KIRO-7 News (Seattle) reported that lawmakers have introduced bills to change the Constitution to allow non-naturalborn Americans to become President, providing they have lived in the U.S. for at least 20 years.
Part of me says, “Why not?” A “foreign influence” might allow the U.S. to become a better World Citizen.
On the other hand, Arnold might be good for a laugh in California; but do we really want him as President?
I’m not particularly worried about President Arnold. Remember that he won the recall in California in which most people were so fed up with Davis that his name recognition alone got him enough votes. His name also worked well in that very short campaign. I don’t think the Governator has the stuff to go through an entire campaign. At best I see him as a brief blip in the primaries.
I’m not really concerned about Ahnold becoming President; but I think that he provided the incentive for the proposed legislation. I guess the debate is whether the Constitution should be amended to allow some foriegn national to become President sometime in the future.
Well, IANAA (American), but the change looks to me like a good idea. If anything, it’s probably still too restrictive with the 20 years restriction. In general it seems to me that people should be allowed to vote for who they want, even if he was born in Europe or is only 34 years old. Even if he’s already been president twice.
The way to find out is to let him run. If people want him, they’ll elect him.
Of course, this cannot be done with “bills.” It would require a constitutional amendment. Those are really tough to pass and one seemingly designed for the benefit of one person would stand little chance of ratification.
Talk about wiping your ass with the constitution. I for one think at a minimum, that the one who leads the country should at least be born here.
Call me old fashion, but I think the constitution should not be at the whims of the ruling party just so they can have a chance at increasing their tenure in office.
For a nation that is so boastful and proud (and rightfully so) of being populated by immigrants from other lands, to still have some “place of birth” requirement to attain the highest office in the country is just silly.
And remember, amending the Constitution like this doesn’t instantly mean President Schwarzenegger. It could mean a Democratic President Granholm just as easily. (Gov. Granholm was born in Canada before moving to my wonderful home state.)
Of course we wouldn’t amend the constititution to allow foreign nationals to become president. It would allow foreign born american CITIZENS to be come president, not citizens of other countries.
And Mr. Tuff Paws, how exactly is the constitution at the whims of the party in power? Do you understand how the constitution gets amended? Do they teach that in school any more?
And why would you expect that this particular proposed amendment would benefit one party over another? Why would you expect that if the Constituition were amended, and Arnie ran for president, that he would come close to winning even the republican primaries, let alone the election? The republican’s can’t force Arnie down the throats of the American people, the voters have to vote him into office first. If you don’t like him, don’t vote for him.
Arnold’s biggest problem in a Presidential campaign is that his past may not stand up to the level of scrutiny that a Presidential campaign brings on it. Think about the flap about Bush possibly missing some technical requirements for guard duty, and how that has dogged him over the years. Now consider some of Arnold’s liabilities:
He bragged in a magazine interview about having group sex, and how he was proud that he could get it up in the presence of other men, while some guys couldn’t.
He’s on film smoking weed. Imagine the move-on ad for that one - show film of Arnold taking a big hoot on a reefer: “You want this guy for President”?
He’s said a number of extreme things in his past, many of which are on the record. Some of the extreme things I agree with (his more Libertarian positions), but I’m not sure how they’ll play with the electorate.
The groping scandal.
And that’s just the stuff we know about now. How much dirt would get dredged up in a national campaign where the opposition has hundreds of millions of dollars for opposition research?
I like Arnold, and I think he’d make a fine President. I also think the amendment that forbids foreign-born citizens from running is an anachronism. But I have my doubts about a successful Schwartzenegger candidacy. It’s hard to make it through a presidential campaign without a squeaky-clean record.
Well, two questions here. One, should foriegn born CITIZENS be able to run for President. My answer is HELL YES. Set some kind of time limit if you must (i.e. make them be citizens for 5 or 10 years…whatever), but why shouldn’t they be able to run? Wiping our ass with the constitution is allowing US CITIZENS, albiet foriegn born citizens, to run for President?? Thats crazy, but I can’t express my outrage at that statement properly here. :mad:
Second question: Arnold for President. Again, my own answer is HELL YES. I realize he has a lot of political baggage and wouldn’t stand a chance…mores the pity that we have to elect luke warm milk toast candidates like Kerry and Bush just because they are palatable to ‘main stream America’. Fuck, give me someone with some color and character. Arnie slept with multiple women? More power to him. He took some hits on some weed…AND inhaled? Gods forbit. :eek: If by some miricle Arnie runs he’ll be my man in 2008…if nothing else BECAUSE of his color (as well of course as his Libertarian leanings).
I won’t be holding my breath though…we’ll probably get another ‘lesser of two evils’ choice next time too.
-XT
I would think that the Democratic process should allow the public to chose a president without restriction as to the presidents place of Birth or age. They should be citizens of the country and fit to lead (not in prison or mentally insane) but other than that other restrictions are to my mind anti-democratic.
Hmmm… anyone ever see “No Way Out”? That’s yer answer right there…
Insisting that a prospective President be born in the USA seems unnecessarily restrictive, especially in these days of globalisation - a world that didn’t exist when the Constitution was drawn up.
These days many American citizens are born in places such as Hong Kong or Europe. That these people should be disqualified from the highest office in the country is an anachronism.
One might have the best written constitution in the world, but if one doesn’t update it to keep up with changing times, it has the potential to become a millstone.
You hit the nail right on the head. I don’t think we will ever have “The Presidator”, I think the highest Arnold will go is “Governator”, which he is right now, or heh heh “Senatator”. I don’t agree that anyone who just showed up should be eligible, but if someone has been here in the US for a long time (Don’t ask how long, I don’t have any idea), and has shown the abilities needed (whatever the heck that is), should be allowed to try for President.
And it just doesn’t seem right somehow that Ronald Reagan can be President when Bob Hope and Cary Grant can’t.
Are you talking about American citizens giving birth in a foreign country, or people born in a foreign country that emmigrate and become citizens? Big difference. I doubt a member of the US military born to American parents on a military base in Germany would exclude that child from eligibility to run for President.
Am I wrong on this?
My take on it? This is clearly ‘about’ Ahnold right now. Five years ago, nobody on either side of the aisle gave utterance to thirty seconds’ worth of concern about that ‘outdated’ piece of the Constitution.
It’s no more ‘outdated’ than the Electoral College, but due to the way the 2000 election fell out, the GOP considers the Constitutional language about the EC to be holy writ now.
Funny thing, how they want to update one but not the other.
My take on it is, let’s wait until Ahnold the Borrower (he’s got that piece of Republicanism down pat) has run his political course, then let’s see how people feel about changing the Constitution with the times.
That’s supposed to mean the child of two Americans on a military base. But you all knew that. 
Apparently, around 10 percent of children born to US citizens miss out. It’s a pretty complex situation.
Apologies to the Constitution. I was wrong on this.