Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
What do you guys think about the amendment to the constitution for allowing a naturalized citizen to become the president?

Sincerely, Greg

ps my opinion is no and “The Horses are Off” :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I vote no also...

If ever there were a time when there should have been exception, it would have been back in the late 1700's, but they wouldn't budge, disqualifying Alexander Hamilton because he was born in the West Indies...

It was put there for a reason, I think it was a good idea, it has lasted for this long, and I don't think it needs to be changed now... with over 300M people, 'lots' of them natural born, we shouldn't have a shortage of candidates...

[And I do think that Arnold has made a good start in his new job, might do a good job in the WH, but don't think that makes the cut for a Constitutional Amendment... who knows who might take a shot further down the road 50 or 100 years?...]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Considering the fact that the main supporters seem to be doing it so that Arnold can run for president (http://www.amendforarnold.com/), I have some real problems with it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
SurferGrog wrote:

What do you guys think about the amendment to the constitution for allowing a naturalized citizen to become the president?

I think it's a bad idea.

Osama for President?

I mean, all he - or similarly minded people - would have to do is become a citizen.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Osama for President?

I mean, all he - or similarly minded people - would have to do is become a citizen.


Well, there is still the small matter of an election to keep him out of the WH. There is no more rigorous vetting process than a presidential campaign - which is Arnold's problem. The drive to amend the Constitution for an Arnold run in 2008 is pretty much pointless. He would never survive the media frenzy, or 527 attacks, over his past..... indiscretions.

OTH, It's my understanding that the provision prohibiting foreign born presidents arose in the framing of the Constitution from the fear of misplaced loyalties in favor of the recently dismissed crown over the fledgling republic. Are such fears outdated?

Rusty - thinking Kissinger would have made a good president.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What do you guys think about the amendment to the constitution for allowing a naturalized citizen to become the president?

I think it's a great idea. This country is founded on immigration. We're taught in school that anybody can come to this country and become whatever they want through hard work.

Unless you want to run for the White House. That doesn't make much sense.

That said, the fact that they are doing it for one person is disappointing. The idea should be good or bad based upon it's own merits; not on who it might immediately benefit. So the "Ammend for Arnold" mantra is a bit silly.

-Ortman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There is no more rigorous vetting process than a presidential campaign...
RM
===========================================
At least one should think it so...

On the other hand, there are documented examples of a candidate in his younger-dumber years going over and talking with the enemy at the height of a hot war and the shooting and dying still going on besting another candidate who happened to have served America during WW II, and was shot down out of his Navy plane during combat in the Pacific...

Vetting via a presidential campaign I suppose is very unpredictable... whatever...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CCSand:

I think it's a bad idea.

Osama for President?


Wouldn't he still have to win the election? Somehow I think that the constant television ads run by the opposing candidate featuring 9/11 footage would hurt his standing in the polls.

We have plenty of nutballs here who are eligible to run for President. That doesn't mean they are going to win, but they are free to try. Why disallow foriegn born citizens becuase their country of origin also has some nutballs?

They could title the movement "Ammend for Osama", and I would still support it. :)

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Have I mistakenly returned to the REHP board? I quit reading that board, but it looks as though it's leaked over here.

db
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
RustyMath wrote:

There is no more rigorous vetting process than a presidential campaign - which is Arnold's problem.

I'm not so sure. If that's true, then how on earth did Kerry get so close to the White House? In my opinion, the "main stream" media wasn't doing the American people a favor by ignoring many of the questionable events in his past. If the media is the vetting process, then we were largely let down in this past election.

OTH, It's my understanding that the provision prohibiting foreign born presidents arose in the framing of the Constitution from the fear of misplaced loyalties in favor of the recently dismissed crown over the fledgling republic. Are such fears outdated?

Not really. Substitute any other foreign country for England.

I want to be sure that our president remains an American and has OUR interests primarily at heart.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ortman wrote:

Wouldn't he still have to win the election? Somehow I think that the constant television ads run by the opposing candidate featuring 9/11 footage would hurt his standing in the polls.

Only if you knew the candidate was connected to such an atrocity.

Think "mole".

Why disallow foriegn born citizens becuase their country of origin also has some nutballs?

Because I'd rather have an American nutball run than a foreign mole.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CCSand:
Because I'd rather have an American nutball run than a foreign mole.

And there's the rub. I don't see how where you are born dictates whether or not you are an American.

I'm not sure I get your "mole" comment. Are you inferring that some suave foreigner will become a citizen and get voted into the White House, after the fact we'll learn that he's really a proxy for Osama?

That last paragraph actually sounds like the premise for a Michael Bay movie.

-Ortman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ortman wrote:

Are you inferring that some suave foreigner will become a citizen and get voted into the White House, after the fact we'll learn that he's really a proxy for Osama?

Bingo. Don't think foreign governments with a long view towards world events wouldn't try.

That last paragraph actually sounds like the premise for a Michael Bay movie.

???

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are you inferring that some suave foreigner will become a citizen and get voted into the White House, after the fact we'll learn that he's really a proxy for Osama?

Bingo. Don't think foreign governments with a long view towards world events wouldn't try.

If they were going to plan that well, I don't think it would too hard to arrange for a US born citizen. Either through recruitment or planned child bearing.

That last paragraph actually sounds like the premise for a Michael Bay movie.

???

Director of Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and other movies based on far fetched premises. Nothing personal. :)

-Ortman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ortman wrote:

If they were going to plan that well, I don't think it would too hard to arrange for a US born citizen. Either through recruitment or planned child bearing.

That's a possibility, but why make it easier for them? Further, I seriously doubt that son or daughter is going to be sufficiently kept in the closet that they will take kindly to mommy and daddy's suggestion that they run for office in order to forward the agenda of some other country that he/she has had little contact with. Even if you could predict whether a child would have sufficient political skills, which you can't.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Holy poop!

I just return from a business meeting afternoon and found 25 new posts to this board. We haven't had that many is the last week! Welcome all!

In the TMF model, the dearth of activity of a board is death. This board may actually survive!

I recognize that we have a wide diversity of opinion here; that's great!

Let's keep up the challenge to each other to FULLY express our opinions and challenge our entrenched beliefs on difficult subjects. We may finally create a forum for everyone to participate and learn/educate/amuse!

Congrats to all who have "whined or ranted"; myself included!

JD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But how about doing it on the REHP board that seems to exist for such a purpose.

db
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We may finally create a forum for everyone to participate and learn/educate/amuse!
JD
=================================================
Well, yeah... but should an 'impartial' umpire be appointed?... a judge so to speak whose task it is, when the time is right, to declare:

"THIS equine has expired!"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, yeah... but should an 'impartial' umpire be appointed?... a judge so to speak whose task it is, when the time is right, to declare:

"THIS equine has expired!"


Look in the mirror - it's you. :)

The ignore thread link works great. I use it quite often.

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The ignore thread link works great. I use it quite often.

-Ortman


I rarely use ignore thread because so many times the subjects will wander - but not that one! (except in the very beginning)I finally had to hit the link - I am now extremely educated in both sides of the issue and they're just repeating themselves now. Not even worth clicking through, there's too many.


Print the post Back To Top