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

[pax]

No.

'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]

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.

 

[tyme]

Poll added. Everyone go vote.

 

[Mulliga]

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]

Don't change it for Arnold!

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]

This has nothing to do with Arnold.

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 ), when they really mean to say "not Arnold".

 

[Gunstar1]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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!
John

 

[MICHAEL T]

NO! NO! NO! He"s not even a good actor.

 

[hm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ivy Mike]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.