Schwarzenegger as president.

Factual Questions
21

Here’s a list of some amendments recently proposed.

107th Congress (2001-2002)

Calling for the repeal of the 8th Amendment and its replacement with wording prohibiting incarceration for minor traffic offenses
To specify that progressive income taxes must be used
To specify a right to “equal high quality” health care
To limit pardons granted between October 1 and January 21 of any presidential election year
To require a balanced budget without use of Social Security Trust Fund monies
To allow for any person who has been a citizen of the United States for twenty years or more to be eligible for the Presidency
To force the members of Congress and the President to forfeit their salary, on a per diem basis, for every day past the end of the fiscal year that a budget for that year remains unpassed

It would not surprise me to find out the court stepped in and changed it for them. Especially with all the hub-bub out west with Arnold and the current “anti-discrimination” vs. affirmative action vs. ethnic profiling vs. homeland security etc. etc. Think about it. Is it constitutionally acceptable that someone who is obviously a patriot and has no questionable political agendas. He’s not a commie or someone trying to infiltrate the government etc. Is it just that he can’t be the POTUS if the people are willing to elect him. But someone who IS a native can be Prez. even if WE don’t elect him. AND what about his political agendas? (Yeah, I know that’s water under the bridge, I just use it as an example.) I guess it’s up to the Supreme Court ultimately. hmmm :dubious:

BTW It is rather antiquated don’t ya think. It was implimented because our forefather were worried about the Crown getting spies into the Whitehouse. Now, the damned spies are born here and sell out to the highest bidder. We need to worry more about our own bullshit and less about what they might do to us.

22

This may be what you meant, but it’s not what you said, so to be precise about it for everyone. A Constitutional amendment must be ratified by 3/4 (i.e. currently 38) of all the states. The ratification need not pass in those legistatures by a 3/4 vote.

23

So it is a possibility. Let’s sat it takes the rest of this year and most of the next for the legislature to do their thing. I see no problem with the idea that most of the country would fall in love with Arnold, especially since it’s almost a given that CA’s situation will improve markedly under his watch. I’m not saying that he’s any kind of genius, simply that we’re in such bad shape that things have to improve. Fixes were already underway, and would taken effect even if Davis had remained in office. The only fiscally stupid thing Arnold has done was to repeal the car tax.
Four years from now is a possibility. I keep talking about Arnold because he’s a poster boy for those who would have a change, and change is apparently quite possible.
My, we have wandered into IMHO territory, haven’t we.

24

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court might wake up one day and decide that the “natual born citizens” clause in Article II, Section 1 no longer exists?

This is not a valid answer to a factual question, because in that case, the Supreme Court would be acting unconstitutionally. As others have clearly said many times over, there is no ruling by the Supreme Court or law that could be passed by Congress that can override a crystal-clear clause of the Constitution. The only method by which a non-natural born citizen could become President is through the approval and ratification of a constitutional amendment, period.

25

Yeah I know, I caught that mistake later and thought I’d corrected it, maybe not. Thanks for paying attention. :slight_smile:

Still not clear. But my point was really that formal changes to the Constitution are not easy and are relatively rare. I think the average works out to about 1 in every 12 years or so. (IIRC) okay. However, a formal change is NOT necessary in order to implement the way it is interpreted and enforced.
If it is deemed unconstitutional to have an age requirement on candidates then it can be done away with regardless of an amendment. Congress can change it later. It can be enforced now. Why should a 34 year old man or woman (FTM) not even be ALLOWED for the presidency. What if that person was ??? I don’t know Ghandhi? I’m just saying, it’s possible and maybe even should be changed.

It seems inappropriate to absolutely disallow someone because of their age or where they were born. We can’t do this anywhere else can we? It’s not like Saddam’s boys are gonna run for office. Maybe it’ll keep some 25 year old rap star from getting elected or some druglord outta Peru. Otherwise we’ll be voting for the Bushes and Gore’s and whoever the good’ol boys throw our way.
Not that I’d like to see Arnold in the oval office either. :wink:

26

Can anyone explain why Schwarzenegger should be regarded as a credible candidate for the Presidency? His total political experience has been what? Three months as a governor? There must be about a thousand people in this country with better qualifications. It’s frightening to think there are voters who are so completely won over by the most superficial of qualities.

27

Your understanding of constitutional scholarship, the amendment process and the separation of powers is staggeringly inaccurate.

SCOTUS does not have the power to amend the Constitution. SCOTUS may interpret the Constitution but it can’t amend it. The amendment processes have been discussed here already so I won’t rehash them except to say that SCOTUS has no constitutional role in amending the Constitution. A declaration that SCOTUS has amended the Constitution is on its face factually incorrect.

SCOTUS has no power to declare parts of the Constitution unconstitutional. The Constitution is by definition constitutional, therefore the Court has no power to invalidate the constitutional bar on non-natural born citizens to the presidency and vice-presidency.

SCOTUS has no power to order Congress to amend the Constitution. SCOTUS has no power to order Congress to pass any legislation.

28

I beg you to stop.

Every word of the Constitution is constitutional. The Constitution imposes certain eligibility requirements on those who would serve as President, VP or member of Congress. One of those requirements is an age requirement. The only way that someone under the current constitutionally-mandated minimum age may serve in one of those offices would be for an amendment to be made to the Constitution changing it. SCOTUS has no power to change it. The President has no power to change it. Congress has no power to change it, except through the amendment process which as you know also requires the approval of a super-majority of states.

As for the wisdom of prohibiting 34 year-olds from serving as President, this thread is not the place for such a discussion. If you want to debate it, start a thread in GD.

29

The Constitution doesn’t put a time limit on amendments, but Congress put a seven year time limit for ratification on several of the amendments proposed in the 20th century. The first one with a time limit was the 18th Amendment (prohibition), followed by the 20th (change in presidential term), 21st (repeal of prohibition), and 22nd (presidential term limit) Amendments. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment had a seven year limit for ratification. So, if the drafters of an amendment to end the “natural born” requirement wanted to include a time limit, they could do so. That wouldn’t speak to how quickly the amendment could be brought in, but it would put an absolute limit on it.

30

Most of it is concise and pretty straightforward. You can get a very good idea about US governmental process by reading it.

The 27th Amendment took more than 200 years to ratify. So there’s really no easy way to tell.

31

I know exactly what the Constitution says. I also know how the separation of powers is suposed to work. I also know how the political process gets around the Constitution, especially the Supreme Court and its self-proclaimed power of translating the Constitution. If you aren’t aware that the court does this then keep your insults to yourself.
Study Marbury vs. Madison
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=19
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/718.html
http://www.poliblogger.com/poliblog/archives/002978.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/19.3/br_14.html

The Constitution was written in general terms for the most part so it would be flexible for future lifestyles. They intentionally left out details that were specific to avoid changes in the Constitution later. The specific details regarding requirements attached to candidates “could” be interpreted as discriminatory as described in later amendments (ie. 13th & 14th)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html
"A single Supreme Court ruling can change the very nature of a right throughout the entire country. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress enacts civil rights legislation, as occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "

The 14th amendment says, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It also says, Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, 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.

It does not directly state the age and birthplace requirements are no longer valid. It does open the door to interpretation. The SCOTUS could rule that according to the 14th amend. that congress did in fact remove these requirements and that they are no longer applicable in todays society.

Could=possible

BTW simply restating your opinion repeatedly is not a valid argument. I know what the constitution says. I’m talking about what is being done, not whether it’s right or even legal. Also, I’m not arguing age requirements should be repealed either. It was an example. There is no amendment to the Constitution AFAIK that declares it illegal to discriminate because of age. Even though one could argue the point by way of civil rights violations.
If I haven’t made myself clear or you didn’t read my cites, then to hell with it. It’s not that hard to understand that the Constitution is regularly “changed” by way of translations and interpretations and changing attitudes in society without going through the formal congressional process.

Sorry mangeorge I didn’t mean to take over your thread or get anyone bent outta shape. See ya later.

32

As this is not GD, I’m not going to address all of your coulda woulda shoulda arguments, other than to say that the idea that the 14th Amendment might be reasonably interpreted as eliminating specific constitutional language restricting holding office by age is perhaps the most tortured reading of 14 Amendment jurisprudence I’ve ever encountered.

Then why do you keep doing it?

33

In counter to t-keela’s argument that the Supreme Court holds absolute power, I’d like to point out that the S. C., like any governmental entity, holds no power at all if opposed by a sufficient supermajority of the citizenry. Because, after all, it’s possible that all the rest of the US of A could just decide to ignore what the Court says. It’s possible. It could happen. Such a supermajority could even spontaneously decide that they’re all just going to do exactly what some action hero actor tells them to, in which case Ahnold would become the leader of the country, without any changes to the Constitution at all.

Of course, this is ludicrous. But it’s qualitatively no different than the scenario t-keela proposes.

34

Oh, for Heaven’s sake – it’s right there, t-keela. In your own quote, the word “state” is used to mean “state”. The states cannot abridge the rights of United States citizens. This discussion is about the Federal consititution. It can, and does, define the relationship of citizens with the US government. The fourteenth amendment states that the states – not the Federal government – cannot abridge the rights of US citizens.

With regard to section 3 of the 14th, I don’t see the relevance at all. It is talking about insurrection. How is being from another country an insurrection? It says that Congress may remove the disability of being excluded due to engaging in insurrection. It does not give the congress the right to remove the disability of not being a natural-born US citizen.

SCOTUS does not amend the constitution. It can, and must, interprete what is written. A good example is Roe v. Wade. Abortion is not written in the constitution at all, so SCOTUS gave an interpretation (regardless of whether you agree with it or not). The qualifications for president of the United States are explicitly described in the Constitution. These qualifications cannot be “unconstitutional”, because they ARE the constitution! The SCOTUS cannot simply decide to disregard them.

Maybe sign up for a government class at your local junior college (or high school). To hear you tell it, the US government is totally out of control of the citizens who are governed. I hope that is not the case.