Bill to change qualifications for President?
EWTHeckman
October 10, 2003, 12:21 AM
I play with an amateur orchestra. Most of the members have bought the socialist lies lock, stock and barrel. (Hey, isn't that phrase gun related?)
Tonight during rehearsal, one of them spoke up and said that Republicans have introduced a bill to change to the requirements for President from natural born citizen to 20 year citizen, supposedly just so Arnold can run for President.
This sounds bogus to me, but just to be sure...
Have you heard anything like this? Can you confirm whether it's true or false?
If you enjoyed reading about "Bill to change qualifications for President?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sodbuster
October 10, 2003, 12:25 AM
Although they play freely with the Second Amendment, Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution.
USGuns
October 10, 2003, 12:26 AM
They're pulling your leg. A bill wouldn't do it. You would have to change the Constitution to do it. And that isn't easy.... thank goodness!
Constitutional convention, ratified by the states, yadda yadda...
gun-fucious
October 10, 2003, 12:29 AM
Orin Hatch was the sponsor i saw
C.R.Sam
October 10, 2003, 12:31 AM
Only alteration I would go for would be to require the candidates to "be of good moral character".
That oughtta weed out most of em.
Sam
gun-fucious
October 10, 2003, 12:32 AM
here ya go:
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/oct/10042003/utah/98550.asp
Hatch has introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution's ban on non-American-born presidents by allowing people who have been U.S. citizens for at least 20 years to be elected to the White House. While the measure was not introduced with Schwarzenegger in mind, Hatch said the Austrian-born superstar would be a perfect example of why the constitutional amendment is needed.
___ "If Arnold Schwarzenegger turns out to be the greatest governor of California, which I hope he will, if he turns out to be a tremendous leader and he proves to everybody in this country that he's totally dedicated to this country as an American . . . we would be wrong not to give him that opportunity," said Hatch.
___
C.R.Sam
October 10, 2003, 01:24 AM
Good grief.
The "other folks" have had moles in place for 20 years and more.
Once in a while one is uncovered.
Sam
Gordon Fink
October 10, 2003, 02:05 AM
About 20 years ago, my high-school friends were talking about the political future of one Arnold Schwarzenegger. One suggested that the well-known Republican actor might run for President some day, but another countered that the Constitution would forbid this because he wasn’t a native citizen. I suggested that the Constitution would be amended to correct this oversight in such an event.
We shall see …
~G. Fink
jsalcedo
October 10, 2003, 02:12 AM
The "other folks" have had moles in place for 20 years and more.
I think the worst possible mole would be less damaging than 8 years of Clinton/ JBT/BJ/Hillary/Reno
MicroBalrog
October 10, 2003, 06:07 AM
The "other folks" have had moles in place for 20 years and more.
And you think they bribed no US-borns?
Or that there are no immigrants that dig the constitution better than Bill Clinton?:D
tyme
October 10, 2003, 06:59 AM
There are natural US citizen moles. There are brilliant immigrants who would make great presidents. But...
"If Arnold Schwarzenegger turns out to be the greatest governor of California, which I hope he will, if he turns out to be a tremendous leader and he proves to everybody in this country that he's totally dedicated to this country as an American . . . we would be wrong not to give him that opportunity," said Hatch.
Why would we be wrong not to give him that opportunity? Is there a right for citizens to be able to run for president?
Whether a mole would continue being a mole if elected to the most powerful office in the world is, I think, something of an open question. Unless you want to count Clinton and his pro-China agenda... :uhoh:
What would you have to gain by being a mole at that point?
Ol' Badger
October 10, 2003, 07:48 AM
You have to be born here. No one else ever be trusted enough for that job. Hell, look at how much damage a preverted brainwashed commie bastard Klinton did! He was born here. Just think what a foenigor could do.
DigMe
October 10, 2003, 11:00 AM
You have to be born here.
Minor correction...You don't have to be born here...you just have to be born a US citizen. You could be born in North Korea and still be eligible as long as your parents'/parent's citizenship meets one of several stipulations.
brad cook
vi9er
October 10, 2003, 12:13 PM
Shades of Demolition Man are running through my head......
Ed
Balog
October 10, 2003, 12:38 PM
You have to be born here. No one else ever be trusted enough for that job. Hell, look at how much damage a preverted brainwashed commie bastard Klinton did! He was born here. Just think what a foenigor could do.
You seem to be refuting your own argument here. Why would a "foenigor" be worse than a native? Can you honestly say someone is automatically going to be corrupt or socialist? What if it was a Swiss immigrant? They're less regulated (in the RKBA sense anyway) than we are. What if it was someone like Maggie Thatcher? Can you honestly say she'd be a worse President than Hillary simply because she wasn't born here?
Ol' Badger
October 10, 2003, 01:01 PM
Heck if I know what I'm saying. I just gave up Coffee two weeks ago and I'm pissed about everthing!
Balog
October 10, 2003, 01:03 PM
Ol' Badger:
LOL, in that case I'm surprised you kept it so civil:D
Master Blaster
October 10, 2003, 01:05 PM
You have to be born here. No one else ever be trusted enough for that job.
You mean Like George Washington????
Born in England, I guess he was trustworth enough. :rolleyes:
Ol' Badger
October 10, 2003, 01:06 PM
Some reason I'm angry at Tom Cruise for leaving Nicole too. Can't tell ya just why thou. I catch myself driving by Starbucks late at night off my normal route. I even think about going through my neighbors trash and eating the grounds!:D
Ol' Badger
October 10, 2003, 01:10 PM
I'll check on that one MB.
Ol' Badger
October 10, 2003, 01:14 PM
Born in Westmoreland County, Va., on Feb. 22, 1732, George Washington was the eldest son of Augustine Washington and his second wife, Mary Ball Washington, who were prosperous Virginia gentry of English descent. George spent his early years on the family estate on Pope's Creek along the Potomac River. His early education included the study of such subjects as mathematics, surveying, the classics, and "rules of civility." His father died in 1743
YEA BABY!!!! Doing my I was right dance.:D
longeyes
October 10, 2003, 01:21 PM
This is moot: in a few years, as things are going now, the U.S.A. will be run from the bowels of the U.N. or Brussels anyway.
With 300 million Americans to pick from we really need to scout for talent among people who weren't born U.S. citizens? This is the "great man theory of history," and something we need to get beyond. We don't need a Messiah, we need responsible and awake citizens if we want to keep this Republic.
Are the loyalty issues bogus? I used to think so but the push for diversity and multiculturalism, with its culturally balkanizing ramifications, has changed my mind. The Left wants a fragmented America.
C.R.Sam
October 10, 2003, 01:21 PM
Ol Badger need no coffee to stay sharp. :D
Interesting...he was born here but here then wasn't the same as here now, tho the same place was always here. And that's where he was born.
Sam
MicroBalrog
October 10, 2003, 01:24 PM
Just think what a foenigor could do.
Surely, foreigners don't dig constitutional liberty an' all that:
http://www.olegvolk.net/newphotos/thr/fashionableoleg_s.jpg
Good example?:D
Ol' Badger
October 10, 2003, 01:28 PM
Touche`
But there will still be a tad bit of mistrust. But alot of folks say I have a diamond for a hart anyhow.
MicroBalrog
October 10, 2003, 01:32 PM
But there will still be a tad bit of mistrust
That's what elections are for.
Ironbarr
October 10, 2003, 09:38 PM
http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html (Article II, Sect 1, para 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, since we've past the "English" years there is only the "natural born citizen" and minimum age of 35 - unless the fourteen years of residency may still apply (like Mc Arthur' years outside CONUS, maybe?)
I am NOT for change(s) to this requirement. I cannot see any benefit in bringing what essentially is "a foreigner" to the Presidency. I can see ALL KINDS of un-benefits in doing this.
Frankly, I am surprised that Senator Hatch - or anyone in the higher strata of elected persons would even think this a positive and useful change.
Can you see that Frenchman gaining citizenship, a following, and a win? Who knows but that Osama is not already a citizen under another name(s) - clean names.
Yeah, I know - sounds nuts. But, opening this to all-comers is a Pandora's Box we need not open.
My $.64 FWIW.
-Andy
G-Raptor
October 10, 2003, 11:44 PM
Changing the requirements for the Office of the President is right up there with eliminating the Electoral College...ain't gonna happen.
The only people interested in either one are the liberals on the coasts and an occassional loose screw in the middle of the country.
Presidential elections and Constitutional amendments are the two areas of national politics where the lightly populated states still have some clout. They ain't gonna give it up.
If you enjoyed reading about "Bill to change qualifications for President?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.