, i.e., forcing religious on someone.

Probably the single smartest decision the founding fathers made was to separate church and state.