Do you support amending the Constitution so Arnold can run for President?


PDA






Lone_Gunman
November 17, 2004, 09:44 AM
Just curious what everyone thinks about this... I am pretty skeptical myself. For one thing, Arnold should be a Democrat, not Republican. Our present system requiring Presidents to be naturally born citizens has worked out pretty well, why change it?

Check out this site...

http://amendforarnold.com/

I think there is going to be a bigger push for this over the next couple of years...

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you support amending the Constitution so Arnold can run for President?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Rojo
November 17, 2004, 09:47 AM
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. I like Arnold in California, but we don't need him nation wide.

molonlabe
November 17, 2004, 09:51 AM
Maybe California will vote for a movie star. I doubt the rest of the red states will.

Tag
November 17, 2004, 09:51 AM
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

How long has Arnold been living here? That "OR a Citizen of the United States" bit has me thinking he's already eligible... I'm sure there is more to it though.

I wouldn't vote for him

41mag
November 17, 2004, 09:58 AM
No!

Kaylee
November 17, 2004, 10:03 AM
Absolutely not. Changing the constitution for one man is just.... silly.

And Tag... that line only means someone not born a Citizen WHO WAS A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF RATIFICATION could hold the office. I don't think Arnold was around then. :)

redhead
November 17, 2004, 10:05 AM
No. I think it's a bad idea. If Arnold can run, then so can George Soros. And how foolish is it to tinker with the Constitution for one man? What an ego.

2nd Amendment
November 17, 2004, 10:05 AM
No! And did I mention HELL NO!

cslinger
November 17, 2004, 10:09 AM
Ummm I'm going to lean towards Hell No. Nothing against Ah'nold but I don't like tinkering with the Constitution, especially for one man.

Chris

OF
November 17, 2004, 10:12 AM
No.

FPrice
November 17, 2004, 10:14 AM
No.

Henry Bowman
November 17, 2004, 10:14 AM
No.

Dave R
November 17, 2004, 10:18 AM
No way.

George S.
November 17, 2004, 10:19 AM
Absoultely not! It would be too easy for some group to move a person into this country and build some sort of political power base around him and portray him as being good for the country and then come to find out that foreign power brokers are behind him.

It would, of course, require amending the Constitution to allow this to happen. IMHO, the Founding Fathers clearly intended the country to be run by its native sons. Too many years of rule by the English who sent their people over to control the country was the basis for requireing that the President be native born.

WT
November 17, 2004, 10:24 AM
No.

The Founding Fathers put that requirement into The Constitution for a reason. They knew what they were doing.

TimRB
November 17, 2004, 10:29 AM
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

How long has Arnold been living here? That "OR a Citizen of the United States" bit has me thinking he's already eligible... I'm sure there is more to it though."

-------------

The clause "at the time of the adoption of this constitution" modifies the "or a citizen..." part. Some of the founding fathers were not born here, so they had to put in a provision that would allow them to be president.

Tim

HankB
November 17, 2004, 10:29 AM
No.

The Constitution was written the way it was in order to check undue foreign influence. It's a good provision.

The more I think about it, the more I think I want to change my answer.

HELL NO!

mtnbkr
November 17, 2004, 10:37 AM
NO!!! on Ahhnold and NO to amending the Constitution for any other non-natural born citizen.

Chris

MikeK
November 17, 2004, 10:44 AM
Absolutely NOT!

Outrigger
November 17, 2004, 10:48 AM
No!!

SMLE
November 17, 2004, 10:54 AM
NO! NO! NO!

I just went to the link in the first post and voiced my opposition. We need to bury these twits in protest e-mails. :cuss:

dav
November 17, 2004, 10:54 AM
No. Absolutely No.

Maybe California will vote for a movie star. I doubt the rest of the red states will.Um, molonlabe, what do you think Ronald Reagan was, besides a California movie star, I mean...

Hkmp5sd
November 17, 2004, 10:58 AM
Nope.

Silver Bullet
November 17, 2004, 10:59 AM
Hmmm, looks like we're kinda split on this issue.

Half say "NO!", and half say "Absolutely Not!".

I'm going to go with "Of Course Not!"

It would be first Arnie :uhoh:, then Kofi Annan :cuss: .

The concept of tinkering with the Constitution is scary; the whole thing could unravel if you get enough politicians who think they have more vision than the Founding Fathers.

Waitone
November 17, 2004, 11:01 AM
No.

Ahnuld is mistaken if he thinks he is a viable presidential candidate. His RINO ways may be necessary for political survival in Cali, but it ain't gonna flush in the confederacy.

Kermit911
November 17, 2004, 11:01 AM
Ahhh Let me think about it.......... NO!!!

PaleRyder
November 17, 2004, 11:01 AM
No, I do not. I have nothing against immigration, but I don't support allowing folks not born in the US holding that office.

Bridger
November 17, 2004, 11:05 AM
No, demagogues.

Sean85746
November 17, 2004, 11:16 AM
Maybe California will vote for a movie star. I doubt the rest of the red states will.

Um...what about Ronald Reagan?

I am not saying that Arnie should be president...I won't vote for him. But the greatest president of our time was a former movie star.

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. May he rest in peace. God Bless Ronnie!

geekWithA.45
November 17, 2004, 11:17 AM
Nope.

If arnold is the best the GOP can come up with, it'll be the GOP that's broken, not the Constitution.

cls12vg30
November 17, 2004, 11:20 AM
Something I haven't seen addressed in this thread, or anywhere else for that matter, is the reason that the Founding Fathers placed that clause in the Constitution. The Founders' reasoning was that, since the President is CINC of the armed forces, it would be a bad idea to let immigrants hold that office, because if that was allowed, someday we might find ourselves in a situation where we were at war or having tension with the country of the President's birth, which could create a severe conflict of interest, or at least a crisis of conscience for the President.

We'd be a lot better off as a nation if more people looked deeper into the Founding Father's reasoning, everything in there is there for a good reason, once you find out what it is, it's often like a smack in the head. "I should have thought of that." Man those were some smart guys.

Gordon Fink
November 17, 2004, 11:20 AM
I would be inclined to say yes, once the candidate had been a naturalized citizen for the 35 years required by the Constitution. However, my immigrant wife (not yet a citizen) thinks this is a bad idea, so who am I to disagree?

~G. Fink

cslinger
November 17, 2004, 11:20 AM
Did I mention NO!!!!!! :fire: :cuss:

Just wanted to make sure everybody got my No vote since this is such a closely fought race :D

Chris

KMKeller
November 17, 2004, 11:24 AM
Under no circumstances.

Sam Adams
November 17, 2004, 11:24 AM
Not only no, but F@#$ NO!!!!

Even if I wanted Arnold to be the President (and I don't, since he's a social liberal and, at best, cool to lukewarm on the RKBA), I wouldn't want the Constitution changed. We have nearly 300 million people in this country, probably 150 million of which are eligible to be President (i.e. born here, old enough and residing here for 14 years), and if we can't find someone in that group to lead this country, then we're in so much trouble that 1 foreign-born guy isn't going to help much.

Besides, if it is open for Arnold, it is also open for George Soros and others of his ilk. Sorry, but NFW.

Sven
November 17, 2004, 11:29 AM
Prepare to give up your .50 caliber rifles. No thanks to Arnold as president. :barf:

grnzbra
November 17, 2004, 11:49 AM
We'd be a lot better off as a nation if more people looked deeper into the Founding Father's reasoning, everything in there is there for a good reason, once you find out what it is, it's often like a smack in the head. "I should have thought of that." Man those were some smart guys.
Isn't that what the antis are telling us we should be doing with the first part of 2A? It doesn't matter what the reason was, it matters only what it says, whether that is "...shall not be infringed" (for whatever reason) or "No Person except a natural born Citizen...". If we want Ahhhnold to be President, amend the Constitution to allow it. Otherwise it becomes a "living document", kinda like a jellyfish, rather than a dead thing like a slab of granite that takes some effort to change.


By the way,
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
I believe that "Citizen of the United States" and "at the time of the Adoption of this constitution" belong together so that they wouldn't be excluding themselves from the office (since the United States didn't exist at the time of their birth, none of them were natural born Citizens.) So, since Ahhhhnold was n't a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, he couldn't get in on this.


And one other thing.
http://amendforarnold.com/
If you go to the site, you find it titled AmendForArnold&Jen
Who is Jen?

Andrew Rothman
November 17, 2004, 11:55 AM
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeck no!

MM
November 17, 2004, 12:00 PM
Negative, seems to go against my grain. I wonder what the folks over at DU have to say about this possibility?
SatCong

TrapperReady
November 17, 2004, 12:01 PM
No is no
No is always no
If they say no, it means a thousand times no

No plus no equals no
All nos lead to no no no

Finger pointing, eyebrows low
Mouth in the shape of the letter O

Pardon me -- No!
Excuse me -- No!
May I stay?
Can I go?
No, no, no

Do this -- No!
Don't do that -- No!
Sit, stay, roll over
No, no, no

Finger pointing, eyebrows low
Mouth in the shape of the letter O
Red means stop. Do not go.
No, no, no

- Lyrics from the song "No!" by "They Might Be Giants"

Which echo my sentiments about amending the US Constitution in such a manner.

molonlabe
November 17, 2004, 12:07 PM
Posted by Dav
Um...what about Ronald Reagan?
Good point. RR had a clear conservative agenda Arnold has not done anything to impress me much. Of course that may change but right now he is just a movie star and will remain so until he has a record.

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/hollywood.html
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/firstterm.html
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/secondterm.html

perry1963
November 17, 2004, 12:15 PM
Let me think about it I thought about it and no.
The only reason i voted him for gov. was to get Gray Davis out of office, but even if he had a 100% rating from the NRA I still say no to changing the constitution.

BOBE
November 17, 2004, 12:24 PM
I remember a man named Henry Kissinger, a great statesman. IMO, foreign born, Germany, who could not hold an elected office which could put him in line for president. No one suggested anything of this sort in respect to him, At the time it was acceped as just being the way it is. Maybe a long way of saying NO! on my part

BigG
November 17, 2004, 12:26 PM
Well that one went over about as well as a F--- in church. ;)

iapetus
November 17, 2004, 12:32 PM
Isn't that what the antis are telling us we should be doing with the first part of 2A? It doesn't matter what the reason was, it matters only what it says, whether that is "...shall not be infringed" (for whatever reason) or "No Person except a natural born Citizen...". If we want Ahhhnold to be President, amend the Constitution to allow it. Otherwise it becomes a "living document", kinda like a jellyfish, rather than a dead thing like a slab of granite that takes some effort to change.

I thought the point about "Why its there" was as a counter to "should it be changed".


E.g.

Q: "Can the government do ... (take away your guns, allow Arnie to be POTOS, etc)?"

A: "No - the Constitution doesn't allow it."

Q: "Should the Constitution be changed to allow it?"

A: "No, because it says what it says for a good reason (namely...)"

mpthole
November 17, 2004, 12:33 PM
No way.

moa
November 17, 2004, 12:34 PM
NO!

There was some talk about amending the Constitution so Henry Kissinger could run for President, but the idea never got any traction.

JimC
November 17, 2004, 12:37 PM
No.

Bobarino
November 17, 2004, 12:38 PM
another "no" vote. i'd like to stick with Americans running America thanks.

Bobby

Nightfall
November 17, 2004, 12:41 PM
Absolutely not. The idea of changing the US Constitution just to suit the political aspirations of a single man is insane, and a very dangerous notion IMHO. The Constitution is not something to be lightly toyed with and modified whenever it becomes an annoyance to some politician.

FJC
November 17, 2004, 12:42 PM
No.

71Commander
November 17, 2004, 12:48 PM
Nope! and hell nope!

Joe Demko
November 17, 2004, 12:48 PM
Negatory on that, good buddy.

erik the bold
November 17, 2004, 12:52 PM
I lean towards "Hell NO!" :cuss:

Uh........Why wasn't this done as a poll? Can it be added as such?

unreal45
November 17, 2004, 12:55 PM
:uhoh:
NO!
People like Arnold will destroy the Rep. party from the inside out!

wmenorr67
November 17, 2004, 12:57 PM
Well I guess I will be in the minority here. I have not seen a BLOODY HELL NO! yet. :D

Northslope Nimrod
November 17, 2004, 01:01 PM
Well........Arnold is very popular....and I think he is smarter than given credit....and he does speak to my heart on many things.....even though he is socially much more liberal......he is a good looking guy so he would make a good candidate....(girls just vote for the good looking ones)..............................BUT..............NO! Save constitutional amendments for the real important stuff!

BeLikeTrey
November 17, 2004, 01:04 PM
There has been quite enough "interpretation and tweaking" of the bill of rights. I don't wanna start frelling with the constitution too. Leave it the hell alone. Slippery slope... Amend it once, for this reason well it's easier the next time until france will be putting forth candidates. What? They already did? Oh, well, yeah. Ok I stand corrected. :p

duckslayer
November 17, 2004, 01:17 PM
No.

Trisha
November 17, 2004, 01:46 PM
No!

It's bad enough we have foreign nationals serving as sworn LEOs!

I'd rather see Pete Coors as President!

"It's all just a bad dream - you're really asleep, safe in your bed and heavily sedated. . . " (paraphrasing 'Penguin' from 'Batman Returns' I think)

Trisha

Bacchus
November 17, 2004, 01:55 PM
No way.

bobs1066
November 17, 2004, 01:57 PM
No, no, a thousand times no!

Sawdust
November 17, 2004, 01:59 PM
I say nay-nay.

Sawdust

Daemon688
November 17, 2004, 02:26 PM
No, foreign born should NOT be president because I really doubt where their loyalties REALLY lie. I thought Arnold still had citizenship in Austria?

Brett Bellmore
November 17, 2004, 02:41 PM
Two words: "President Granholm". :what:

No.

Fly320s
November 17, 2004, 02:51 PM
Nine Neuns for the Austrian Arnold.

Greg L
November 17, 2004, 02:54 PM
Put me into the "HELL NO!" camp.

Greg

Rebar
November 17, 2004, 03:01 PM
No.

RON in PA
November 17, 2004, 03:03 PM
No!

firearms_instructor
November 17, 2004, 03:10 PM
Not too sure about Arnie, except that he might be a smidge better than Gray Davis, but that ain't saying much.

Cacique500
November 17, 2004, 03:15 PM
Negative

unreal45
November 17, 2004, 03:19 PM
Why bother when Gary Coleman is a citizen of the USA :neener:

Delmar
November 17, 2004, 03:19 PM
Nothing particularly against Ahnold, but if we can't find an American to occupy the White House, we might as well just stay home.

shermacman
November 17, 2004, 03:21 PM
Let's have Ahnold complete say, one term as governor and see how that works out first. In other words, in a country of 275 million there has to be one man we Republicans can dominate. We don't need to cut and paste the Constitution.

ObeOne
November 17, 2004, 03:33 PM
Not just No, but HELL NO!!!! :fire:
We shouldn't be amending the constitution on particular whims (even though we have done it before with Prohibition)
Obe One

longeyes
November 17, 2004, 03:43 PM
No way.

Then again we have a lot of people who live in America but aren't really Americans. More on that in another thread.

wasrjoe
November 17, 2004, 03:46 PM
Uhhhhhhhhhh...
No.


Wait, wait wait....

Hell no.

mack69
November 17, 2004, 03:49 PM
NO! :fire: This whole thing really torques me.....there are reasons our forefathers did things the way they did. Everything was done with the intention of built in checks and balances. Change this one and his opposition may end being that low life scum sucking cave dweller we are still hunting down. Just my 2cents....mack

Rockrivr1
November 17, 2004, 04:00 PM
I'll have to chime in my NO!!! on this as well. While I can honestly say I don't know much about his political views being over here on the east coast, I can see from his 50 cal ban that he is no friend to gun owners.

For that reason alone I say "Stay in the California!!!!"

Gunstar1
November 17, 2004, 04:06 PM
This should have been posted as a poll, that way we know how many "no" votes there are.

Including my NO vote. :)

Hawkmoon
November 17, 2004, 04:09 PM
No.

rick_reno
November 17, 2004, 04:12 PM
No.

squadfounder
November 17, 2004, 04:14 PM
No. Regardless of how I feel about his politics (and like many, I've got issues with him) the natural born citizen requirement is there for a reason. Just because a man was an insanely popular film actor is no reason to start modifying our rules just to suit him.

CZ-100
November 17, 2004, 04:39 PM
Not just NO

BUT

NO !!!!

Selfdfenz
November 17, 2004, 05:01 PM
Like Arnold but no way in heck should we change the law.


S-

JohnMc
November 17, 2004, 05:27 PM
I just went to the link in the first post and voiced my opposition. Good point.
Isn't that what the antis are telling us we should be doing with the first part of 2A?
grnzbra, I'd argue that they're misinterpreting what it says. They think it says guns only for state militias, and only exactly that. We all know they meant every adult male (and by modern extension, every adult). We also know that "regulated" meant self running at that time. So, somebody has to explain to them what's the correct meaning the founding fathers intended.
That said, there's nothing I can see in the grammer or word usage that's changed in Article II, section 1, clause 5 in the last couple of hundred years. No explanation necessary...
The Constitution is a living, breathing document through our belief in it and it can be changed, through ammendments. I'd say it lives like a sequoia lives; strong, steady and tough, ready to go another couple hundred years without breaking a sweat.

Oh, by the way, did I say, "NO" to the thread topic yet?

io333
November 17, 2004, 06:09 PM
No. No way. Not ever. No. No. No.



I have never seen perfect agreement in a thread in my entire life. Wow.

charby
November 17, 2004, 06:18 PM
negatory ghost rider

CentralTexas
November 17, 2004, 06:19 PM
For all the reasons the Founders outlined....
CT

Guy B. Meredith
November 17, 2004, 06:31 PM
It needs to be pointed out to the electorate that an amendment being advertised as for Arnold actually is for all non-citizens--Vicente Fox, Usama Bin Laden, Chirac as extreme examples. All they need is for enough people to vote for them.

I think that the President needs to have a greater stake in supporting the nation as it is. The standard is loose enough as it is since children of illegals or others are citizens.

DRZinn
November 17, 2004, 06:38 PM
One word: Sleeper.

I don't mean Ahnuld, I mean the next guy along that might try it.

AgaveHound
November 17, 2004, 06:39 PM
Nope. Never. Um, ok, HELL NO!

RKCheung
November 17, 2004, 06:43 PM
I think it is absurd to have an amendment to satisfy the political whims of one person.

That said, however, I find it funny how people are arguing against this amendment by stating that the Constitution just shouldn't be amended. Newsflash, folks, if the Constitution wasn't meant to amended, there would be no amendment process and subsequently there would be no Bill of Rights either. The process is there because the Constitution IS meant to be amended.

Now, on to the amendment itself. Personally, I don't see any harm in allowing foreign-born citizens run for the office of President after residing here for a certain number of years. Any concerns over foreign conflicts-of-interest would surely emerge during any campaign. Such exhaustive capabilities to research every last detail of a person's life were not available in the 18th century as they are today. Also, what is there to say that a naturally born citizen will not have foreign allegiances? Frankly, I think opposition to such an amendment to be more of xenophobia than anything else.

In the interests of disclosure, I am a naturally born citizen and as a libertarian, believe that fewer legal restrictions on rights is a good thing.

F4GIB
November 17, 2004, 06:45 PM
No. Arnold signed California's 50 cal. BAN. He's a Hollywierd type and his wife is an anti-gun Kennedy democrat. Why would I want him as my President?

m.i.sanders
November 17, 2004, 07:14 PM
NO!

g_gunter
November 17, 2004, 07:16 PM
No way!

g_gunter

RealGun
November 17, 2004, 07:19 PM
Like there aren't enough candidates among natural born citizens. Like one person is so extraordinary that there simply has to be a provision for that person. Nah! It is such a blatant setup for Arnold that it makes you want to throw up. Nothing against Arnold, actually.

CarlS
November 17, 2004, 08:13 PM
Absolutely, positively NO. Condi Rice will do better against Hillary anyway. :D

JohnMc
November 17, 2004, 08:40 PM
That said, however, I find it funny how people are arguing against this amendment by stating that the Constitution just shouldn't be amended. I don't think we're arguing against amending it, just not on a whim and not this part. After all, this site probably wouldn't exist save the second amendment...
Arguements that a foreign born person may be perfectly loyal to the US and that a natural born citizen may have foreign allegiances are true. However likely those possibilities may be, it's far more likely that a natural born citizen will have no loyalties to other nations and that a naturalized citizen would still have feelings for their homeland.
Foreign born persons can serve as Senators, Representatives, and Cabinet members. But those are not the "buck stops here" job. I don't think it's xenophobic, just pragmatic.

bg
November 17, 2004, 09:25 PM
Would you want someone running the country who would appoint someone
like this to handle transportation business ? Ck it out..
http://www.latimes.com/la-me-dmv16nov16.story

ravinraven
November 17, 2004, 09:33 PM
Why on earth would we amend the constitution for one--count 'm-- one personality that we might well all love for cramps sake? Remember there was a bit of blab that we amend the constitution so that Reagan could be elected to a third term.

Amending the constitution is a serious thing that has consequences far beyond the hot flash that causes the amendment to be thought up. Look at the wonderful thing that prohibition was. Wow. Let's amend the constitution to ban smoking, etc.

I am not a fan of gay marriage, but I am not in favor of amending to out law it. The gay marriage issue may well drift off by itself someday.

rr

DesertRat
November 17, 2004, 09:37 PM
I like old Arnie well enough, but Hell No, I don't think that the Constitution should allow for electing naturalized citizens to the office of President of the United States. :mad:

walking arsenal
November 17, 2004, 09:53 PM
naw, it's a lousy idea and so is the duel citizenship bit, your either and american or your not, no in between.

junyor
November 17, 2004, 09:54 PM
Wow....this should have been a poll. It would be 100% against.

If you go to the site, you find it titled AmendForArnold&Jen
Who is Jen?
Did anyone figure out who Jen is? Oh, and by the way...No.

50 Shooter
November 17, 2004, 10:03 PM
I keep posting stuff here about Arnuld and his people trying to get the Amendment for him to become Prez. Hopefully everyone keeps on reading it, don't let it happen!

My vote, HELL NO!

motoman
November 17, 2004, 10:11 PM
I can't see any good reason to allow a foreigner to run for Commander and Chief. Just because California is obsessed with a movie star doesn't mean we change the constitution.

hops
November 17, 2004, 10:34 PM
If it is not broke, do not fix it.

gunslinger308
November 17, 2004, 10:47 PM
no matter how much fame and fortune a person has, RULES IS RULES! What happens when we let foriegners in to rule and China or another evil government( thats kinda funny, all governments are somewhat evil ) wants to buy the election???

Keep it in AMERICA!! How PC can you get?? Sheesh!!

RKCheung
November 17, 2004, 11:02 PM
I don't think we're arguing against amending it, just not on a whim and not this part. After all, this site probably wouldn't exist save the second amendment...
Arguements that a foreign born person may be perfectly loyal to the US and that a natural born citizen may have foreign allegiances are true. However likely those possibilities may be, it's far more likely that a natural born citizen will have no loyalties to other nations and that a naturalized citizen would still have feelings for their homeland.
Foreign born persons can serve as Senators, Representatives, and Cabinet members. But those are not the "buck stops here" job. I don't think it's xenophobic, just pragmatic.

Actually, many of the naturalized citizens I know cherish their citizenship and loyalty to the United States far more than most Americans who seem to take it for granted. I don't think we should amend the Constiitution just for Arnold, but considering the pathetic choices for CINC we've had lately, I sure wouldn't mind opening up the field to naturalized citizens of several decades who are completely and fully committed to to serving this great country.

jefnvk
November 17, 2004, 11:08 PM
Not that it matters anymore, I think this one's been answered, but NO.

If Arnold can run, who else lurking out there can also run? Do you want a Russian from the Cold War leading the country? How about a Mexican? They could probably win on the immigrant's vote alone.

mrapathy2000
November 17, 2004, 11:40 PM
No!

Brian Dale
November 18, 2004, 12:16 AM
No.

Kim
November 18, 2004, 01:33 AM
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.45&TKD
November 18, 2004, 01:40 AM
Hell NO!!!

Marko Kloos
November 18, 2004, 06:13 AM
Nothing particularly against Ahnold, but if we can't find an American to occupy the White House, we might as well just stay home.

What happens when we let foriegners in to rule and China or another evil government( thats kinda funny, all governments are somewhat evil ) wants to buy the election??

Uh, Arnold *is* an American, albeit a naturalized one.

As a naturalized citizen, I think the amendment is not a good idea, but I dislike the notion that I'm not a "real" American.

Sleeping Dog
November 18, 2004, 06:30 AM
Arnold can run for prez without any amendment. I think if we annex Austria and make it the 51st state, he's eligible, just like any Alaskan or Hawaiian born in the '40's, right?

But, would it be a blue state, or a red state?

Regards.

Waitone
November 18, 2004, 07:39 AM
If Ahnuld is and "American", how come he has a dual citizenship? Sounds like divided loyalty to me. And if it is divided loyalty why is there support for his run for the presidency.

flatrock
November 18, 2004, 08:24 AM
Wow. Lots of votes for no.

I guess I'm going to partially disagree.

I think someone born outside the US, but has been a citizen of the United States for most of their adult life, is no less a citizen than someone born in the US.

I have no objections to an ammendment that allows someone that has been a citizen for 20 years to run for president. I do not support it if it allows new citizens or people with dual citizenship to become president.

I would not vote for Arnold to become the Republican nominee for President. He's pretty much a RINO on many issues important to me.

JohnMc
November 18, 2004, 08:38 AM
Actually, many of the naturalized citizens I know cherish their citizenship and loyalty to the United States far more than most Americans who seem to take it for granted.
True enough, but I still think the pessimistic, pragmatic road on this issue is the safest one.

Kamicosmos
November 18, 2004, 01:11 PM
No.

GOV
November 18, 2004, 01:50 PM
Hell Nooooooooooo!!!! No more than I wanted Teresa Hienz Kerry as a first lady. Now that would have been an Oxy Moron...

Robb
November 18, 2004, 02:13 PM
1sr Arnold... then George Soros... :eek:

saltydog452
November 18, 2004, 02:13 PM
No..

RKCheung
November 18, 2004, 02:38 PM
True enough, but I still think the pessimistic, pragmatic road on this issue is the safest one.

John,

I can understand your hesitancy. However, please realize that the argument you are positing is the same one people use to call for more restrictions on RKBA.

wingedmonkey
November 18, 2004, 02:47 PM
No, absolutely not. Senator Orrin Hatch had a bill in last session pushing this looney idea and I expect him to have it back in the hopper this year. :banghead:

pax
November 18, 2004, 03:01 PM
'Bout the only reason I rooted for Ahnold in the guv'ners race was because it seemed a Really Good Idea for California to have a prominent politician who couldn't run for Pres.

pax

R.H. Lee
November 18, 2004, 03:10 PM
NO. I do not want people who can't even apply the Constitution (as it now exists) mucking around with it to serve their purposes thank you very much. :fire:

tyme
November 18, 2004, 03:10 PM
Poll added. Everyone go vote.

Mulliga
November 18, 2004, 03:29 PM
YES.

...but not for Arnold. Just in general.

Foreign-born U.S. citizens can be Senators and Representatives. They can hold nearly any appointed office - theoretically, every single Supreme Court Justice could be foreign-born. So, nearly the entire federal government could be composed of foreign-born U.S. citizens.

Except the Presidency.

Folks, the Constituton, as much as we adore it, has seen major changes already. No more "2/3 of a person," direct election of Senators, etc. I'd argue that if a foreign-born citizen has lived in America for 35 years and can survive the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, they are just as fit to lead America in this day and age. With the amount of immigration, travel, and communication in the modern world, just being born here is no guarantee of loyalty to the country, anyway.

As for being CNC against a foreign country of one's birth, didn't people ask the same kind of questions of JFK when he was up for President - that is, if the Pope would come first before America? But obviously, America comes first. My father, for example, was born in Hong Kong, but I know he's probably more "American" than most of the jokers we have in Congress (like Skerry and Hillary), and would not hesitate to use force to protect Americans, even if it was (unlikely as it were) against Hong Kong. He doesn't want to run for president, but if some 4-year old Cuban refugee dreams of someday holding the highest office in the land, I say, let him.

MrPhil
November 18, 2004, 04:04 PM
I like Arnold and think he's just right for California. As President? I don't think so.

Mulliga has a point about amending the Constitution. It has been done before and will be done again. Heck, we all support the 2nd Amendment. It's part of the "Bill of Rights" that were added very soon after the Constitution was ratified.
In any event, the Amendment process is arduous and lengthy. Arnold will be long gone before any Amendment could be passed.

Jonathan
November 19, 2004, 12:24 PM
An amendment is not added for one person: it just happens to take one person to make a case for change.


1.) It will take more than a "natural born citizen" requirement to keep unfit people out of the white house.

2.) There are conflicts of interest more serious than place of birth.


Too many people yelling "NO" (on general principle, of course :rolleyes: ), when they really mean to say "not Arnold".

Gunstar1
November 19, 2004, 12:50 PM
Too many people yelling "NO" (on general principle, of course ), when they really mean to say "not Arnold".

Not true, many Cuban born people live in the United States and have become citizens. Many of them absolutly dispise Castro and want him out of power for the sakes of thier family members still living there. As the commander-in-cheif he/she would have the power to do something about it whether the people like it or not.

This is just a generalization, many countries could be substituted for Cuba. If someone had to flee thier country for political reasons with family members still in that country with the same leadership as when they left, you would have a very strong conflict of intrest.

A naturalized citizen that becomes a Senator, Representative, or cabinet member does not have the power to wage war as the president does. I have no problem with naturalized citizens holding those positions, just not the president.

From the posts before I believe the "Ahnold for Prez" campaign will get as far as a lead balloon.

RKCheung
November 19, 2004, 01:02 PM
Not true, many Cuban born people live in the United States and have become citizens. Many of them absolutly dispise Castro and want him out of power for the sakes of thier family members still living there. As the commander-in-cheif he/she would have the power to do something about it whether the people like it or not.

Seems like one naturally born citizen can do that now and has tried to do just that as it is (JFK).

This is just a generalization, many countries could be substituted for Cuba. If someone had to flee thier country for political reasons with family members still in that country with the same leadership as when they left, you would have a very strong conflict of intrest.

You could make the same argument about any number of things, including corporate conflicts-of-interest. The fact is, it would be the responsibility of the electorate to make the decision about whether any perceived conflicts-of-interest (whether to foreign countries or domestic corporations, etc.) outweigh the strengths of the candidate.

JohnMc
November 19, 2004, 01:11 PM
didn't people ask the same kind of questions of JFK when he was up for President - that is, if the Pope would come first before America? Yes, folks did, but JFK wasn't born in the Vatican and the Constitution allows people to be religious as long as they don't try to esablish a state religion.

However, please realize that the argument you are positing is the same one people use to call for more restrictions on RKBA. RK,
That's a valid point, except that there's plenty of empirical data that shows the so-called "cautious road" in restricting RKBA doesn't change much, while we can point to pretty much anybody that flies the flag of their natal country as having divided loyalties, to some level or another. Whether they mattered to such a theoretical President or not would be up the individual, of course, but why risk falling off that particular cliff (yes, there's plenty more to fall off of.) Sure, one could also argue that 2nd or greater generation immigrant, natural born citizens can possess divided loyaties as well. Hopefully, the electoral process will catch those sorts of things. But why burden it with another level of complexity?
Call me pessimistic, it'll be true... :D

BTW, if he hadn't signed the .50 cal ban, I'd probably have voted for the theoretical natural-born citizen Arnold or the post Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 ammendment candidate Arnold. I'd bow to the majority and new law of the land, but now he gets my vote never.

RKCheung
November 19, 2004, 01:45 PM
John,

I have enough reasonable faith in the electorate to believe they would do the right thing in regards to ascertaining potential foreign conflicts-of-interest in a naturalized citizen candidate running for President.

I totally agree with you on Arnold on though. :banghead:

CarlS
November 19, 2004, 01:54 PM
You could make the same argument about any number of things, including corporate conflicts-of-interest. The fact is, it would be the responsibility of the electorate to make the decision about whether any perceived conflicts-of-interest (whether to foreign countries or domestic corporations, etc.) outweigh the strengths of the candidate.

RK,

Yes, you could. Except these things are not covered in the constitution. The country of birth of a presidential candidate is. That provision has served us well since the ratification of the constitution. Why change it now?

JohnMc
November 19, 2004, 05:25 PM
I have enough reasonable faith in the electorate to believe they would do the right thing in regards to ascertaining potential foreign conflicts-of-interest in a naturalized citizen candidate running for President.
RK,
I gotta rib you on faith in the electorate; we voted for Clinton, twice! :p
John

MICHAEL T
November 20, 2004, 01:03 AM
NO! NO! NO! :fire: :fire: :fire: :cuss: :cuss: He"s not even a good actor.

hm
November 20, 2004, 01:41 AM
Interesting...it sounds like Arnold isn't too popular with a bunch of the pitch-fork reactionary right wing of the GOP. Well, I don't support it because of Ah-nold, but I do think in a nation founded by immigrants and on the principle of rights for all, we oughta let non-native-born Americans run (provided they've been here at least, say, 25 years I guess).

Art Eatman
November 20, 2004, 10:01 AM
My umpteenth grandfather, John Witherspoon, signed the Declaration of Independence, and contributed in the writings leading up to the Constitution.

He wasn't born here. Yet, he and others knowingly wrote themselves out of the possibility of becoming President.

Just guessing, I imagine the view was that the children of immigrants would be more strongly acculturated and thus more qualified for that high office. First-generation immigrants would carry too much emotional baggage, possibly, to think first and always of the good of the U.S.

As was said early on, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Art

CarlS
November 20, 2004, 12:30 PM
but I do think in a nation founded by immigrants and on the principle of rights for all, we oughta let non-native-born Americans run...
Uhmm, non-native born Americans were involved in writing this restriction into the constitution. If it ain't broke; don't fix it.

RKCheung
November 20, 2004, 12:55 PM
Carl,

Yes, you could. Except these things are not covered in the constitution. The country of birth of a presidential candidate is. That provision has served us well since the ratification of the constitution. Why change it now?

We can't really say how well it has truly served us since we can not view an alternative timeline of what may have come to pass if such a provision was not in the Constitution.

What has changed since then is our capability for research. Every minute detail of a person's life is dug up during a Presidential campaign. Any hints at undue foreign allegiance (as was levied at John Kerry) will be revealed and considered during the electoral process.

However, even if nothing has changed, one can still make an argument for allowing naturalized citizens to run as Alexander Hamilton did:

Col. HAMILTON was in general agst. embarrassing the Govt. with minute restrictions. There was on one side the possible danger that had been suggested. On the other side, the advantage of encouraging foreigners was obvious & admitted. Persons in Europe of moderate fortunes will be fond of coming here where they will be on a level with the first Citizens. He moved that the section be so altered as to require merely citizenship & inhabitancy. The right of determining the rule of naturalization will then leave a discretion to the Legislature on this subject which will answer every purpose.
As well as James Madison:

Mr. MADISON seconded the motion. He wished to maintain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the Constitutions & publications of America. He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigrations for her settlement & Prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture & the arts. There was a possible danger he admitted that men with foreign predilections might obtain appointments but it was by no means probable that it would happen in any dangerous degree. For the same reason that they would be attached to their native Country, our own people wd. prefer natives of this Country to them. Experience proved this to be the case. Instances were rare of a foreigner being elected by the people within any short space after his coming among us. If bribery was to be practised by foreign powers, it would not be attempted among the electors but among the elected; and among natives having full Confidence of the people not among strangers who would be regarded with a jeoulous eye.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/813.htm

I stand with Hamilton and Madison.

RKCheung
November 20, 2004, 12:59 PM
John,

I gotta rib you on faith in the electorate; we voted for Clinton, twice!
Ok, you got me there! Of course, that just proves that natural-born citizens can have conflicts-of-interest (in Clinton's case - women other than his wife) in the same or greater degree. :D

Clean97GTI
November 21, 2004, 04:14 AM
I will vote YES. The vote is not for one man, but for all men who might have something to offer. I say let the people choose the president from a list of the best possible candidates. We limit ourselves to two choices every four years and it has landed us in a world of trouble. Our president is one of the poorest examples of honesty and integrity in the white house we have ever seen.
America was built on the principle of a melting pot. Our country has gained its strength from diversity, not from some muted form of racism we call national pride. As long as the candidate has been a naturalized citizen for a long enough period of time and meets all other requirements, I see no reason why they shouldn't run. Shame on those who would limit the opportunity of a qualified person to run for office. I'd be willing to bet some of those hard working immigrants that recieve so much praise is more closely in tune with some members on this board than the two millionaires who just ran for the presidency.

For the record, I am a natural born citizen but Arnold has been a citizen longer than I.

Selfdfenz
November 21, 2004, 08:57 AM
I hear what you sat Clean97GTI and in a perfect world we might get the result you hope for but the US is not that perfect world.

If you decry the quality of the last two millionairs that ran for POTUS what makes you think vectoring in a man like George Soros improves the equation. We would very likely get that kind of candidate a percentage of the time.
Our system is awash with foreign money now. Allowing foreign candidates to run pretty much guarentees one of them will eventually be POTUS but there is no way to guarentee that man or woman will have the nations best interest at heart. There's no lie detector for that.

I'm not convinced Bush or Kerry did or do have the nations best interests at heart but a president from the PRC invariably will not! Look at THR poll numbers on this thread. There's wisdom there.
The US does not have to be all things, and provide evey opportunity, to everyone, the world over.
Take care,

S-

Oh almost forgot
Our current system has proven to me the best of the best do not get nominated, however, our system does provide us with a slate of excellent fund raisers, networkers and middle of the road type candidates. :barf: I have to believe there is an inexhaustable supply of absolutely excellent native born Americans for the job but we never get to vote for those guys or women. Let's fix that part of our system before we go fishing for candidates off shore. You can't convince me that vectoring in a bunch of naturalized citizens fixes any of the issues with our electoral system or government.
Logic would tend to indicate the opposite.
S-

HarryB
November 21, 2004, 09:46 AM
However, even if nothing has changed, one can still make an argument for allowing naturalized citizens to run as Alexander Hamilton did:



Hamilton, IIRC, was born in Bermuda and thus ineligible for the Presidency. Some believe the natural born provision was a deliberate slap at Hamilton to prevent him from holding that position--he would have had a likely chance of being elected...

RKCheung
November 21, 2004, 11:37 AM
Folks,

As a reminder to all those who have forgotten what the Constitution has said on this matter, foreign-born citizens at the time of ratification are indeed eligible to run for the office of President.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, Mr. Witherspoon and Col. Hamilton would have the right to run for President, which is currently being denied to the second-class citizens who so happened to be born elsewhere.

Waitone
November 21, 2004, 01:57 PM
Uh oh! I may not be able to be President.

I was born in Chermany. My father was in the US Army and stationed in said country. I was told I was born on a US military reservation of US citizen parents.

Am I natural born or will I have to give up on my dream?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 21, 2004, 02:36 PM
Yes. Whatever gives the American voter the greatest choice is good. If they're foolish enough to elect Soros then they're foolish enough to elect Hitlerly Clintoon so what's the difference?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 21, 2004, 02:44 PM
.

RKCheung
November 21, 2004, 04:38 PM
Waitone,

You're good to go.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/faq.htm#q2

2. Who is born a United States citizen?

Generally, people are born U.S. citizens if they are born in the United States or if they are born to U.S. citizens:

(1) By being born in the United States

If you were born in the United States (including, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), you are an American citizen at birth (unless you were born to a foreign diplomat). Your birth certificate is proof of your citizenship.
(2) Through birth abroad to TWO United States citizens

In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

Both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born; and

At least one of your parents lived in the United States at some point in their life.

Your record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of your citizenship. You may also apply for a passport to have your citizenship recognized. If you need additional proof of your citizenship, you may file a Form N-600, "Application for Certificate of Citizenship" to get a Certificate of Citizenship. You may download the form by clicking here, or you may call the USCIS Forms Line at 1(800) 870-3676 to request a Form N-600.

(3) Through birth abroad to ONE United States citizen

In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born;

Your citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before
you were born; and
At least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after your
citizen parent's 14th birthday*.

Your record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of your citizenship. You may also apply for a passport to have your citizenship recognized. If you need additional proof of your citizenship, you may file an "Application for Certificate of Citizenship" (Form N-600) with USCIS to get a Certificate of Citizenship.

*If you were born before November 14, 1986, you are a citizen if your U.S. citizen parent lived in the United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years in the United States were after your citizen parent's 14th birthday.

10-Ring
November 21, 2004, 08:24 PM
NO! :scrutiny:

IF he wanted to be President, he should have been born here! :D

Winnisimmet
November 21, 2004, 09:10 PM
No! No! No! And that's from a Second Generation American married to a 1996 Naturalized citizen.


No !! There's another one!

:neener:

ERAPRIL
July 28, 2011, 04:10 PM
absolutely not. Changing the constitution for one man is just.... Silly.

And tag... That line only means someone not born a citizen who was a citizen at the time of ratification could hold the office. I don't think arnold was around then. :)
where do you guys think george washington, adams and jefferson was born as well as lincoln. Don;t forget that america was a conony many mant years before we revolter, chech your history before you get arnold elected. You have to be born and live in america to love it like i do and if you go to any other country you would love it more.

CoRoMo
July 28, 2011, 04:14 PM
...america was a conony many mant years before we revolter, chech your history...
Check your spelling. And don't argue with a member who hasn't been by in over 530 days.

rbernie
July 28, 2011, 04:29 PM
We no longer allow political discussions on THR.

JShirley
July 28, 2011, 04:44 PM
Not only is this a zombie thread, it has nothing to do with RKBA.

John

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you support amending the Constitution so Arnold can run for President?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!