Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Arnold's Law
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Domestic Policy
Pages: 1, 2
Google
Fife and Drum
Caught this on Fox last night where they reported it as ‘Arnolds Law’ with the obvious implications for governor Schwarzenegger.

Story.

QUOTE
Under Senator Hatch's proposal, anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years and a resident for at least 14 years could be a candidate for president.


Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?

Y/N, please explain.
Google
Cadman
I voted no for a few reasons. One if this is going to happen they need to get rid of the law only allowing for 2 terms for a president. Second its funny how they say Edwards is to new for VP because of his inexperience, but Arnold is qualified for President in their eyes or even Bush Jr. when the only experience Arnold or Jr. had was governor of states. whistling.gif wacko.gif
Eeyore
I have mixed feelings about amending the constitution to change the ban on immigrants being eligible for public office, but I am definitely against changing the rules for people who have already entered the country with the understanding that they would not be eligible for the presidency.

If changing the Constitution is important enough, it should not matter if present famous people such as Arnold are to made eligible for the presidency.

If this is simply a device to get a particular person into the running for presidency, I think it is a horrible idea.
Doclotus
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Oct 6 2004, 04:44 PM)
Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?

Y/N, please explain.
*


I voted no. Arnold is hardly a compelling case for a constitutional amendment and I see no other examples warranting such a change. Amending our constitution is a significant undertaking. While I will agree with Senator Hatch that a time may come when such a change may be needed, I do not see that time being now. We have more important things to worry about.

Doc
DaffyGrl
I voted no, though my reason is more an emotional one than a logical one. I believe the highest elected office in the country should be held by a natural-born citizen. Without getting into all the other qualifications for the job, I guess I just want the leader of the country to at least have been born in it.

Why does it bother me that Orrin Hatch is behind this bill? hmmm.gif A friend of mine is adamant that the LDS are taking over...it's the fastest growing religion in the world....maybe he has a point ph34r.gif tongue.gif
Hero
I nulled my vote becuase I dont much care. Arnold should not be president ever. Shooting to amend the constitution to put another notch in his belt is a bad idea. However, I believe the role of president should go to the person most apt to lead the entire nation as a unified body, and with more and more citizens being non-native, there may come a time where the best man for the job is not a native born American.
droop224
Well I voted yes...because i believe in democracy. First of all once they become a citizen, hey are a citizen. The fact that they can't become President because they weren't naturally born in our imaginary lines of separation, just reeks of a superiority complex that we in America have become so famous for.

So if some one is born in our country but live most of their in Communist China that person should be able to get elected of someone that did the opposite??

Don't get me wrong I see the politics on the wall, but I am all for it, Arnold can't get in office, unless he is voted in. If someone is voted in then it was the people's choice.

The the current requirement is discriminatory, but what's worse is I don't think any one has a logical foot to stand on for believing in this discrimination, which turns it into bigotry.

I suggest we either make some serious sense why the there shouldn't be an amendment to the Constitution or fight for. Ridding ourselves of bigotry, thus allowing more inclusiveness and freedom is always a worthy reason to amend the Constitution
Aquilla
I raised this question in a slightly different form back in March. That thread can be viewed here. The idea of removing the restriction that one must be born in the US to be eligible for President is not new, nor is it a partisan issue. As I stated in the above linked thread, a bill to do exactly that was introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep, John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Cal) back on 3Sept2003. This was before Arnold even became Governor of California.

I supported the idea then and I support it now.
BoF
I support the idea in general, but at this time it's tied to Arnold in the public mind.

If I were in Congress I would vote for it with a provision that it does not apply for 25 years--basically a generation.

Otherwise, it would be seen as just what this thread implies--Arnold's Law.
kalabus
The voting here kind of surprised me. I knew republicans would vote yes because of Arnold and I thought democrats would vote yes simply because of the fact that democrats tend to be more inclusive and less tradionalist. I thought it would be a huge yes margin.

I think in a nation of immigrants that a foreign born American should be able to run for president say if they have 10-15 years in country. I think Arianna Hutchinson and Arnold are just as American as any one of us. I think this prohibition teeters on discrimination. I also think the 2 term limit should be voided but I am not going to shoot this down because I disagree with that.

In America something as piddly as where someone was born shouldnt be an obstacle to the level of success that person can achieve. This is a law set in a time when America was trying to rid itself of British elements in its goverment and men like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine served as martyrs but the law isnt necessary today and goes against the very heart and ideals of what America has become.

This is organized discrimination. Arnold and many other Americans not born here are just as American as any of us.
Google
Lesly
QUOTE(kalabus @ Oct 7 2004, 04:03 AM)
This is organized discrimination. Arnold and many other Americans not born here are just as American as any of us.
*


Well, I'm an immigrant, and I don't think I should be able to run for president in the country good enough to make me a citizen for several reasons, but foremost is admittedly loyalty. Using the executive office as a litmus test for integration and/or utilizing the talents of our best and brightest citizens, naturalized or otherwise, with so many offices already available except this one is an exercise in idealism. My international inclination with most things foreign has a limit and it stops at the White House's doorstep.
AuthorMusician
I'll be a traditionalist on this issue. With 260 million or so citizens, mostly natural-born on this soil, we have plenty of potential presidential candidates.

The test of the question is whether it's a needed thing. Is it worth amending the Constitution to allow more candidates for president? I just don't see the need, whereas going more towards a popular vote does carry benefits with the effort.

One of those benefits is giving third party, natural citizen candidates a shot at the White House. This is very hard to do with the present situation.

Another is to enfranchise the minority votes in a state.

Anyway, a naturalized citizen enjoys all the benefits of citizenship except for being President. If this could be changed more easily, it might be worth the effort so we don't discriminate, but there are bigger fish to fry, and those fish have plenty of meat. This one is a scrawny, boney bullhead.

I do have another argument against this proposal: Growing up in the US does have the potential of expanding one's outlook on the country. It is only a potential, not a sure thing, but immigrating from another country eliminates the potential.

It's a weak argument, that's for sure. It can even move into airy-fairy territory with ideas of the magical connection between birthplace and patriotism. But I thought I'd mention it, as I and others have felt this connection. Arbitrary? Yep. So are the boundaries of a country arbitrary. Just lines drawn on a map.

For that matter, the Constitution itself is just a bunch of scribbles on parchment. Yet we know that this arbitrary thing defines, to an extent, who we are.

Is it such a bad discrimination to disallow naturalized citizens from the presidency?

Has this caused a problem? Are people suffering from this discrimination? Does it weigh heavy on your mind?

It does not on mine. I'm much more concerned about other constitutional issues.
droop224
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 7 2004, 05:45 AM)
I'll be a traditionalist on this issue. With 260 million or so citizens, mostly natural-born on this soil, we have plenty of potential presidential candidates.

The test of the question is whether it's a needed thing. Is it worth amending the Constitution to allow more candidates for president? I just don't see the need, whereas going more towards a popular vote does carry benefits with the effort.

One of those benefits is giving third party, natural citizen candidates a shot at the White House. This is very hard to do with the present situation.

Another is to enfranchise the minority votes in a state.

Anyway, a naturalized citizen enjoys all the benefits of citizenship except for being President. If this could be changed more easily, it might be worth the effort so we don't discriminate, but there are bigger fish to fry, and those fish have plenty of meat. This one is a scrawny, boney bullhead.

I do have another argument against this proposal: Growing up in the US does have the potential of expanding one's outlook on the country. It is only a potential, not a sure thing, but immigrating from another country eliminates the potential.

It's a weak argument, that's for sure. It can even move into airy-fairy territory with ideas of the magical connection between birthplace and patriotism. But I thought I'd mention it, as I and others have felt this connection. Arbitrary? Yep. So are the boundaries of a country arbitrary. Just lines drawn on a map.

For that matter, the Constitution itself is just a bunch of scribbles on parchment. Yet we know that this arbitrary thing defines, to an extent, who we are.

Is it such a bad discrimination to disallow naturalized citizens from the presidency?

Has this caused a problem? Are people suffering from this discrimination? Does it weigh heavy on your mind?

It does not on mine. I'm much more concerned about other constitutional issues.
*




Is it such a bad discrimination to disallow naturalized citizens from the presidency?

Well we agree it is a discrimination that is pointless. I can concede that the issue isn't of the utmost importance, but if the vote came up a nay vote takes just as much action a yea vote. It seems to me you were more feeling like the issue is of little importance, which for the most part I agree. But that in no way explains why you would stand for pointless discrimination.

Another thing I notice is some of your reasoning doesn't pertain to the current prerequisites to be President. I.E.

QUOTE
Growing up in the US does have the potential of expanding one's outlook on the country. It is only a potential, not a sure thing, but immigrating from another country eliminates the potential.


Even if you believe this just a little, it still is irrelevant, because there is no requirement that someone has to grow up in the U.S., only that they be born here.

I'm not going to act like oh there is some GREAT injustice, because if they were able to become President in this country that mean they are already living the "fat cat" life. w00t.gif w00t.gif But please, especially fellow liberals, think it through and if there isn't a good reason to discriminate, than DON'T discriminate. It will make you look hypocritical in a later debate laugh.gif laugh.gif
AuthorMusician
QUOTE
But please, especially fellow liberals, think it through and if there isn't a good reason to discriminate, than DON'T discriminate. It will make you look hypocritical in a later debate


Okay. Then we need to drop the age requirement too. What's so magical about the age 35? Why not make it any age? Are we disallowing some child genius from becoming president?

Here's one thing that isn't hypocritical: This proposed amendment has not been pushed by the naturalized citizen community, at least as far as I know. Maybe there is some kind of movement? Organization? If so, then have at it. Naturalized citizens do have the right to push the change.
Cube Jockey
I nulled my vote because my support would be conditional (see below).

Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
In theory I see absolutely no problem with doing this because I don't see the Founding Father's reasons for setting it up this way anymore to be particularly valid or relevant anymore. From what I have read it appears it was done that way to prevent any foreign government from being able to influence the United States through one of its citizens, but I could be wrong about that. Maybe one of our constitutional scholars that lives and breathes their words can corfirm or deny that.

I also don't see it as a great injustice that needs to be rectified either. I mean yes it is discrimination and discrimination is a bad thing, but the way I see it this shouldn't be very high on our list of priorities right now given other things going on.

But, I think that the motives and timing behind it are highly suspect and I think everyone knows what I am referring to. The fact that it is being referred to as "Arnold's Law" should clue everyone in on it smile.gif I think that the GOP has realized that Arnold could be the next shining star politician because he is so different and they'd love nothing more than for him to run for office in 2008. There is only one problem with that, he isn't eligible for the office of president. Well that's no problem for the GOP, they'll just attempt to amend the constitution so their candidate can run. whistling.gif

There are good reasons to amend the constitution and there are bad ones, this is one of the worst.

So that being said, I am still ok with amending the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president provided that there is a clause in there that specifies it will not take effect until the 2028 elections. If we really need to amend the constitution and a politician like Swartzenegger inspired that, great. However, the amendment should not allow for the personal gain of anyone currently on the political stage.
droop224
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Oct 7 2004, 02:34 PM)
I nulled my vote because my support would be conditional (see below).

Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
In theory I see absolutely no problem with doing this because I don't see the Founding Father's reasons for setting it up this way anymore to be particularly valid or relevant anymore.  From what I have read it appears it was done that way to prevent any foreign government from being able to influence the United States through one of its citizens, but I could be wrong about that.  Maybe one of our constitutional scholars that lives and breathes their words can corfirm or deny that.

I also don't see it as a great injustice that needs to be rectified either.  I mean yes it is discrimination and discrimination is a bad thing, but the way I see it this shouldn't be very high on our list of priorities right now given other things going on.

But, I think that the motives and timing behind it are highly suspect and I think everyone knows what I am referring to.  The fact that it is being referred to as "Arnold's Law" should clue everyone in on it smile.gif  I think that the GOP has realized that Arnold could be the next shining star politician because he is so different and they'd love nothing more than for him to run for office in 2008.  There is only one problem with that, he isn't eligible for the office of president.  Well that's no problem for the GOP, they'll just attempt to amend the constitution so their candidate can run.  whistling.gif

There are good reasons to amend the constitution and there are bad ones, this is one of the worst.

So that being said, I am still ok with amending the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president provided that there is a clause in there that specifies it will not take effect until the 2028 elections.  If we really need to amend the constitution and a politician like Swartzenegger inspired that, great.  However, the amendment should not allow for the personal gain of anyone currently on the political stage.
*



Are you more concerned with Democracy or Democrats?? So what if Arnold could run tomorrow, there is this big thing that has to happen before he is President, right. The Amendment would still require that he be elected by the citizens of America. So even if the Republican are trying to set something up in the future for Arnold to become President, why does it matter. I'd take Arnold over most all of the Republicans I ever seen, and many of the Democrats. laugh.gif laugh.gif The people of this nation always take a back seat to the politics, but.... that's America!!

Author Musician

QUOTE
Okay. Then we need to drop the age requirement too. What's so magical about the age 35? Why not make it any age? Are we disallowing some child genius from becoming president?


mrsparkle.gif mrsparkle.gif Why are you reaching like that?? You know you're not really serious. laugh.gif Age prerequisite are discrimination with reason, not some whimsical intangible. In general, with age comes experience, with experience comes wisdom. These are valid reasons to have an age limit. We have age limits in many aspects of the law. We have an age limit to define a child as an adult. When to drive, when to drink, when to start school. Come on AuthorMusician, you know you want to be on my side on this, you just can't stand seeing republicans maneuvering the way they are!! thumbsup.gif w00t.gif Truth be told is I think Arnold is a wolf in sheeps clothing. In this case he's a liberal with some conservative views on money. If he ever got elected, half the republicans would be crying the blues within a couple of years.
Cube Jockey
QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 7 2004, 02:54 PM)
Are you more concerned with Democracy or Democrats??  So what if Arnold could run tomorrow, there is this big thing that has to happen before he is President, right.  The Amendment would still require that he be elected by the citizens of America.  So even if the Republican are trying to set something up in the future for Arnold to become President, why does it matter.  I'd take Arnold over most all of the Republicans I ever seen, and many of the Democrats.   laugh.gif  laugh.gif   The people of this nation always take a back seat to the politics, but.... that's America!!
*


Well, I am more concerned with Democracy of course but I hardly see this as even a minor impediment to Democracy. Like I said before a case could be made that it is discrimination, but it would be chalked up as very minor. This doesn't even come close to reaching the level of "we must fix this now" like it would if say women were barred from running or something.

As to your point about the motivation behind it - do you really believe it is ok for the Republicans to manipulate the Constitution just to stay in power droop? If so where does it end? I actually like what Arnold has done for California so far even though I voted against the recall (which I didn't agree with on principle).

Of course passing this amendment would not guarantee that Arnold is elected in 2008 or 2012, but it is the principle behind it that I have a problem with. It is without a doubt wrong to alter the constitution for personal and/or political gain.

That is why I don't have a problem with the amendment as long as a sufficiently long timer is put on it.
Aquilla
For those who insist on seeing this as some sort of a nefarious plot by the evil Republicans, I will once again point out for all the good it will do that a bill to do this was introduced in Sept of 2003 by 2 Democrats - John Conyers and Brad Sherman.

The text of this bill is here.
BoF
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 7 2004, 05:22 PM)
For those who insist on seeing this as some sort of a nefarious plot by the evil Republicans, I will once again point out for all the good it will do that a bill to do this was introduced in Sept of 2003 by 2 Democrats - John Conyers and Brad Sherman.
*



I think we saw where you pointed this out before. I'm not opposed to the idea in general. However, in a de facto sense, this has become Arnold's law. I don't think this stands a chance in Congress and ratification by the states is even less likely.

Despite the original intent, this is now a question of whether or not we choose to amend the constitution for the benefit of a particular indivivual.
droop224
CJ
QUOTE
Well, I am more concerned with Democracy of course but I hardly see this as even a minor impediment to Democracy. Like I said before a case could be made that it is discrimination, but it would be chalked up as very minor. This doesn't even come close to reaching the level of "we must fix this now" like it would if say women were barred from running or something.


Well then if Democracy is first, theoretically you should want the voter to decided if Arnold should become President in the Voting Booth

QUOTE
As to your point about the motivation behind it - do you really believe it is ok for the Republicans to manipulate the Constitution just to stay in power droop? If so where does it end? I actually like what Arnold has done for California so far even though I voted against the recall (which I didn't agree with on principle).


And how are Democrats different when they are trying to manipulate a change in Colorado to garner some of the electoral votes?? Don't get me wrong I support Democrats in that effort, because it is good for democracy. Republicans are trying to swindle in an Amendment, I agree, for disingenuous reasons. But allowing Americans to vote for someone they may likely want to see as President, regardless of his natural birth is also good for Democracy.

As we agree this is not a big case of discrimination. But neither is is a big change of the constitution. As a liberal, if the Constitution becomes more inclusive and stops pointless discrimination for just 1 person, just one, it was changed for the better, right??
logophage
droop, you've convinced me. I was on the fence (and nulled my vote). I can't see any compelling reason why someone who's been a citizen for 20+ years shouldn't be permitted to run for President. As for Ahnold, I'm fairly indifferent to him. I think though if the Republican party contained more moderates/centrists like him, I'd be much more inclined towards the party. Of course, I've been known to say that about Democrats as well wink.gif. And CJ, ulterior motives or not, I think that it is somewhat immaterial to the debate. One can almost always attribute ulterior motives to causes. It may be that Ahnold is the catalyst and not the cause.

So far the counter-arguments are:

* ulterior motives
* better things to do

Are there any others?
Cube Jockey
QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 7 2004, 05:48 PM)
Well then if Democracy is first, theoretically you should want the voter to decided if Arnold should become President in the Voting Booth

---Snip---

And how are Democrats different when they are trying to manipulate a change in Colorado to garner some of the electoral votes??  Don't get me wrong I support Democrats in that effort, because it is good for democracy.  Republicans are trying to swindle in an Amendment, I agree, for disingenuous reasons.  But allowing Americans to vote for someone they may likely want to see as President, regardless of his natural birth is also good for Democracy.

As we agree this is not a big case of discrimination.  But neither is is a big change of the constitution.  As a liberal, if the Constitution becomes more inclusive and stops pointless discrimination for just 1 person, just one, it was changed for the better, right??
*


Ok a few things here. First, I do not take altering the Constitution lightly, and I don't think that frivolous things deserve to be made into amendments. That is why we have so few of them, because the process is long, hard and I think people generally agree that only critical issues should make it in.

So that being said, yes you could make a case for discrimination here but as I said it would be very minor and unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I don't think anyone could say that not having naturalized citizens able to run for the office of president is anywhere near even the top 100 issues facing this country. So in an ideal world when we have solved our other problems, I would support dedicating energy to this.

The reason I don't agree with the current version of this proposed amendment is because it is clearly meant for political and personal gain of one person. I will never support an amendment with that as the core motivation. The people that wrote the amendment didn't have anything so noble as stamping discrimination out when they conceived it.

Regarding the change to Colorado's electoral vote distribution, that is a completely different issue. First, they are not amending the US Constitution to make the change. Secondly, regardless of who it was authored by the side that would theorhetically oppose it for partisan reasons is being asked to vote for it in the election and they traditionally hold a majority in the state. Finally, I would personally consider the problem with our current electoral system to be a much greater one than whether or not naturalized citizens can run for president.
Christopher
Aquilla
QUOTE
I supported the idea then and I support it now.

Why not just rename America the U.N and go from there?
Drivers licenses for illegals and so on?

I do not favor this idea regardless of who sponsored the idea.
The post of President should be open to only natural born Americans.
Mrs. Pigpen
Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?

Not in my opinion. This is part of the checks and balances that the founders were concerned with, and I don't see why it is less relevant today than it was back then. As we are speaking of a change to a fundamental document, there should be some sufficient justification for that change. I have yet to hear any. "We shouldn't discriminate" doesn't pass the test, because under this proposal, one form of discrimination (birth) is replaced with another (resident for 14 years, citizen for 20). Those conditions sound equally arbitrary to me, so I don't think the change is warranted.
crashfourit
I understand the emotional feeling that comes with the President of the U.S. being natural born citizen.

Amending the constitution to alow people that lived here 20 years to be President is some what trivial in the grand sceme of things. We have got better issues to use Article Five for.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
I have yet to hear one. "We shouldn't discriminate" doesn't pass the test, because under this proposal, one form of discrimination (birth) is replaced with another (resident for 14 years, citizen for 20). Those conditions sound equally arbitrary to me, so I don't think the change is warranted.


Quite right Mrs. Pigpen, we have more serious issues to worry about.
Like:
Federalism/Proper role of the states
Civil rights
Abortion
Etc...
Bikerdad
Voted "no"

The rationale of the Founding Fathers in implementing this restriction still stands: loyalty is BEST assured in natural born citizens. Note that the consideration is a RELATIVE standard.

Incidentally, not a one of those advocating the change have addressed the subject of dual citizenship... why not?
bucket
What is with the argument of loyalty? Especially coming from the democrats of this site. I had thought that political ideals were no indication of patriotism but apparently your circumstance of birth is?

I agree with the others ...there does not appear to be much of a solid argument against this. Except some vague distrust of a foreigners sense of loyalty to this country and that we have better things to do with our time.

You know kids have the "I am gonna grow up to be the president" mantra..much like they claim they'll be a veterinarian or a astronaut. I was never afforded this dream and neither will one of my children. I was very much ware of this as a child in America as I am sure many others are. And it isn't really about being the president so much as I think it is about simplistically expressing a desire to make a difference in a country you love and the response is no thank you can't have any of your foreigners messing around with our system.

I think perhaps many of you don't really understand the full implications of such discriminative laws.
blackbird SR71
us.gif if the person has been a citizen of the united states for at least 30 years, yeah, they should be able to run for president. a foreign born citizen can be the same or even more loyal to the american people than a natural born citizen. the only limitation on a foreign born citizen going for office should be that they must have been a citizen for more than 30 years at the least. us.gif
Argonaut
If I had a choice between a candidate who, after living here for just one year attained ciizenship, demonstrated a knoweledge of our history and an understanding of the benefits of free-market capitalism and the rule of law, versus an angry, patchouli-scented Marxist- Leninist who can trace their lineage back to Plymouth Rock, I would choose the "newbie"!

Then again, I am one of those crazy lunatics who choses their representatives based upon their policy proposals rather than the GPS position of their exit from their mothers womb. wacko.gif
Bikerdad
QUOTE
I think perhaps many of you don't really understand the full implications of such discriminative laws.
And I think that you, as well as others, fail to understand the full implications of why the Founding Fathers put that clause into the Constitution. It is deliberately discriminatory, as are the age restrictions on Federal elected office. I fail to see why a bunch of Jonni Come Lately's think that they're so much smarter than the guys who created a system of government that has been the most successful in the world. By "Jonni Come Lately", I mean pretty much all of us. I like Arnold, and am pleased that he's replaced Gray(out) Davis.

"ooh, its discriminatory." ANY restriction on who can be Pres is discriminatory. There is one living American today, born and bred in the USA, who CANNOT be President. No Presidential pardon, no Executive Order, no Act of Congress, no Writ of the Supreme Court, not even the write in ballots of 120 million voters will allow this American to be President. Discrimination? Youbetcha! And the citizen knew it going in, just as every naturalized citizen knows that going in... they can't be President. whaaaaaaa....

150 million jobs in America, and you can't have that ONE! whaaaaaaa....

mellow.gif
Artemise
I agree with many here on several points. Changing the Consitution should only be done with in depth thought for reasons of deep concern to the US, not to further one party or one persons ambitions. If not for 'Arnold' noone would even be considering a change, and therefore, for me the consideration of change is unfounded.

It is of interest that when the Founders wrote the Constitution, almost noone who wrote it was natural born to the US, yet they wrote 'in' this provision on purpose. It was about loyalty, patriotism and assuring that the US would be run by those who did not have outside interests or 'other' ideologies, affiliations or loyalties. We cannot say that those ideals have changed at this point in history, especially at this point in history.

Some reasons are clear, for example, Arnold has been known in the past to admire Hitler. He had experience with that regime. He thought that was a good thing. He may have changed his viewpont since, but still....

Most of all, there is no way that a Constitutional amendment should be made in order to put one particular person in power.

I saw the movie 'Demolition Man' (1993) , which claimed that the US liked Arnold so much that they voted to change the Constitution and make him President. I was a bit taken aback by the suggestion then, which has now come to some reality, and I dont think the 'dropping' of that proposal was not purposeful.

When considering the second amendment, guns. The fact that they were one or two shot -hand loading muskets does not matter in the least when we ask ourselves about the second amendment. We consider today that semi or automatic handguns are our right, as a well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear ALL arms, regardless of todays standards, and our children killing each other and metal detectors in schools have absolutely no effect on the Constitution, so..why should the Consititution be amended for Arnold? Are we THAT entranced with Hollywood?

I also think it pertinent that conservatives say that Hollywood should butt out of politics when its Sarandon or Penn, but have no problem when its Arnold, whom they would change the Constitution for. Its absolutely ludicrous.

I personally would fight against this. Although I like him, I do not want to see the Constitution amended for him and believe this is wrong. I dont take to amending the Constitution lightly, and certainly not under these circumnstances.

hayleyanne
QUOTE(Artemise @ Mar 11 2005, 07:50 AM)
I agree with many here on several points. Changing the Consitution should only be done with in depth thought for reasons of deep concern to the US, not to further one party or one persons ambitions. If not for 'Arnold' noone would even be considering a change, and therefore, for me the consideration of change is unfounded.

It is of interest that when the Founders wrote the Constitution, almost noone who wrote it was natural born to the US, yet they wrote 'in' this provision on purpose. It was about loyalty, patriotism and assuring that the US would be run by those who did not have outside interests or 'other' ideologies, affiliations or loyalties. We cannot say that those ideals have changed at this point in history, especially at this point in history. 

Some reasons are clear, for example, Arnold has been known in the past to admire Hitler. He had experience with that regime. He thought that was a good thing. He may have changed his viewpont since, but still....

Most of all, there is no way that a Constitutional amendment should be made in order to put one particular person in power.

I saw the movie 'Demolition Man' (1993) , which claimed that the US liked Arnold so much that they voted to change the Constitution and make him President. I was a bit taken aback by the suggestion then, which has now come to some reality, and I dont think the 'dropping' of that proposal was not purposeful.

When considering the second amendment, guns. The fact that they were one or two shot -hand loading muskets does not matter in the least when we ask ourselves about the second amendment. We consider today that semi or automatic handguns are our right, as a well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear ALL arms, regardless of todays standards, and our children killing each other and metal detectors in schools have absolutely no effect on the Constitution, so..why should the Consititution be amended for Arnold?  Are we THAT entranced with Hollywood?

I also think it pertinent that conservatives say that Hollywood should butt out of politics when its Sarandon or Penn, but have no problem when its Arnold, whom they would change the Constitution for. Its absolutely ludicrous.

I personally would fight against this. Although I like him, I do not want to see the Constitution amended for him and believe this is wrong. I dont take to amending the Constitution lightly, and certainly not under these circumnstances.
*



Artemise, the movement may have its motivation from wanting to get Arnold in to office-- but he is not the only rising "star" out there. Here, in Michigan our governor Jennifer Granholm is canadian and many say that she would make a wonderful presidential candidate. She is also a democrat.

I think as long as someone has lived in the U.S. for a significant period of time, they should be allowed to run for the office. If the concerns are about patriotism etc, surely a lengthy stay in the U.S. of someone as well as that person's civil involvement and holding of office (like governor), should alleviate the patriotism concern.
VDemosthenes
We cannot lose America to foreign-born Americans. I will grant them every right to citizenship and all the benefits America has to offer. But we cannot loose America to an un-American-born person. Once we allow an out of towner to sit in the Oval Office an international conspiracy would be put in the works. Hostile nations would embrace this new law as a way to place an operative in the highest office of the land of the most powerful country the world has every known. We cannot submit and open our doors to other countries, should we do this we could potentially loose our rights as citizens. Other nations do not let American's become their leader... why would we allow other nations a foothold in ours? Call me a boy rolling up the ladder because the girls found our tree house but I am far too loving of America to let anyone besides a red-blooded president choose what's best for me.
How can any patriot support the idea of letting citizens not born in America run for president? We would become a nation of sellouts who would become a laughing-stock because the international media would have a field day claiming that America can hardly manage its own affairs so it is letting someone else have a swing. An amendment is not acceptable because it would sweep American issues under the rug. I know most people move to America desire freedom but what would happen should we let a madman rule America and he is still a huge supporter of his embroiled-in-revolt homeland and uses our weapons to eliminate his true homeland's tyrannical regime? We need to keep America in the hands of Americans.
Bikerdad
QUOTE
I also think it pertinent that conservatives say that Hollywood should butt out of politics when its Sarandon or Penn, but have no problem when its Arnold, whom they would change the Constitution for. Its absolutely ludicrous. - Artemise


Artemise, you know that I'm a conservative, and as you ae clearly seen, I object to amending the Constitution for Ahnold. Also, comparing Sarandon or Penn to Arnold is quite disengenious of you. Neither Sarandon, Penn, Robbins, or most of the rest of the yakkin' Hollywood types have run for office.

Curious... Why is it that politically active moderate and conservative entertainers (Reagan, Fred Thompson, Bono) actually run for office, whereas liberal/leftie types simply yak, yak, yak about others making sacrifices, but aren't willing to actually enter public service? hmmm.gif

btw, Arnold, on the whole, is moderate not conservative.
ConservPat
QUOTE
Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
Yes. Every American should have the right to run for President. In this country, no one is guarenteed to succeed, but everyone should be given a chance. That's one of our founding principals. I for one, would not vote for a foreign born Presidential candidate for much of the same reasons mentioned here. With that being said, that foreign born candidate should be given an opportunity.

CP us.gif
Bikerdad
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Mar 13 2005, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE
Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
Yes. Every American should have the right to run for President. In this country, no one is guarenteed to succeed, but everyone should be given a chance. That's one of our founding principals. I for one, would not vote for a foreign born Presidential candidate for much of the same reasons mentioned here. With that being said, that foreign born candidate should be given an opportunity.

CP us.gif
*



Curious that you would invoke "one of our founding principals" in order to justify tossing aside part of one of our founding documents.
Argonaut
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Mar 14 2005, 12:26 AM)
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Mar 13 2005, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE
Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
Yes. Every American should have the right to run for President. In this country, no one is guarenteed to succeed, but everyone should be given a chance. That's one of our founding principals. I for one, would not vote for a foreign born Presidential candidate for much of the same reasons mentioned here. With that being said, that foreign born candidate should be given an opportunity.

CP us.gif
*



Curious that you would invoke "one of our founding principals" in order to justify tossing aside part of one of our founding documents.
*



I didn't find ConservPat's invocation of a "founding principle" curious at all. If the "principle" he invokes as "In this country, no one is guarenteed to succeed, but everyone should be given a chance" was meant to paraphrase that part of the Declaration that talks about equality and the "inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, then I can't think of a better reason to (as Bikerdad put it) "justify tossing aside part of one of our founding documents"?

More importantly however, didn't our "founding fathers" also include in that same "founding document" a process for ammending said document? Bikerdad calls it "tossing aside". Others ("founders" included)) call it Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Heck, they even devoted an entire Article to it. Whereas the qualifications for President is only a Clause in a Section (2) of Article 2.
aevans176
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Mar 13 2005, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE
Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?
Yes. Every American should have the right to run for President. In this country, no one is guarenteed to succeed, but everyone should be given a chance. That's one of our founding principals. I for one, would not vote for a foreign born Presidential candidate for much of the same reasons mentioned here. With that being said, that foreign born candidate should be given an opportunity.

CP us.gif
*



I really don't know that the fact that Arnold was born on foreign shores makes him any less American at heart than the rest of us. The funny thing is that we readily accept demographics in America nearly denouncing their "American-ness". Most of us don't have any problem with the term African American, even though nearly all of these people were born right here on American soil.

Arnold wants to be American. He took his fame and fortune and dumped into public service. He's the true embodiment of the American dream. He came to America and made a fortune out of hard work, dedication , etc.

I say let him run. I would easily vote for him before someone that feels the need to hyphenate their American identity (i.e. African-American, etc).
loreng59
I voted for Arnold for California governor, but do not support amending the US Constitution for him to run for President.

It is not that I am against Arnold, but am against amending the Constitution without an extremely compelling reason. It is not like we do not have qualified people to run that meet the criteria laid down in the Constitution. We most certainly have people that would make a good President.

Until that situation arises I would strenuously oppose amending the Constitution just so Arnold can run for President.
aevans176
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Mar 14 2005, 10:12 AM)
I voted for Arnold for California governor, but do not support amending the US Constitution for him to run for President.

It is not that I am against Arnold, but am against amending the Constitution without an extremely compelling reason. It is not like we do not have qualified people to run that meet the criteria laid down in the Constitution. We most certainly have people that would make a good President.

Until that situation arises I would strenuously oppose amending the Constitution just so Arnold can run for President.
*



The funny thing is that it seems everyone's point revolves around the Constitution, which has been amended on 27 different occasions. How can we not stand behind someone that has been in this country for the vast majority of their lives? We allow people to stand on national television and talk about being "African-American" on a daily basis, as if there is something wrong with being Americans. These very people can run for Presidential office; consider that Lewis Farrakhan could run for President but Arnold can't. What's wrong with that?

America was carried into existence on the shoulders of immigration, and is by far one of the most diverse societies in the world. It's just time to re-think this policy...


loreng59
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Mar 14 2005, 10:39 AM)
The funny thing is that it seems everyone's point revolves around the Constitution, which has been amended on 27 different occasions. How can we not stand behind someone that has been in this country for the vast majority of their lives? We allow people to stand on national television and talk about being "African-American" on a daily basis, as if there is something wrong with being Americans. These very people can run for Presidential office; consider that Lewis Farrakhan could run for President but Arnold can't. What's wrong with that?

America was carried into existence on the shoulders of immigration, and is by far one of the most diverse societies in the world. It's just time to re-think this policy...
*

Yes the Constitution has been amended and when it has been done, it has not always had the desired results. I refer to the 18th and 21st Amendments.

There can be unforeseen consequences to amending the Constitution. So I favor a very tough criteria when it comes to an amendment. It must be an extremely compelling reason, or two rectify an extreme injustice. The Bill of Rights for the first reason, the 19th and 24th Amendments certainly fall within the second reason.

I have yet to see such a compelling reason just to allow somebody that is currently popular to run for President.
ConservPat
QUOTE
Curious that you would invoke "one of our founding principals" in order to justify tossing aside part of one of our founding documents.
As Argonaut said, I was paraphrasing "one of our founding documents". My point is, that if you don't want to vote for a foreigner [which I wouldn't], don't vote for him, but to not give him a chance isn't right. And in addition, I thought allowing people to decide who their leader is is also one of our "founding principles". Democracy means people should be able to vote for whoever they want.

CP us.gif
quarkhead
Arnold is worth diddly as a politician, and should never be voted dogcatcher.

That said, I do support this amendment; what's so danged special about being born in a particular place? Currently, you have to be born not just a citizen, but also on American soil. It's just silly. People are people, and someone from Mongolia could be just as good a president as someone from Iowa. Obviously, the person should be a citizen of the US. That, however, should be the only requirement.
Hobbes
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Mar 14 2005, 02:40 PM)
...what's so danged special about being born in a particular place? Currently, you have to be born not just a citizen, but also on American soil. It's just silly. People are people, and someone from Mongolia could be just as good a president as someone from Iowa. Obviously, the person should be a citizen of the US. That, however, should be the only requirement.
*



I agree. This is one of those things where you need to consider what was going on when they wrote this...the concern was surely someone from Britain becoming President, thereby turning the US into a set of puppet colonies again. Also, there has been a quantum shift in information available to the voters now. Its hardly likely that what the framers were concerned about could happen now. As Quark said...what currently makes someone born somewhere else less able to govern this country. In fact, I think a good argument could now be made that an immigrant is probably better able to appreciate the things that make America great...and might therefore be even more qualified than someone born here (consider all the idiots we currently have in Congress who were indeed born here). In any case...someone's origin would certainly become a campaign issue if something 'fishy' were there. No need for a separate provision to handle that issue anymore.
Just Leave me Alone!
us.gif I had to vote no. To ensure loyalty to the United States first and foremost is the reason that the founders specifically put that clause in the Constitution. We cannot afford to have someone at the highest office in America that will likely treat their former country with special priviledges. A foreign born person can still do a lot of good in the Senate, on a Cabinet, a judge, etc. Is it so wrong to have one special office reserved for those who are born here?
ConservPat
Just leave me Alone: A wise man once had a signature in his post that said "It's all about freedom." the point I and my cohorts have said is that people should have the freedom to choose who they want to be President. If you're a foreigner elected President you have been embraced by a majority/plurality of Americans period. Therefore you're just as legitimate as anyone else.

CP us.gif
aevans176
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Mar 14 2005, 03:40 PM)
Arnold is worth diddly as a politician, and should never be voted dogcatcher.

That said, I do support this amendment; what's so danged special about being born in a particular place? Currently, you have to be born not just a citizen, but also on American soil. It's just silly. People are people, and someone from Mongolia could be just as good a president as someone from Iowa. Obviously, the person should be a citizen of the US. That, however, should be the only requirement.
*



As sad as it is... I agree with you, except maybe on the cruddy politician statement. I wouldn't vote for him to be President... but there are/have been way worse.

I do believe that there should be citizenship requirements, such a period of time. I really don't know that American society is ready for an immigrant to get elected, but it can't hurt to open the door. As long as the person is naturalized and doesn't hold dual citizenships... go for it. My apprehension lies in this trend extending into the hands of non-naturalized inhabitants of our nation, or maybe even immigrants with dual-citizenships (such as Mexican-Americans in TX).
Hobbes
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Mar 14 2005, 02:53 PM)
us.gif I had to vote no.  To ensure loyalty to the United States first and foremost is the reason that the founders specifically put that clause in the Constitution.  We cannot afford to have someone at the highest office in America that will likely treat their former country with special priviledges.  A foreign born person can still do a lot of good in the Senate, on a Cabinet, a judge, etc.  Is it so wrong to have one special office reserved for those who are born here?
*



JLMA...what it is about being born here that you feel unsures loyalty. History is replete with examples where that assumption is violated. So, given that...yes, it is wrong. It is an artificial barrier, which provides a false perception. Also, allow me to twist the question around...why should we exclude 90% of the people on earth from what might be the single most important position? Shouldn't we want to expand the available pool to ensure that the highest quality of applicants are available. Everyone, from all parties, seems fairly unimpressed with the level of candidates available. Personally, I think perhaps an immigrant might indeed be the best candidate....they would have a better appreciation and understanding of the office. Regardless of your personal feelings about Arnold...has not he, and others like him, lived the American dream in such a way that only they can understand it? They do not take for granted the things that America offers...therefore they might indeed be better equipped to support those things.
Horyok
Should we amend the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run for president?

I voted YES.

I believe that for someone that has lived and become an American citizen for a significant amount of time (15, 20, 30 years... whatever), it is rightful and just to have the aspiration to serve and represent all of his fellow citizens.

A foreign-born candidate would possibly incarnate some of the greater ideas that America promotes : first, that Freedom knows no boundaries and second, that there are men and women from all nations who love America so much they're willing to come and live there and serve their country of adoption in return.

(IMO, as a president, you are to stand above the parties, because you have been empowered by the people of your nation, whether they voted for you or not.)

Personally, should I become an American citizen someday and granted that the Constitution is amended, I would not choose to run for presidency. Because I couldn't choose between France and America. However, I would gladly give my vote to a foreign-born candidate who shows his/her engagement and conviction in service to America.
Just Leave me Alone!
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Mar 14 2005, 05:04 PM)
Just leave me Alone: A wise man once had a signature in his post that said "It's all about freedom."  the point I and my cohorts have said is that people should have the freedom to choose who they want to be President.  If you're a foreigner elected President you have been embraced by a majority/plurality of Americans period.  Therefore you're just as legitimate as anyone else.

CP  us.gif
*


I can't really argue with you or Hobbes on this one. I just see this as a way to protect ourselves from ourselves. I agree that it was probably put in the Constitution with the British in mind and may be outdated, but I don't see any good reason to change it. The likelyhood of the foreign person being loyal to their former country is much greater than if the person was born in the US. It's a safeguard. Perhaps a paranoid, unfair safeguard. But it's not worth changing IMO.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.