Quote:
Originally posted by ObieX
America is not another country. America is America. If we wanted to be presided over by someone from another country we would still be Brittish. America will remain in the hands of the American people - the constitution has seen to that. People who were born and raised in our culture and understand it's people; their wants, needs, desires, hopes and dreams.
|
The first three sentences in this paragraph (about being British) are pure rhetoric with no substance to them, whatsoever. I hope you can look back on them and feel a sense of shame for having posted them or I fear that I am debating this issue with the wrong person.
"America will remain in the hands of the American people?" How many times do I have to say this,
we are talking about the American people! There are American citizens who cannot run for office for no good reason - the constitution has seen to that.
Despite what you think, it's not hard to understand your people's wants, needs, desires, hopes and dreams, and those things are rather diverse within your country. You don't all have the same needs, desires, etc... That idea was probably born from McCarthyism (it may have predated that, I don't know your history that well...). Also, many naturalized citizens in your country were
raised there. Doesn't that mean anything?
Quote:
There isnt just one restriction on becoming president:
A. Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
B. Be at least 35 years of age, and
C. Be a resident of the United States at least 14 years.
US Constitution, Art. II, §1(5)
Are you suggesting that this makes people under the age of 35 "second class citizens"? Are you suggesting that someone who was born a citizen here and lives in another country for the whole of their life should be elected president of a country they know nothing about? The combination of these requirements ensures a knowledgeable and mature individual that is well grounded in the culture and ways of this country.
|
Of course B and C don't relegate people to second-class citizens. Regulations such as the age restrictions you've stated earlier (not quoted anywhere here) for driving and such. They exist for, what I think we can agree as, good reasons. However, I do argue that restriction A is not particularly useful and
only descriminates. Hell, it probably won't help me dissuade you but restriction B is pointless too. I have mixed feelings about C but it's not too unreasonable.
You bring up an interesting point, though. Take a citizen that was born in the US to become a first-class citizen but then "lives in another country for the whole of their life" except for the fourteen years necessary to run for presidency. Is this person really any different than a naturalized citizen who has lived in the US for fourteen years? The only difference between them is that one gets to run and the other doesn't. The combination of these requirements ensures that your constitution makes no sense!
Quote:
Why are there term limits? Because we dont feel like holding a coup every time we want a new leader, thats why. They are there to keep power AWAY from any one individual for too long. No matter how many people may want a certain leader to stay in power there will always be people who reject that person.
|
This paragraph makes little sense. Please read it again.
When you want a new leader, you (typically) elect them when their term is up. There's no need for a coup. Adding term limits didn't change this.
Furthermore, what do term limits have to do with popular candidates always having "people who reject that person?"
I fear this is just another example of pointless rhetoric in the absence of anything real to say.
It has been ignored so far so let me say it again, in closing, that we are talking about
Americans! Amercian citizens who are allowed to
vote!
Also, my question was never answered by anyone: are "the children of naturalized citizens are more trustworthy than their parents?"