http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030715-043500-5589r.htm
I say no. This has worked well since the constitution was written.
I agree that many immigrants have done very well in and for America.
But then so have many Americans younger than 35. Should we change that too?
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
My God, Hatch must be reading the SDMB.
I stand my statement in the last post in the thread that this is an anachronism. This provision may not be “broke”, but it could stand some minor repair.
This is so unlike conservatives, there must be a hidden agenda at work here. Who do they have in mind? Scharzenegger (born in Austria) for president in 2008 after he becomes governor of California via the enron coup d’etat?
Yes! Let’s do away with this anachronism, as jklann so accurately puts it! I can’t see what this law could possibly serve, anymore.
**Roger_Mexico—**I don’t think Schwartzenegger’s going to become governor in Issa’s putsch, but if he does and he goes on with the help of the Hatch amendment to win the Republican presidential nomination, hopefully the Democrats will retaliate with the nomination of the German-born Jerry Springer, our next senator from Ohio!
Jerry is German? Well that is no suprise. The proposed change by Hatch is excellent; In a few years you’ll see: A Vote for Brutus is a Vote for Gotterdammerung!
I don’t think Arnie will ever run for President, even if able to. Too many questions about his steriod and marijuana use (irrelevant, IMO, but still…) would kibosh his chances.
Instead, let’s do away with the two term limit on the Presidency, so that we can get the best president since Roosevelt (Mr. Clinton, of course) back into the White House and get far away from this National Nightmare that is the selected, not elected Mr. Bush.
As I’ve said in other threads on this topic, while there’s never been any real urgency to changing the law, I support changing it. I’m really not worried about disloyal foreigners assuming the U.S. Presidency and subverting democracy. If anything, my experience has been that immigrants who become U.S. citizens are MORE patriotic than the average American.
As a PRACTICAL matter, I don’t see many people who’ll benefit from the rule change. There’s only ONE prominent U.S. politician I can think of who might make an attractive addition to a Presidential ticket: Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, who was born in Canada.
I can’t think of any other foreign-born U.S. citizens who’d (currently) stand a realistic chance of being nominated for President or Vice President.
Instead, let’s pointlessly hijack this thread for a political jab.
Oops, too late.
Does it realy need to be pointed out to Reeder that while the foreign born can do nothing about that fact, most people will reach the age of 35.
One is a temporary barrier, one is permanent.
How friendly is Hatch with Rupert Murdoch?
Well, yes, we should. What’s so bad about a 34 year old president?
Besides, one bad actor as president is enough for ANY country.
Five minutes later and I’m still laughing.
My position still hasn’t changed from the earlier thread. I’m still ambivalent. I don’t see any reason to change it now, but if it got changed I wouldn’t mind.
In general, anything that detracts from the freedom of the voters, safeguarding the freedom of a certain subset of those voters, is A Bad Thing.
Would human rights be harmed if the President were foreign-born or under 35? Would anyone be disenfranchised? Would basic republican ideals be at risk? I can’t see how. These rules exist not to safeguard the inalienable rights of any minority, but to prevent the rabble from voting for a candidate that certain bygone political elites did not deem fit to be President.
In a more egalitarian age, these rules are simply unnecessary limitations on the sovereign power of the electorate. The electorate should support attempts to change the rules.
Actually, Jerry was born in London, to German parents who had fled there from the Holocaust.
I’d get rid of all the rules keeping someone from being president. If a majority is willing to vote for that person they should become president.
In the early days of the Republic, there was understandable a lot of fear of introducing foreign liasons into the presidency what with the history of Royalty in Europe. But that issue is so 1700s…
Anyway, the argument that we shouldn’t change the foreign born req’t unless the 35 yr old req’t is also changed is a non sequitur. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
But I have to say I’m with the ambivalent crowd on this. I’d have no objection to changing this rule except that there are so many other issues that are of higher priority. If we can do it without distractions, great. If it becomes a huge national issue, it’s probably not worth the effort.
And anyone who can’t look past the current crop of (foreign born) presidential possibilities needs to learn how to check his/her political biases at the door. We’re talking about a change to the constitution for 100s of years to come, not a tactic to get some stealth candidate into office next year.
And the dystopian world heralded in the prophetic film <i>Demolition Man</i> moves one step closer to bleak reality…
Nah, I’m all for it. Ditch the 35 rule, ditch the Made-In-America rule, ditch the two-terms and you’re out rule (but grandfather Bush so he’s still held to two terms… heh heh) and then let loose the dogs of war. May the best man, woman or Libertarian win. Just, please, don’t futz with the Electoral College.