Here’s the story
Well, what do you think?
No.
We did this thread a few months ago, and there wasn’t much support for the status quo. I doubt things have changed much around here since then.
I would support a change in the constitution, as I believe the original reason for the restriction being in there is no longer relavent. The amendment being discussed would require the person to have been a citizen for 20 years. I don’t know if 20 yrs is the right number, but it sounds reasonable to me.
If I had to rate this in terms of importance to the nation, though, I’d put it far down on the list. I’d prefer our Congress people to spend some time balancing the budget and lowering overall spending rather than worrying about this triviality.
I’m in favor of it, but only after Arnold is a long-dead rotting corpse.
Heck no! Do you also want all restaurants to become Taco Bell? 
[sub]P.S. For some non-American releases, references to Taco Bell in the Demolition Man were changed digitally to Pizza Hut![/sub]
Like John, I can’t think of any good reasons to keep the status quo (once I’ve eliminated xenophobia and the chills I feel when I imagine President Arnold) but it seems far from the most important thing on Congress’ plate. And before the CaliGuv gets any ideas he should realize it would also open up the possibility of President Tsoros.
How else can we have Simon Cowell become president?
Shouldn’t he be trying to actually accomplish some of the things he promised Californians he’d do as Governor? This ruminating in public makes it look like he isn’t committed to the task at hand, and it’s certainly a big enough one without undermining his own moral authority to do it. Let him actually get something big done before he asks anyone but Maria to think of him as presidential timber.
But he’s right in what he said; the “native-born” clause has negative value today.
Elvis:
He made the comment on MTP this AM. His main reason for going on that show was to push for the ballot initiative he is sponsoring. The question about the “native born clause” came up by Russert, and Arnold gave his answer. There’s no evidence that Arnold is spending any amount of time pushing for it. So I’d say your concern is unfounded.
I agree that it is way down on the “to-do” list. However I can’t see an reason to oppose the idea.
Not worth the bother to change anything, IMO. Are we short on people running for president?
If Arnold is pushing this in order to qualify Jennifer Granholm (Michigan’s Canadian-born governor) for the presidency, then bully for him. If for his own benefit, I’d say he suffers from delusions of adequacy.
It galls me that some Liberals have discovered an opposition to a change that they should be fighting for. Arnold has nothing to do with whether the Constitution should be changed. It should be changed because it has no place in today’s society. With a twenty year citizenship rule any qualified person should be able to consider a run at the presidency.
I had a classmate who came to America from Vietnam when she was eight. She spoke no English and her family had nothing. She was our class valedictorian and the brightest and most principled of my peers. She could be anything she wanted, with the exception of President. I can’t fathom a reason why an immigrant should be prohibited from aspiring to the highest office.
Perhaps because there is currently no shortage of presidential candidates (Ralph Nader, anyone?) and we shouldn’t get into the habit of messing with the consitution on the basis of a less-than-urgent problem. There is a reason the FFs made the Consitution so hard to amend, ne?
How about putting their home nation’s interests ahead of the US’s interests in certain matters? Or favoring their home nation in whatever negotiation happens to be occurring at the time?
We’re not just talking about people who came here when they were 8 years old. With a 20 year rule theoretically someone can spend 40 or so years in their home country, then come to the US and run for president when they’re in their 60s.
The US has the benefit of being relatively neutral, objective, or plain old standoffish when it comes to conflicts abroad. If someone from country X is elected president and a war between country X and country Y breaks out, then the response of the US may be influenced or tainted by the President’s affiliation with country X.
Off the top of my head that’s a problem I would have with it.
There is a reason the FFs made the Constitution possible to amend, too. Frankly, there’s evidently a shortage of competent presidential candidates, given the sorts of disasters we’ve had in office just in the last 30 years. I don’t see how expanding the pool is a bad thing. It’s not high up on my list of things to worry about, but I cannot see how being born an American is a useful qualification for being president.
Of course he does! He wants to be president. I know it says in the OP’s article that he hasn’t thought about it, but does anyone really believe that?
Just because we have plenty of candidates, doesn’t mean we have the best people for the job. If some fellow that came to our country 20 years ago would be better than Kerry or Bush (which IMHO is very likely, as I don’t think either of them is all that great) he should be allowed to serve his country.
Well…imagine that! /feigns shock
Well…imagine that! /feigns shock
Give the guy a break, he was asked a direct question and he answered it. It will never happen so its not really an issue. The rule should not be changed. It is there so that there is not even the hint of the pres having any divided loyalties or the possibility of him showing preferential treatment to any particular country. Not a bad rule in my opinion. Every other job in the country is open to everone. This one exception should not be changed