Any uncommitteds who have not noticed the ugly racism by now have been living so deeply under a rock that we may want to leave them there.
Moreover, we saw how that worked with Obama…
McCain deciding that bunting was a better choice than alienating the electorate he was courting by swinging for the fences.
Great news! They’re free to run for head of the country where non-natives can do that - they’re not stuck with just the US. The world’s their oyster.
“That’s a lot of ifs” is a understatement of herculean intensity. Sorry, but if there are 10k individuals nationwide left of that stripe I’d be amazed. And a lot more than that would be utterly invigorated to vote by the clear and present danger such a target provides. Hate wins over ‘fair treatment’ outrage all the damn time.
And to be clear, anyone who would be outraged at such conduct has thrown up their hands with a “curse on both your houses” and refused to vote for either side, or is already (including some posters HERE) are voting as semi-reluctant conservative Democrats anyway.
If Trump’s comments about “shit-hole countries”, “good people on both sides”, “sending us murderers and rapists” and on and on and on haven’t changed their minds, a snarky Democrat who happens to be from Turkey isn’t going to budge the needle as he whines that [channeling inner RWNJ] “we immigrants deserve to be treated fairly, including running things because we’re better than you and will replace you soon enough!”
No. Again, his points are likely accurate, and a future amendment abolishing some if not all of those requirements is something I’d support depending on details, but for the 2024 election against Trump, and for as long as the MAGA philosophy is driving the Republican voters and politicians, it’s a non-starter for so very many reasons.
I’d be happy to have some beers with him and rant about what’s wrong in politics but I would never vote for him.
Uh huh. Well I’d like my country to be one of the good ones. Or are you happy keeping things as the are? Love-it-or-Leave-it-stan?
I seem to recall something about the framers intending the Constitution being a “living document” or some such nonsense. Was a time when amending it, fixing the unpopular or unworkable parts, was a regular occurrence and hardly controversial. Let’s abolish the sale of alcohol, oh wait, that didn’t go well, okay we’ll repeal that amendment and repair the damage.
Now it’s increasingly treated like a sacred text that everyone’s afraid to tamper with as if the Founding Fathers had brought down tablets from Mt. Sinai. And sadly it leaves us paralyzed, stuck with a number of outmoded institutions like the Electoral College that we tiptoe around because no one wants to be the blasphemer who suggests it’s high time we did something about it, for real, I mean come on, no matter what your politics are you can see that the Electoral College screws up the ideal of True Democracy which we claim is supposed to be our guiding light. But there hasn’t been a serious amendment passed since 18-year-olds can now vote, that was 50-plus years ago, I don’t get it; our Living Document has become embalmed, can someone please tell me how and why this happened?
When exactly was this time?
A nice chart:
Clusters of activity separated by long gaps. It’s been 31 years since the last amendment, but there was a 60-year gap between the 12th and 13th, and a 43-year gap between the 15th and 16th. So the current period isn’t too unusual.
A bit easier way to picture it I think:
Sounds like an argument to make it harder, not easier, to amend the Constitution.
His efforts to amend this particular part of the Constitution-Was it something he pushed heavily before it became a hindrance to his own run for the Presidency?
Existing requirements to be President:
- Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
- Be at least 35 years old
- Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
- Never, “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” 14th amendment, Section 3.
All US citizens are first class citizens in my view. That doesn’t mean they meet the constitutional qualifications for the Presidency. I kind of like the requirements as they exist now (taken as a whole) and I think all anti-fascists should agree with me after reviewing the last entry regarding insurrection.
Over the long run, there are mechanisms for relaxing the natural-born requirement, which seems outdated. Herlihy (2005):
The author gloomily concludes that, “Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization.” I agree: generally speaking all those who disagree with me do so for emotional reasons while I am a practitioner of sweet reason. Best paper ever. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3528&context=cklawreview
Nice chart. The 20th century had a passel of them, including earth-shaking ones like Prohibition and its end, banishing poll taxes, civil rights guarantees, votes for women and 18-ers, two-term limits for presidents, and establishment of income taxes. Other than one about congressional compensation that you may not have noticed there have been no amendments passed since 1971.
The way it works is you get two-thirds of both houses of Congress to approve a proposed amendment, after that three-quarters of the states have to ratify it for it to become adopted. Not sure if ratification is done by state legislature votes or ballot questions or if there’s a universal standard for how that’s done. Also as I understand it there can be a time limit set on how long ratification can take, but how that is done varies. And opinion varies on how many subsections you can load into a single amendment and pass legal muster.
Oh yes, the paperwork must be daunting.
(I disagree, you want to be able to ditch experiments that didn’t pan out as hoped, at least after they got a reasonable trial period. Democracy may be messy sometimes.)
You asking me? I have no idea. I guess the answer matters if what you want to do is demonstrate Cenk’s only reason for pulling this stunt is cynical self-promotion, but you’ll have to ask him yourself.
The method hasn’t changed, nor is anyone claiming that amending the Constitution is somehow blasphemous. You wanna get rid of the Electoral College? Go ahead and convince 37 states that it’s in their interest. Don’t file lawsuits that are doomed to go nowhere and expect the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution for you.
Like your potential candidates, you too are free to move to “one of the good ones,” the eight countries out of 195 where this can happen (France, Great Britain, and Germany among them). I’m not seeing a benefit to the country such a policy would create, while I see lots of potential downsides.
As mentioned previously (I think when Cenk was running for the House), I think he’d be great. I agree with him on most things and I think he articulates his views very well.
Yes he’s fiery, boisterous etc, but that’s exactly what the democrats need. Their (and the MSM’s) softly softly approach is part of what has enabled Trump and MAGA. It frustrates me to no end when a Democrat is asked about a nonsense right-wing talking point, and answers in gentle political-speak, which most viewers would take as them agreeing with the premise. FFS fight back!
All that being said, the presidency thing is a stunt, and one he doesn’t even have his heart behind. The last couple interviews of Cenk, I don’t recall him even mentioning his candidacy.
Please, what downsides? I don’t see how being a naturalized American disqualifies you in any way. (If you were some kind of stealth Mexican agent determined to hand back Texas, well gosh. Is that it, or is there something less improbable?)
Not Mexican, but Russian or Chinese sleeper agent is the worry. Many of us are still Cold War Era. But hey, Natural Borns can betray the US also.