Constitutional ammendment

With the flurry of election stories over the last few weeks here in California, I am not sure , but I thought I read somewhere that there is some interest and intent in Washington to organize an effort to alter the constitution regarding elegibility for President. Currently candidates must be born an American. The substance of the story was that the requirements would be changed to allow naturalized citizens to run , (thus allowing Arnold to run for president). My question is, did anyone else read or hear about this or was it in a dream?

You are quite right! I didn't see it in writting, but it was mentioned on MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" that two Republican Senators were taking up the issue of changing the ammendment.

they claim that it would be geared toward folks like albright and kissinger as opposed to arnold.

regardless, it is unlikely to happen. sure, they can propose it, but the ratification process will likely kill it (as it should).

>regardless, it is unlikely to happen. sure, they can propose

>it, but the ratification process will likely kill it (as it

>should).

Why should this amendment fail? We have a huge number of foreign-born citizens in this country who have full rights of citizenship.

Why should a U.S. citizen be barred from this office simply by virtue of the accident of where they were born?

>Why should this amendment fail? We have a huge number of

>foreign-born citizens in this country who have full rights of

>citizenship.

>

>Why should a U.S. citizen be barred from this office simply by

>virtue of the accident of where they were born?

If Arnold had won the election as a Democrat, these GOP senators would not be saying a word

>If Arnold had won the election as a Democrat, these GOP

>senators would not be saying a word

Do you support discrimination against U.S. citizens who happened not to be born in the U.S by barring them from serving as President?

Not at all. I think that Arnold, if he can accomplish what he is setting out to do, has the potential to be a great President. Certainly, he's already leaps and bounds ahead of the waste of space who currently occupies the White House.

Arnold represents what a good Republican could be: Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I've always believed that it is the social conservatives who are the greater menace to society at large, not the fiscal ones.

Unfortunately, the pretendident is not only a social conservative, but he is fiscally irresponsible, having offered tax cuts and increased spending without any corresponding budget cuts. In fact, the recall of Gray Davis should serve as a warning to the pretendident. There's much about why Davis was recalled that could apply to him too.

Wouldn't that be a sight: Arnold vs. Hillary in '08.

Any idea what the logic is behind the restriction? I always assumed it had something to do with security and might have made sense when the country was in its infancy and they were afraid of secret British loyalists or something, but it does seem outdated.

I heard that they were proposing a long citizenship requirement. Something to the tune of twenty years. You always hear stories about sleeper agents in the country, but it’s very hard to believe that anyone could put an agent in place and try to maneuver them into the Presidency. (Sounds like a decent movie though.)

Once you eliminate security, what else is left except some kind of elitist prejudice? The whole American dream is that anything is possible. Doesn’t seem right that this one thing is out of bounds.

RE: Constitutional amendment

I agree with Oren that such an amendment is unlikely to be passed, since it means having a constitutional amendment and ratification by the states. But by and large, I'm generally suspicious of those who want to amend the constitution, especially when the someone is Orin Hatch.

There are various native born segments of the population who are yet deemed "unelectable" due to reasons of ethnicity, religion or the lack thereof, sexual orientation, just to name a few. With the widespread xenophobia in this country, it's hard to believe the more redneck areas of the country would vote to elect a "furrener", no matter how qualified that person might be. A majority of Americans at least had the good sense not to elect the native-born horse's ass who currently lives in the White House, but we all know how much good that did. Sadly, we'll continue to elect old white crackers owned lock stock and barrel by the corporate interests.

RE: Constitutional amendment

>I agree with Oren that such an amendment is unlikely to be

>passed, since it means having a constitutional amendment and

>ratification by the states.

This should have said "constitutional convention" rather than amendment.

yes

he is not socially conservative, he is socially reactionary and fascist. there is a difference, but it seems lost on pinko liberals.

RE: Constitutional amendment

there are ways to ratify without using a convention...

it just takes the hosue, the senate, and 3/5 of the state legislatures.

it isn't going to happen though.

>yes

Thanks for the great insight. Do you have any rationale to accopmany your advocacy of discrimination against non-U.S.-born American citizens, or do you just support it because you do?

Removing the native born clause has been a minor issue for discussion for what centuries? I think it will happen right after we reform the Electoral College. Sure it perfectly makes sense to allow naturalized citizens to serve as President but it never seems to rise to the level of actually requiring the action to achieve.

You don't have to be an Arnie fan to want to make the change. How about Jennifer Granholm the Democratic governor of Michigan? She sounds like a great future president but sadly she was born in Canada.

Jeff

The usual procedure is for Congress to propose an amendment. The alternative is a constitutional convention (which has not been done since the original one). In either event it must then be approved by 75% of the state legislatures. The procedure is, for good reason, a difficult one and it is unlikely that enough states would approve the amendment.

you're welcome.

nope, just 'cause.

:+

Barney Frank

Who is certainly no Republican, also supports this change. This change has been discussed since before the time of Henry Kissinger, was raised when Ms. Albright was also Secretary of State and has come up when non-native born citizens have been ably serving this country from BOTH parties.

Like any change which has some controversy, it is likely to fail without strong bipartisan support, and I personally do not see that happening in the present climate, simply because there are greater and more significant issues, such as homeland security, the economy, health care, the deficit and so much more, that is more at the fore.

RE: Barney Frank

And if I may add another bizarre twist to this constitutional requirement: I have several Ausralian friends whose children were born in America. They are emphatically Australian, and now live here as Australians, but they are proud of being able one day to run for President of the USA if they wish to.

Not only does the constitutional requirement disqualify some very able American citizens, it quite capriciously qualifies a lot of foreigners too!

Why should my friends' children be able to run for President from their comfortable homes in Sydney, Australia, when people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger are not?

RE: Barney Frank

Well such a change to the Constitution would never get my vote. I am 100% behind denying the office of the presidency to foreign born citizens.

And no, it has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism. I believe, given the travesty of 9/11 that it would be way too easy for national security to be compromised by allowing foreign born citizens to be elected president.

AMEN!! Aren't these the same people who failed miserably to change the Constitutional amendment limiting a president to two terms? Thank God, that didn't fly as all we needed was Ronald Regan serving a third straight term when he was senile from Alzheimers during most of his second term.

>he is not socially conservative, he is socially reactionary

>and fascist. there is a difference, but it seems lost on pinko

>liberals.

Did I mention how much of a delight it is to have you back on these boards?

RE: Constitutional ammendment {please remove the 2d M}

i'm not arguing; just curious really.

would you have supported a 3d term for WJ clinton?

national security threat

i don't support the proposed amendment either, but...

can you explain your argument about 11Sept2001 and national security vis-a-vis a non-natural-born president? i'm not taking issue with your claim, but am hoping you might explore it a bit for us.

(i HAD to remove the lisping freak from the subject line!) }(

RE: national security threat

But the stupidity of the current situation is that foreigners CAN be elected President, as I've pointed out - all you have to do is be born in the USA. Lots of babies are born to foreigners in the USA every day, and any one of them can become President. What's the logic in this when you can't elect a Kissinger or an Albright or even a Schwarzenegger?