“…as are…” :smack:
Please ignore my poor grammar this morning.
I believe strongly in this amendment, and I am happy to use Arnold as the catalyst for change. The fact is that it will not change unless there is a strong reason for someone to put political muscle behind the amendment. If there were no viable foreign born candidates for President, there would be very little chance of a groundwell of support for a Constitutional amendment. I see reasons here for both parties to support the change. Arnold is a rising star in the GOP, Dems would love to court the immigrant vote.
I usually agree with Sam, but I feel he is far off base here. JFK was Catholic and had his loyalties questioned. Kissinger and Albright served without any realistic concern that they were favoring their home countries. I feel that this provision of the Constitution is an anachronism and reeks of xenophobia in an increasingly polyglot America.
I hate to get treacly here, but I went to school with a brother and sister who were born in Vietnam. They came to America on a boat when they were six and eight respectively. Both were the valedictorians of our class and went on to medical school. I see no earthly reason that they shouldn’t have been able to aspire to the presidency. The fact is though that they were told by their parents that they could be anything they wanted if they worked hard enough, oh yeah, except for president. There is no reason any immigrant who comes to the US with their children should have to tell them that.
A long term citizenship requirement is perfectly reasonable. Voters are perfectly capable of determing is a candidate has divided loyalties, and classes of people should not be excluded for arbitrary reasons. Some refute this by pointing to the age 35 requirement, but that has a rational reason for existing. It is reasonable to require a minimum amount of life and political experience for a candidate. It is not reasonable to punish them for their country of origin.
Dems are making a big mistake if they oppose this amendment solely because of Arnold. First, who would Dems rather have running the country, Arnie or another Bush. Second, the principle of the amendment shoud be a perfect issue for the Dems. Spreading the American dream and all that. Not only would I vote for the amendment, I would become an activist for it.
Sam pretty much said it all for me.
I’d be more willing to support this if neither side had anything to gain out of it. The Repubs want it so they can throw Arnie in. The Dems might agree to get Granholm. If this were actually about “the american dream,” I might be able to support this.
It’s not though. It’s pure politics. Both sides want a candidate that they think can win the big prize.
Yeah, both parties have people they’d love to nominate for president if we amended the constitution. So what? It’s still the right thing to do, even if it has an obvious short-term political benefit. The fact is, this may be the first time in American history where the people would actually permit someone foreign-born to be president, regardless of what the constitution says. I can’t see someone with an accent getting elected president even 25 years ago. Now that the climate permits such things, I say go for it, and let the people decide if a foreign-born nominee would be loyal enough.
By the way, I don’t think you’d have to worry about President Arnold anyway. There’s no way he’d survive a primary process dominated by the conservative wing of the party. On the other hand, Granholm is exactly the kind of Democrat who could win her party’s nomination. I think she’d benefit the most.
Full disclosure: I’m from Michigan and had a bit of a crush on Granholm when I was covering her run for attorney general as a college newspaper reporter. 
I’d be more impressed with Arnold if
- He had accomplished anything
- He did not have these sexual harassment incidents in his past.
So far in California he got a big fat loan to stop the cash flow crisis. He did not correct the structural deficit. So exactly what has he accomplished?
Jennifer Granholm is a great governor. Her predecessor, John Engler, squandered a billion dollar rainy day fund like a drunken sailor. The Pubbies ran a half hearted opponent in Dick Posthumus against her in 2002, knowing that the state had a massive budget crisis that somebody would have to clean up. She’s doing an admirable job, despite the Republican chairwoman Betsy Devos (married to the Amway guy) trying to sabotage her every move.
Would Arnold make a good president? I doubt it. Would Jennifer? Perhaps. But neither is a compelling reason to amend the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution might make sense if we had a dearth of qualified candidates with the current system (we don’t) or if either Arnold or Jennifer were the second coming of Lincoln and Washington rolled into one (they aren’t). In any event, you don’t amend the Constitution with specific individuals in mind.
Bob, I don’t see a whit in that post about the principle of the issue. Essentially you are saying that you don’t like either of the current potential beneficiaries of the change, so you don’t think it should happen. If we don’t amend the Constitution with specific examples we can point to of why it should be done, then it will never be done.
I am not in favor of this because I think Arnie or Granholm are great people. I believe in it because I believe Americans are fully capable of making up their own mind about their leaders. This seems like it should be a liberal crusade to me, and it is a shame that those values go out the window because it might benefit a Republican. It should be changed because it is anachronistic and xenophobic to expect that a person would maintain more loyalty to their native country than the United States despite a long citizenship period, and a presumably accomplished record of public service. In short it should be changed because it is wrong, it is contrary to the values of the country. Who would benefit in the short term is entirely immaterial.
I can’t speak for boblibdem or sam stone, but I can say what I think.
Like I said, if I thought for one second that this was some sort of “american dream being realized” amendment I might consider this as a good thing, but it’s not.
Before Arnold became Governor, nobody gave a crap about immigrants becoming president. If Arnold had lost the election, likely nobody would give a crap about it now. Fer pete’s sake the website is called “Amend for Arnold!” He’s the only reason that this issue is getting the press it is now. :dubious:
This is amending the constitution simply for politican gain. It’s friggin wrong. :mad:
That, and Arnold was the first one to voice it - claiming it wasn’t for him, of course (wink, wink).
That’s why I’d support it with a condition that it doesn’t apply to anyone now - you have to be a citizen for twenty years starting now.
We’re a land of immigrants, after all.
Well, the Presidential qualification clause in the original Constitution had a special case that pointed to a specific individual every bit as clearly as the description “the guy on the $10 bill who was shot in a duel by Aaron Burr”.
And you could meet with all the other supporters in a phone booth. As fruitbat noted, there’s no way anybody is going to go to all the trouble of amending the Constitution out of a pure abstract preference divorced from political reality.
I see no reason for that provision, other than animus towards Arnold.
Yeah, but it’d be real fun to see how many of these politicians are concerned with immigrants living the american dream if Arnold were disqualified.
And SteveMB, I guess I’m just hold the constitution to be more than something to be changed when we think it’ll help one party win the presidency. I don’t think it should be changed for that reason, and I don’t think the Presidency should be some sort of prize to be won.
Am I the only one that thinks this whole thing is a little sick?
The amendment process itself protects against such a thing. By requiring 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution, you ensure the provision has genuine support across the political spectrum.
If this amendment is percieved as a simple political tool, it will not pass the threshold. If there is strong support for it, it will, and I think the timing of such popular support is irrelevant.
Would there be political gain out of this? Well, maybe. (As I’ve said I don’t think Arnold would even survive the nomination process). But the Reconstruction-era Republicans got a ton of political gain out of amending the Constitution to let black people vote. That doesn’t diminish the moral value of the action.
You appear to me to be saying that there will never be a circumstance that you could ever support any proposed amendment. After all there will presumably always be a candidate from one of the two main parties, and so likely to favour that party. So much for your “American Dream”.
By the look of it, there seems to be a bit of a stitch-up in the constitution. Someone said earlier that America is a country of immigrants. Yet those early immigrants have got an arrangement where if you were first off the boat you can aspire to the presidency and those latecomers can’t. They can pay their taxes and die for the country by serving in the armed forces, but they can’t be the president.
It is a different view of democracy at least.
This doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. Would anyone be as worked up about the “principles” involved if it weren’t for Arnold? If we’re concerned about cleaning up archaic sections of the Constitiution, why not start with Amendment 3?
Or what about Amendment 7?
Or how about the goddamn electoral college?
I just don’t see the point in getting all worked up about this. I’m with Harborwolf in that I truly question the motives of those who want this passed because we’re a nation of immigrants; I’d ask those people, are you doing anything now to help immigrants? Aside from allowing them to run for President?
The fact that it may incidently help the Republicans is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. It is simply the right thing to do. This is one of those instances where we should look past immediate political gain and consider the big picture.
No amendment should be passed for one man, firstly. But this amendment wouldn’t be passed for one man. This amendment would be passed for the millions of brave and hearty immigrants that over 200 years have built and defined this nation. Some of our greatest citizens, some of our smartest men and women, and some of our hardest working men and women have been immigrants.
I think they should be eligible for the Presidency after say, 20 years of citizenship.
@Whoever said Arnold has made the CA budget a mess, that’s like saying someone has gotten your garbage can dirty.
Better yet, make it 10 years.
It’s not reasonable to punish them for their youth, either. Young candidates bring fresh ideas, and they can spark the interest of young voters. A 35 year old candidate doesn’t necessarily have any more relevant experience than an 18 year old candidate, and in any case, the voters can decide for themselves whether someone is experienced enough.
You know I agree with you here, but the age restriction is not nearly as punitive. I would never vote for someone younger than 35, because I would want someone with more experience to hold the office. I trust the voting public to be able to decide if they want a high school senior as president. The citizenship test is punitive because it permanently excludes a class of people for no currently relevant reason. That fact alone means it should be changed.
The 22nd amendment was pretty much all about Republicans being pissed at FDR. Just because a side has something to gain in the short term doesn’t mean the amendment isn’t a good idea in the long term. Indeed, if we discounted every good long term idea just because some party involved was angling for short-term advantage, very little would ever get done at all.