Amend for Arnold Starts

[Tyek]

The ads started running in California today. They face a uphill battle, but it is a pretty stupid requirement. Birthplace is not a choice and based on the crap we have been fed for candidates maybe opening things up is a good thing.

Arnold for president? Leaders consider changing presidential requirements

Jenny Robertson
MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON – Is the country ready for The Governator to become president?
While Arnold Schwarzenegger was hardly mentioned in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday about whether to open the presidency to naturalized citizens, the California governor was clearly on people’s minds. One woman passed out red bumper stickers and showed off a pink T-shirt emblazoned with “Amend for Arnold.”

Currently, as required by the Constitution, an American president must be a native born citizen who is at least 35 –years old and has lived in the country for 14 years. That provision excludes naturalized citizens who immigrated to the United States.

Committee members and constitutional scholars stressed that opening the presidency is about more than just one politician. Instead, they argued, the issue centers on equality for all U.S. citizens, whether natural-born or naturalized.

“The United States is known as the land of opportunity,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “But there is one opportunity that these American citizens will never be able to attain under current law – they can never hold the office of the president.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who serves on the judiciary committee and has been mentioned as a prospect for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, did not attend the meeting. But he has serious questions about amending the Constitution, said a member of his staff.

“This is not a top priority issue,” said Graham’s spokesman Kevin Bishop, who added that the issue “isn’t even on the radar screen” of most people who write or call the senator’s office.

Hatch introduced a resolution in July that would allow U.S. residents to run for president if they meet the current age and residency requirements and have been a citizen for 20 years. Other lawmakers have asked Congress to consider similar legislation.

Hatch and others would need to amend the Constitution to change its requirements for president. An amendment needs approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, as well as the favor of three-fourths of the states.

“In a land of immigrants committed to the dream of equality, the Constitution’s natural-born clause seems, well, un-American,” Akhil Reed Amar, a political science professor at Yale, told the committee. “Why shouldn’t we open our highest office to those who have adopted this country as their own and have proved their patriotism through decades of devoted citizenship?”

The founders enacted the natural-born citizen clause because they worried a president born in another country might show deference to his homeland when making decisions, local scholars say. The United States was still in its infancy, and the Constitution’s authors wanted to stop a foreigner from coming to the country and leading it back to a monarchy.

“The president holds the sword of the community and takes the oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution,” said Robert Jeffrey, associate professor of government at Wofford College. “You don’t want anything divided in the president’s heart. It’s a way of saying that for the president, the interest of the country comes before anything else.”

The Constitution provided an exemption for anyone who was a U.S. citizen at the time the document was adopted. That was largely intended for Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the Caribbean.

“They wanted it so that he could have the chance to run for the presidency because of his role in writing the constitution,” said Adam Warber, assistant professor in political science at Clemson University. “This was kind of a payback for him if he ever wanted to do it.”

Neither Warber nor Jeffrey favored changing the constitutional presidency requirements.

Warber said, “Anytime that you go back and try to rethink the Constitution, I kind of hesitate a little bit.”

[Voronwë]

having a non-native as President is strategically idiotic.

I hardly think it is discriminatory to "keep" the man limited to holding the mundane post he now occupies.

[archeiron]

having a non-native as President is strategically idiotic.

I hardly think it is discriminatory to "keep" the man limited to holding the mundane post he now occupies.

I assume that you are referring to some inherent conflict of interests. Would you care to ellaborate for those of us who expect verbose responses? While you are drafting that up, could you explain how being the leader of the seventh largest economy in the world is a mundane position?

[masteen]

The GOP just wants to lock up the Presidency for the next 12 years. No one could hope to defeat the Governator. He doesn't eat, he doesn't sleep, he's only after one thing: YOUR VOTE!

[Sylvos]

I think that would be neat.

I would then await the Great Earthquake of 2010 and the formation of San Angelos. Just to make sure that Demolition Man is still right on the money.

After that we can start the Franchise wars where Taco Bell wins.

[Tyek]

The new requirement they propose states the person must be a citizen for 20 years before they can run. How is this strategically Idiotic? Do you think Dan Quayle was a more viable option then a foreign born person because he was born here?

For the record I never said I wanted Arnold, I would much rather have McCain, but he has been a far better governor then the moron Gray Davis was.

[Sylvus]

I think there should be an amendment. I don't know for sure if I think Arnold would be a good President (he'd have a hard time being worse than Bush!) but I think the rule is kind of silly. It's not like it's easy to get elected President in this country, I would think that someone wouldn't have broad enough appeal to get the nomination if they weren't "American enough".

[Voronwë]

having a non-native as President is strategically idiotic.

I hardly think it is discriminatory to "keep" the man limited to holding the mundane post he now occupies.

I assume that you are referring to some inherent conflict of interests. Would you care to ellaborate for those of us who expect verbose responses? While you are drafting that up, could you explain how being the leader of the seventh largest economy in the world is a mundane position?

yeah i was being sarcastic about his current job.

i dont have time to ellaborate on the first sentence, but yeah, conflict of interest is a real liability.

not that conflict of interest and the Oval Office don't mix (re: Energy Policy).

[Xorian]

Btw we dont hear a lot about Schwarzie here...how is he doing as Governor?

[Lohrno]

I'd definitely rather have him than Bush. Who the hell thought that (nominating Bush) was a good idea?

-=Lohrno

[Pherr the Dorf]

His record in Kal--ee--FORN--ya is spotty, not bad not great, he has OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS to prove and not much more the rhetoric so far in a year

[archeiron]

His record in Kal--ee--FORN--ya is spotty, not bad not great, he has OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS to prove and not much more the rhetoric so far in a year

Didn't he manage to get the budget done? Albeit he wasn't on time as he promised, but it was only a little late. I understand that he contributed greatly to curbing government spending in California. I believe my aunt (a teacher in Sacramento) mentioned that his backing on education spending has shown positive results (increase in money allocated per student).

I might look it up later, but I don't think he has done nothing in the past year....

[Lohrno]

He also got rid of the stupid illegal immigrant DL thing. Sorry, but our policies toward this type of behavior are inconsistent, and I think this is a good step towards bringing them back to consistency.

That said, I don't have a problem with immigrants, and I think the INS(DoJ now) needs to be reworked/made way more efficient, and easy. There are so many hurdles to immigrating that it makes it difficult for people to do things the honest way. It should all be made easier. It is tending to get easier these days, which is a good sign though. Have you ever seen a foreign consul these days? I swear they are just going "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, etc." It shouldn't be like that. If you're not from Europe or Japan, it's very difficult to even get a tourist visa.

But still, if an illegal comes to a DMV, they should be put on the bus and shipped back home. Seriously, we're not here to support people who break the law.

-=Lohrno

[Rekaar.]

Have to remember that he's still got a very liberal state and congress to deal with, so he can only do so much in his first term.

[archeiron]

Have to remember that he's still got a very liberal state and congress to deal with, so he can only do so much in his first term.

Arnold is only a republican because of how impressed he was by a Nixon speech when he was young. He is incredibly moderate, so I doubt that he has difficulty in dealing with his "liberal" state. He supports gay marriage, etc, so I wouldn't expect to see "conservative values" as part of his agenda any time soon.

[Kylere]

No way in hell I would vote to have a foriegn born president, there was valid reasoning against this in the 17770's and there still are several.

This is bloody well stupid.

[Lohrno]

Our US born president is totally incompetent. I see no reason to not have foreign born presidents.

-=Lohrno

[Zaelath]

No way in hell I would vote to have a foriegn born president, there was valid reasoning against this in the 17770's and there still are several.

This is bloody well stupid.

You'll have to list some unless you wanna be tagged as just another knee-jerk racist/elitist.

I'd rather see a "no celebrities" rule

[Xzion]

I fully support this amendment, and i would vote for ah-nuld in a heartbeat (short of say bill maher running against him....that or ah-nuld loosing his social policy to appeal to the religious-right repub base)
Just because you were born in a foreign nation does not make you any less American than anyone else. Keep in mind we were founded by immigrants so its pretty hypocritical to not give them the same rights as everyone else…(of course there should be laws saying that they must be American citizens for 15-20+ years etc etc)
Let the American people decide if a foreign born leader would be good, not a law restricting such

[Xzion]

Have to remember that he's still got a very liberal state and congress to deal with, so he can only do so much in his first term.

ah-nuld is liberal, more socially liberal then most dems, then again he comes off as very fiscally conservative, he would be the closest thing to a libertarian, without being a libertarian

[Dregor Thule]

Just think about all the really neat signs you could make for his re-election bid tho! The Two-Terminator!

Really the fact that he's not qualified to be president would keep him from holding the post... oh... wai

[Nick]

Come back Bill Hicks, your country needs you.

[Kylere]

Accusing me of racism for not wanting a naturalized citizen for President is ignorant, especially in light of the fact that the two biggest contenders for the role are a blue eyed blonde, and Arnie the Austrian who had his daddy in the SS.

Okay quick name the number of countries that allow foreign born to become the President/Commissar/King/Prime Minister etc....

The "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

Now we move forward 200 years and we have a popular to democrats Governor Granholm who is of Canadian birth in Michigan, and Gov Arnie of California who is popular with the republicans. Neither party seems to be able to nominate anyone who is capable to be president so both are looking to quick fix solutions. So let's toss aside the fact that our founding fathers who happen to have laid the basis for the best democracy in the history of man down, and decide that in our fast food McDonalds lifestyles we want that quick easy foreign fix.

This is wrong, we do not change the Constitution for giggles or quick fixes. The nail in the coffin of the republicans for me was the blind desire to touch it all for any reason. We are not talking about the oppression of anyone, or the starvation of children, the holding down of the populace, we are talking about less than 3% of the population being denied one job, which is one of the lowest paying CEO positions in the country. I am not keeping anyone down, I am avoiding the issue of having a Commander in Chief from Country X having to go to war with country X, or issue trade embargoes, or blockade ports of Country X.

This restriction is to avoid conflicts of interest and the unneeded sway of foreign powers in American politics, it is just as valid now as it was when it was penned, and changing it as a kneejerk reaction is silly to say the least and a sign of just how incompetent the citizenry have become at the most.

[archeiron]

Accusing me of racism for not wanting a naturalized citizen for President is ignorant, especially in light of the fact that the two biggest contenders for the role are a blue eyed blonde, and Arnie the Austrian who had his daddy in the SS.

Okay quick name the number of countries that allow foreign born to become the President/Commissar/King/Prime Minister etc....

The "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

Now we move forward 200 years and we have a popular to democrats Governor Granholm who is of Canadian birth in Michigan, and Gov Arnie of California who is popular with the republicans. Neither party seems to be able to nominate anyone who is capable to be president so both are looking to quick fix solutions. So let's toss aside the fact that our founding fathers who happen to have laid the basis for the best democracy in the history of man down, and decide that in our fast food McDonalds lifestyles we want that quick easy foreign fix.

This is wrong, we do not change the Constitution for giggles or quick fixes. The nail in the coffin of the republicans for me was the blind desire to touch it all for any reason. We are not talking about the oppression of anyone, or the starvation of children, the holding down of the populace, we are talking about less than 3% of the population being denied one job, which is one of the lowest paying CEO positions in the country. I am not keeping anyone down, I am avoiding the issue of having a Commander in Chief from Country X having to go to war with country X, or issue trade embargoes, or blockade ports of Country X.

This restriction is to avoid conflicts of interest and the unneeded sway of foreign powers in American politics, it is just as valid now as it was when it was penned, and changing it as a kneejerk reaction is silly to say the least and a sign of just how incompetent the citizenry have become at the most.

This argument by and large hinges upon the notion that our founding father knew best, backed by some valid arguments on conflict of interest.

Let me quash the first argument by pointing out that the founding fathers, wise men though they were, didn't see fit to grant voting rights to either women or black people. Clearly, the founding fathers did not "know best" under all circumstances and were bound by the times they lived in. It would be reasonable to assume that there was some fear of having an English president rise to power and undo their work; needless to stay, there are safeguards in the Constitution to protect the fragile notion of a single union that they concevied of. As an example, the Union was so fragile that they pointedly did not discuss slaverly for fear of unravelling the ties that bound the colonies together before they ever could form a single nation.

The second argument has strong merits. It is possible that an immigrant still has strong ties to their nation of origin. However, one can observe that many immigrants are the strongest supporters of America because they made the conscious choice to immigrate and because they had to work hard to become a citizen. As a result, some of these immigrants can be "more American" than those people born here who have never had to work for it or choose to be an active participant in the system. One could argue that a presidential candidate should be judged by contents of their character, their qualifications for the role, and the potential for good that they could do for America rather than the place that they were born.

It is ironic that a nation of immigrants would place such importance on the place in which their leaders were born.

[Zaelath]

Accusing me of racism for not wanting a naturalized citizen for President is ignorant, especially in light of the fact that the two biggest contenders for the role are a blue eyed blonde, and Arnie the Austrian who had his daddy in the SS.

Okay quick name the number of countries that allow foreign born to become the President/Commissar/King/Prime Minister etc....

Didn't accuse you of being racist, suggested that it can look that way if you don't relate some of the reasons you say exist.

I'm not a constitutional historian, so I can't give you a "quick" list of all the countries that don't have xenophobic rules about their President/PM/etc, but I know there's nothing in the Australian constitution about it, and a number of our PMs have been foreign born (Scotland and England mostly, but that's not relevant from a constitutional standpoint)

I really wonder how keen you think a first generation chinese-american president would be about going to war against China? (as if you'll have one this century) That said, I'm pretty certain any president that put the interests of his or her (ha!) "motherland" over those of the US would be impeached/assassinated so fast it wouldn't matter too much.

[archeiron]

As Britain does not have a Constitution, it isn't always obvious to know where to find certain details like this, but as far as my friends could recall (lawyers) there is no law preventing a naturalized citizen from becoming Prime Minister.

Admittedly, none of them focused on the laws relating to Parliment, so take that as a superficial answer.

Interestingly, this original law would have kept Alexander Hamilton from becoming president - he was born in the West Indies. I trust that no one is going to question his commitment to the US.

Of the original congress to sign the Constitution, Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis, Robert Morris, James Smith, George Taylor, Matthew Thornton, James Wilson, and John Witherspoon were all foreign born. That is one in seven of the original signers (8 out of 56).

[Xyun]

I think the founding fathers included that clause to protect themselves and I don't think it is any less legitimate today as it was then. Honestly, can we not find one person amongst us competent enough to be president that we actually have to change the constitution?

The reasoning behind this idea seems politically motivated to me, and even though I myself am an immigrant, I oppose such an amendment.

[Hesten]

Accusing me of racism for not wanting a naturalized citizen for President is ignorant, especially in light of the fact that the two biggest contenders for the role are a blue eyed blonde, and Arnie the Austrian who had his daddy in the SS.

This is wrong, we do not change the Constitution for giggles or quick fixes.

Hehe, Arnie is gonna fit in fine then, since Bush dad traded with the germans even AFTER the US went to war . At least Arnies dad had the excuse of living in a country where there was some pressure from the germans .

Oh, and if you think its wrong to change the constitution, why did you vote for Bush? Didnt he propose that change to the constitution about defining a marriage as between a man and a woman?

[Zaelath]

He didn't, edit away!

[Xzion]

niiice, we have a debate on here that isnt filled with "partisan hackery" conservatives and liberals joining forces on both sides of the debate!

[Sylvos]

Accusing me of racism for not wanting a naturalized citizen for President is ignorant, especially in light of the fact that the two biggest contenders for the role are a blue eyed blonde, and Arnie the Austrian who had his daddy in the SS.

This is wrong, we do not change the Constitution for giggles or quick fixes.

Hehe, Arnie is gonna fit in fine then, since Bush dad traded with the germans even AFTER the US went to war . At least Arnies dad had the excuse of living in a country where there was some pressure from the germans .

Oh, and if you think its wrong to change the constitution, why did you vote for Bush? Didnt he propose that change to the constitution about defining a marriage as between a man and a woman?

No, he said he was against the ban on gay marriage and said it is up to the states to decide if they want it or not. Way to keep abreast of foreign affairs!

[Sparck]

I think that would be neat.

I would then await the Great Earthquake of 2010 and the formation of San Angelos. Just to make sure that Demolition Man is still right on the money.

After that we can start the Franchise wars where Taco Bell wins.

I was thinking the same thing

[Voronwë]

to elaborate on my position, to amend the Constitution based on a pop-star that has less than 1 year on his resume as a public servant is beyond absurd.

He may be doing a great job, and I hope he is. We can see how he governs over the length of his terms and then observe the long term effects of those changes.

to base a Constitutional amendment on something so ephemeral as celebrity is laughable in my opinion.

[archeiron]

to elaborate on my position, to amend the Constitution based on a pop-star that has less than 1 year on his resume as a public servant is beyond absurd.

He may be doing a great job, and I hope he is. We can see how he governs over the length of his terms and then observe the long term effects of those changes.

to base a Constitutional amendment on something so ephemeral as celebrity is laughable in my opinion.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan won every single state save Wisconsin. He was an actor, turned California governor, turned president. This particular path seems to be a winning formula. I am not arguing that it is a good thing, but American politics is filled with very strange events.

[Jice Virago]

If Arnie could manage to keep his moderate stance in the face of mighty-whitey pressure from within the GOP "base", I would be in favor of voting for him. Honestly, he could not be any more incompetant than Bush and the GOP needs a moderate leader with actual charisma. I would go as far as to say he has a better command of the english language than W.

Also, to those who cite a conflict of interest as an issue, do you think that is any worse than Bush practically relocating the seat of power to Texas with all of the corperate wellfare (and dubious energy policy decisions) that has gone on during his tenure? Favoring one state over the rest is perhaps worse than having bias when dealing with a foreign power. Hell, that bias already exists when you consider all of the blind pro-Israel policy shifts made by the neocons.

Requiring 20 years of citizenship (with no dual citizenship status during that period) is reasonable and fair. Anyone who is here that long gets assimilated into our culture, anyhow.

[Llaffer]

Arnold vs. Hillary -- should be interesting lol

[Seebs]

This would open the door for Paul Schaffer for President.

Then we could really blame Canada.

[Rekaar.]

It is ironic that a nation of immigrants would place such importance on the place in which their leaders were born.

Technically, every nation is a nation of immigrants =p

I think Kylere is right on the money.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

GIT TO THA CHOPPA!!!! AAAARRGH!!!

[archeiron]

Technically, every nation is a nation of immigrants =p

I think Kylere is right on the money.

This isn't even remotely true. This is the same sort of fallacious semantics that leads to statements like "all people are self-conscious"; this argument is flawed in that while all people have some aspect of self-consciousness, we use the words to describe those people who have an excess of this trait that distinguishes them from the norm. If we did not, then the expression would have no more specific meaning than to say that "people are people".

Unlike the US where a small number of colonists were supplemented by a massive population influx through immigration, the United Kingdom was settled before the notion of the present nation was formed. As a result, saying that the US is a nation of immigrants distinguishes it from nations which were settled in a different way (e.g. migrant settlements coalescing into a single nation, or the disolution of a large empire into smaller states).

I think Kylere is right on the money.

If that is true, why don't you take a shot at responding to my counter examples for Kylere's reasoning a few posts up.

[Kylere]

Acheiron you really did not have any to refute, you said you didn't know about the Prime Minister, you threw some founding father examples, but those who were citizens at the time of founding got a bye on the issue.

So did you really have any debatable points?

[archeiron]

Acheiron you really did not have any to refute, you said you didn't know about the Prime Minister, you threw some founding father examples, but those who were citizens at the time of founding got a bye on the issue.

So did you really have any debatable points?

I was refering to the post where I said....

This argument by and large hinges upon the notion that our founding father knew best, backed by some valid arguments on conflict of interest.

Let me quash the first argument by pointing out that the founding fathers, wise men though they were, didn't see fit to grant voting rights to either women or black people. Clearly, the founding fathers did not "know best" under all circumstances and were bound by the times they lived in. It would be reasonable to assume that there was some fear of having an English president rise to power and undo their work; needless to stay, there are safeguards in the Constitution to protect the fragile notion of a single union that they concevied of. As an example, the Union was so fragile that they pointedly did not discuss slaverly for fear of unravelling the ties that bound the colonies together before they ever could form a single nation.

The second argument has strong merits. It is possible that an immigrant still has strong ties to their nation of origin. However, one can observe that many immigrants are the strongest supporters of America because they made the conscious choice to immigrate and because they had to work hard to become a citizen. As a result, some of these immigrants can be "more American" than those people born here who have never had to work for it or choose to be an active participant in the system. One could argue that a presidential candidate should be judged by contents of their character, their qualifications for the role, and the potential for good that they could do for America rather than the place that they were born.

It is ironic that a nation of immigrants would place such importance on the place in which their leaders were born.

So, in answer to your question: yes, I did and you didn't bother to respond. As to the founding fathers getting a bye on the issue, that is incorrect.

[Kylere]

Still really no argument, no specifics, and no real stand

There is no way someone is entirely removed from the land of their birth, they always have some ties, usually family and family is the strongest tie humanity knows beyond basic food water air needs.

[archeiron]

Still really no argument, no specifics, and no real stand

There is no way someone is entirely removed from the land of their birth, they always have some ties, usually family and family is the strongest tie humanity knows beyond basic food water air needs.

I bow out to your argument. Clearly, responding with intelligent discourse and counterpoints is beneath you, so the "I know that this is impossible" card had to be played. You have done a good job, sir. You win at teh intarweb debate.

[Xzion]

Still really no argument, no specifics, and no real stand

There is no way someone is entirely removed from the land of their birth, they always have some ties, usually family and family is the strongest tie humanity knows beyond basic food water air needs.

Even so, that does not mean that that person will use his role of power to give excessive aid or leasure to his home country, because if he did he would need support, and the people would call him out on such actions

You can say you are never removed from your home state, doesnt mean that the president will always look out for the benefit of his/her home state above all others

[Thess]

This all being done for one person, it's kind of funny I think.

And Kylere - you are wrong, Arnold doesn't even know the government Austria had - so I doubt he would remember any ties he had

[Rekaar.]

They're not proposing to amend the Constitution with "Arnold will be able to run for President," so it ultimately has nothing to do with him personally regardless of whether you think the general argument holds true for him.

[Thess]

I don't see a problem with amending the constitution, I just see it as a huge 'coincidence' to be 'fixing' this part of the constitution 220+ years later, when we have a popular foreign politician.

Then again, crime and terror problems are solved, so why not!

[Sylvus]

I'm a big fan of changing rules that are arbitrary and stupid, so I'm all for amending the constitution in this case. I think everyone should try to examine the issue from a non-partisan standpoint, as applying it to the Schwarzenegger situation can be polarizing. Take Arnold out of the equation... hell, pretend that they were to make a grandfather clause that Arnold was not eligible.

Does it make sense not to allow someone who was born in another country to become our President, even if they were the best candidate available and could win the popular vote? Remember that saying someone born on foreign soil can become president doesn't forego the election and mean that they will. Technically, a woman can become president but I still haven't seen that happen.

I don't think that the current rule is a good one.

[Winnow]

I'd think a 20 year rule or something would work.

If we ever ended up with a whack job in the oval office, our seekrit government would rectify the situation anyway.

More importantly, presidents need to be a member of Skull and Bones Order like Bush and Kerry are.