Should the President necessarily be born in the US? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KnifeMissile · 10-10-2003, 02:10 PM

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before but I took a cursory look and didn't find it.

Anyway, I've heard from fark.com that some are trying to amend the constitution to allow American citizens not born in the US to become president. I was surprised by the number of people on their forum who are against allowing naturalized citizens to run for President. I always thought they were rather liberal (based on their opinions on other articles). I even think that the majority of the people there were against it! So, now I'm curious as to what the people of the Tilted Forum Project think...

I get the impression that it's considered somewhat rude to ask for an opinion without stating yours first so I'll just say this. While I think it's funny that they're basically doing this so that Arnold can run for president someday, I think that the current law is ridiculous. What purpose does it serve? What problems does it solve? As far as I can see, it's anachronistic and is more of a disservice than a service.

Of course, because I think this law is ridiculous, I also think opposition to the proposed amendment is equally so...

The_Dude · 10-10-2003, 02:18 PM

No! I dont want arnold as president.

archer2371 · 10-10-2003, 02:24 PM

Heh, for once I agree with The_Dude (On the politics board even!), but for different reasons. The United States must have a born and bred American as the POTUS. I don't want some member of the Russian Mafia comin over here with an agenda and fucking up the political system, or something along those lines.

mml · 10-10-2003, 02:31 PM

I was just discussing this with my wife, and while neither of us have a really good reason, we just prefer that an American President be born an American. Knifemissle is right that the law is archaic but it just seems right to me. Does anyone have a good solid reason? I am not convinced that any Russian mobsters are planning on running anytime soon.

bonbonbox · 10-10-2003, 02:34 PM

Leave it the way it is. Lower the age if you want, but lets stick with a born and bred United States citizen.

Macheath · 10-10-2003, 03:07 PM

Sounds like a plan:

2006
1. Fox News talks the constitution amendment up to get Arnie into the White House. Plucky young Fox News investigative reporter Newt Gingrich interviews a Heritage Foundation expert on the US Constitution. Gives plan "two thumbs up".
2007
2. Plan succeeds and Arnie begins his campaign for President.
3. Fox News first to air shocking and totally unexpected Arnie sex scandal with new exclusive evidence. Fox News morning show host Oliver North says "I never thought something like this would ever happen."
4. The New York Post publishes the infamous new bubble und squeak phone transcripts in a special sealed section.
2008
4. Arnie withdraws from race.
5. The foreign born proprietor of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch announces his last minute candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

Once again, on behalf of Australia, I would like to apologise for giving you guys Rupert Murdoch.

lordjeebus · 10-10-2003, 03:22 PM

I think that if the minimum age to be President is 35, than the Constitution should be amended to allow a naturalized citizen who has been a citizen for 35 years to also be President. I think that the 20 years being proposed by some for Arnold's sake is a little insufficient.

After 35 years in the country, I don't think that having been born in the US or elsewhere is going to have too much impact on a candidate's allegiances. And I think that if a candidate really had strong ties to their country of origin, they wouldn't get elected (one hopes).

KnifeMissile · 10-10-2003, 03:33 PM

Well, it's still a little early but I'm already surprised at the number of people on this forum who reject this amendment. What I don't understand is why? Naturalized citizens aren't real Americans? They're second class citizens? They can't possibly do a good job or love their country? Remember, we're talking about the US of A. In a way, you're all immagrants! How about this, lets make it so only Native Americans can run for President! That makes more sense than your current law...

And lets look at it the other way. It's not like you don't have any home grown unpatriotic nuts, right? I'm pretty sure the US has more homicidal nuts per capita than any other country in the world!

Besides, it's not as if anyone can just come into your coutry and take it over with this amendment. At the very least, you have to vote him in! Secondly, the president only has so much power, he can't just do anything he likes. Thirdly, you have a way (I'm sure) to oust a totally incompetent, or malevolent, president.

So, where does all your xenophobia come from?

oldman2003 · 10-10-2003, 03:39 PM

I learned the hard way. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" and don't give up your rights 'cause you never get them back.... Leave the law alone..it has worked for 200+ years and needs 200 more!

seretogis · 10-10-2003, 03:59 PM

Naturalized citizens have taken the proper steps to become Americans, and should be seen as such. I think that lordjeebus is right -- either be born in the US, or live here for 35 years, and you are eligible to run as POTUS. Originally, I would think that the intent of the law would be to stop rich foreigners from coming to a newly-formed America and buying up enough votes to control it. I don't think there is much possibility of that happening anymore, or that the President is as all-powerful, heh.

Xell101 · 10-10-2003, 06:02 PM

I don't think it matters anymore.

james t kirk · 10-10-2003, 08:42 PM

Never mind Arnold.

Tony Blair for president.

Sledge · 10-10-2003, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldman2003
I learned the hard way. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" and don't give up your rights 'cause you never get them back.... Leave the law alone..it has worked for 200+ years and needs 200 more!

This is why we have the Amendments. As they say, "If it is broke, or at least sucking because the country has evolved and the Constitution hasn't, fix it."

I don't think a native-born citizen is any less likely to be traitorous or selfish than a naturalized one, especially after 35 years, as lordjeebus suggested.

The idea that some people shouldn't enjoy a particular right ONLY because they weren't born on native soil seems... inefficient, I guess, not to mention unfair. There are better ways to separate the chaff from the grain.

little limey · 10-10-2003, 10:04 PM

I think it's only being brought up to get Arnold in office.

My opinion: I think that it's good how it is. If we change it we will need to put limits on it that someone else will have a problem with. If we do change it, I think that the person needs to have grown up here. Young minds are a lot more impressionable than older ones. So if you some to America when you are old and become a citizen you get less culture and influenced by the culture less than you would if you were under 13. It's just like kids under 13 learn languages a lot better and usually loose thier accents while adults don't. To me, this is all too complicated to make into a law, so it should stay the way it is.

America is not the land of opportunity anymore. Only a rare few are able to make it to the top coming from poverty. Foriegners and citizens alike can just give up hope.

KnifeMissile · 10-10-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldman2003
I learned the hard way. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" and don't give up your rights 'cause you never get them back.... Leave the law alone..it has worked for 200+ years and needs 200 more!

But that's just it. It is broke. Just 'cause the country hasn't literally blown up because of this flaw doesn't make it inconsequential. There are plenty of countries in the world, such as my own, which don't have said restriction that are just fine!

The country was doing just fine while black slavery was in place but you fixed that because it was "broken."

Quote:

Originally posted by little limey
I think it's only being brought up to get Arnold in office.

My opinion: I think that it's good how it is. If we change it we will need to put limits on it that someone else will have a problem with. If we do change it, I think that the person needs to have grown up here. Young minds are a lot more impressionable than older ones. So if you some to America when you are old and become a citizen you get less culture and influenced by the culture less than you would if you were under 13. It's just like kids under 13 learn languages a lot better and usually loose thier accents while adults don't. To me, this is all too complicated to make into a law, so it should stay the way it is.

America is not the land of opportunity anymore. Only a rare few are able to make it to the top coming from poverty. Foriegners and citizens alike can just give up hope.

Yes, it is being brought up to get Arnold into office. That doesn't change the fact that the current law is wrong and should be changed. Changing the law does not require additional limits. Why would it? What do you think can possibly happen? It doesn't matter how impressionable you are, if the American public want a "foriegner" (we are requiring that they be citizens, right?) into office, that should be their right! Maybe they want change? Maybe they want a new perspective? Maybe all the other candidates are malevolent dictators bent on destroying the country and this "foreigner" is the only guy you can trust. The American public should have the right to choose!

Maybe America is not the land of opportunity anymore. Maybe America is no longer the land of the free or the just. But does that you mean you should bend over, get yourselves fucked up the ass and say "thank you" for it?
I would hope not...

Lebell · 10-10-2003, 11:57 PM

No.

After considering the pros and cons of the matter, I think that the original reasons for the restriction can still apply, albiet in much reduced form.

Sledge · 10-11-2003, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
After considering the pros and cons of the matter, I think that the original reasons for the restriction can still apply, albiet in much reduced form.

For the sake of clarification (I don't have them quite sorted out), what were those?

Lebell · 10-11-2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sledge
For the sake of clarification (I don't have them quite sorted out), what were those?

Going from vague memory because I'm too tired to look it up: At the time the provision was writen, there was some incident in Europe some leader who was a foriegn to the country he was in charge of essentially betrayed the country and invited his original country to invade, or something like that.

Anyway, the provision was meant to minimize that possibility over here.

So while I don't think it is likely that a long term naturalized citizen would betray the office, I still think it is best that our president have not the slightest possiblity of divided loyalties.

JBX · 10-11-2003, 05:14 AM

Yes, the President should be born in the U.S.. For goodness sake you just don't fuck around with the Constitution. Period.

maximusveritas · 10-11-2003, 06:03 AM

yeah, there's no real reason to change it. In fact, it makes more sense now than it did then. The only reason some want to change it is so Arnold can be president. To change the Constitution for the sake of one man seems very wrong to me.

tekaweni · 10-11-2003, 01:35 PM

What, running out of local talent then?

MuadDib · 10-11-2003, 02:47 PM

You know that recent research has shown that Chester A. Arthur was most likely actually born in Canada, making him not eligible to be president.

guthmund · 10-11-2003, 10:46 PM

I think of it more as a "promoting from within" kind of idea. If there's going to be a new President, I'd like him to be an American.

I think a lot of people would have a hard time supporting a candidate from another country, regardless of how long he/she has been here. It's nationalism and it isn't going away anytime soon.

That being said, I don't think it matters. The American people have yet to put a woman or a minority candidate in the Oval Office, so I think we're all rushing the gun to get Gov. Arnold in the race. It doesn't matter that he's a white affluent male, he is still a "foreigner" in the eyes of many and it's his accent, not his birth country, that's going to keep him out of the White House.

eple · 10-12-2003, 02:18 PM

Man, if you guys really want to do this, get muthafuckin Arnold as president, I am supporting wholeheartedly. It's just too hilarious. Just as I thought the peak of incompetent POTUS'es had been reached. It's beautiful, just beatiful.

mystmarimatt · 10-12-2003, 04:50 PM

i could go either way on this one. i have just grown up with the concept that only natural born citizens can be president, at least for an archaic safety net. It just seems right, i guess. however, the idea of living here 35 years as a rule has some validity, at least in that unless a foreign country wanted to train a child as an operative, there wouldn't exactly be a large window for them to become a secret agent, and wouldn't exactly do anyone any harm, hehe. So i guess i'm I'm ok with it. i'm just not ok with Arnold as president.

meepa · 10-12-2003, 08:37 PM

I think it's a bit outdated myself. Some measure could be taken to rectify the problem, like 35 years as a naturalized citizen like someone said. It's not like anybody can successfully run a presidential campaign, let alone get a majority of those who actually do vote to choose him/her. I think the real problem is that it would offend or upset so many people, not even just the usual conservative types, that most don't think it's even worth the effort.

mml · 10-13-2003, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MuadDib
You know that recent research has shown that Chester A. Arthur was most likely actually born in Canada, making him not eligible to be president.

That's interesting, I had not heard that, I think that's pretty funny. However, you may be making the case to prevent a foriegner from ever becoming President. I mean come on, Arther wasn't the worst president ever but he is definitely near the bottom of the list. I bet most Americans have no idea who he is.

KnifeMissile · 10-13-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JBX
Yes, the President should be born in the U.S.. For goodness sake you just don't fuck around with the Constitution. Period.

Except that the constitution, the thing you "just don't fuck around with," has been amended more than twenty times (I don't recall how many, I'm not an American!). The law must change to face a changing world!
Or, in a phrase more cheesy, perfection is not a destination, it is a path...

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
yeah, there's no real reason to change it. In fact, it makes more sense now than it did then. The only reason some want to change it is so Arnold can be president. To change the Constitution for the sake of one man seems very wrong to me.

I'm very curious to know why you think this "makes more sense now than it did then." Like I have said before, the fact that they want to change the law so that Arnold can get into office (something I do not dispute) doesn't change the fact that the law was wrong to begin with.

Quote:

Originally posted by guthmund
I think of it more as a "promoting from within" kind of idea. If there's going to be a new President, I'd like him to be an American.

I think a lot of people would have a hard time supporting a candidate from another country, regardless of how long he/she has been here. It's nationalism and it isn't going away anytime soon.

That being said, I don't think it matters. The American people have yet to put a woman or a minority candidate in the Oval Office, so I think we're all rushing the gun to get Gov. Arnold in the race. It doesn't matter that he's a white affluent male, he is still a "foreigner" in the eyes of many and it's his accent, not his birth country, that's going to keep him out of the White House.

Of all the responses, this is quite possibly the most offensive.

First of all, you say "if there's going to be a new president, I'd like him to be an American?" We are talking about Americans! You think being born in the US makes you more American? That you're a first class citizen and that others are second class citizens, who can vote but still don't get as many rights as you do? Doesn't that sound wrong?
Let me ask you this, do you think the children of naturalized citizens are more trustworthy than their parents?

Secondly, sure, nationalism isn't going away any time soon. The people might not vote for someone if they weren't born in the US and that's their right. If that's the case, then you didn't need this stupid law. But if they wanted to vote for a naturalized citizen, why shouldn't they? The people have spoken!
Racism isn't going away soon, either. Should you keep all your racist laws?

Thirdly, if it doesn't matter, then there's no point in keeping this law. It's like saying, "ah, it doesn't matter that there's a corporate policy that no black person can be president of this company 'cause it's not like we would have let him in, anyways."
You shouldn't institutionalize your prejudices!

ObieX · 10-13-2003, 09:56 PM

I dont think the law is stupid at all. The law is very specific, and is specific for many reasons. Bringing up changing the constitution over some actor is the stupidest thing i've heard... today. I knew this crap was gonna come up the second i heard arnold was running for office - and its bullshit. Who in their right mind would vote for him for president anyway? Its moronic.

Just look at what Yassar Arafat has done to the palistinians. He walks in, takes power.. and fucks shit up. Last i knew he wasnt born there, and is only interested in his own power. You really want pricks like him running our country? The leaders we have are bad enough.

....i dunno why i just dont move to Canada. I used to find the idea of moving there funny as hell. Now its looking better and better every day. If they fix that ball-numbing cold thing I may be out of reasons preventing me from moving there.

Lebell · 10-13-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
*snip*

Wow, why are you, a Canadian, getting so upset because of a clause in the US Constitution?

And please stop with the "prejudice". which has nothing to do with this issue (it may be prejudice that a black man hasn't been elected to the office, but there is no legal barrier to it).

As I stated earlier, there was a very good reason it was written into law at the time and so far, there haven't been any good arguments to change it.

KnifeMissile · 10-13-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ObieX
....i dunno why i just dont move to Canada. I used to find the idea of moving there funny as hell. Now its looking better and better every day. If they fix that ball-numbing cold thing I may be out of reasons preventing me from moving there.

As far as I know, Canada does not have your precious (and stupid) must-be-first-class-citizen-to-run law, so you just might want to hold up on that change of address. You never know, some foriegner might come in and work his way up in politics and screw us all!
Come to think of it, I'm not sure which other countries have such a law in place...

ObieX · 10-13-2003, 10:10 PM

I'd be willing to put up with that law not existing in canada. I wasnt born thre, i dont care

ObieX · 10-13-2003, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
As far as I know, Canada does not have your precious (and stupid) must-be-first-class-citizen-to-run law, so you just might want to hold up on that change of address.

Hmm upon further consideration this may work to my advantage. After my 8 years as president are up i can move to Canada and run there.

Or i can start a campaign to amend the constitution so that my term can be extended further. I mean.. we change the constitution on a whim all the time right??

KnifeMissile · 10-13-2003, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ObieX
Hmm upon further consideration this may work to my advantage. After my 8 years as president are up i can move to Canada and run there.

Or i can start a campaign to amend the constitution so that my term can be extended further. I mean.. we change the constitution on a whim all the time right??

First off, if the Canadian people think that you're the best man for the job then more power to you (literally). Govern Canada and do what you can. You'll note that I didn't say "rule Canada and do what you want," 'cause leaders of the free world don't rule and they can't do just anything. So, if you want to go through all that effort, be my guest!

Secondly, these are no more whims than allowing women or black people to vote! This law seperates your country into second-class Americans and real Americans. Isn't that repugnant? Don't you find that offensive? All citizens are equal, but some citizens are more equal than others?
Also, consider this. If someone has simply been the best thing that has ever happened to your country for the past eight years and people want him to continue his good work, don't you think he should be allowed to? What's with this totally arbitrary restriction of his length of service? Lots of other countries have no such limitations and they're doing just fine! If the guy's no good, you can just not elect him next term. Hell, you can even impeach him, if you like! So, what's the big fear about foreign nationals taking over your country? Why descriminate?

ObieX · 10-14-2003, 12:18 AM

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.

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.

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.

Your definition of "second class citizen" would apply to anyone theoretically. You're under age 18 (different in each state) and cant drive? Well you're baing treated as a second class citizen! Under 21 and cant drink? Second class citizen! Cant buy a gun because you've been convicted of a murder? Well you're being treated as a second class citizen! These laws/requirements are set in places for their specific and meaningful reasons. People didnt just pull them out of their ass.

Lebell · 10-14-2003, 12:18 AM

Written over 200 years ago, these words still ring true:

Quote:

...Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

-John Jay,

Federalist No. 2

happyraul · 10-14-2003, 12:17 PM

ObieX, b) and c) are in place for good reason: age and length of residency have a bearing on a candidate's ability to be president. How does being born in this country have any bearing on that whatsoever? The truth is that it does not. I'll fix it for you:

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 raised in our culture and understand it's people; their wants, needs, desires, hopes and dreams.

It's as simple as that, why does location of birth have any bearing?

And to those that complain about Arnold....IF he manages to do a good job in California, then please tell me what is the problem with letting him run for president? No, let me say it again, if he does a STELLAR job as governor, then why not let him run for president. As unlikely as that may be, I don't think it fair to Americans to deny them the opportunity to elect a capable president.

EDIT spelling

KnifeMissile · 10-14-2003, 01:17 PM

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?"

10-10-2003, 02:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Should the President necessarily be born in the US? I'm sorry if this has been brought up before but I took a cursory look and didn't find it. Anyway, I've heard from fark.com that some are trying to amend the constitution to allow American citizens not born in the US to become president. I was surprised by the number of people on their forum who are against allowing naturalized citizens to run for President. I always thought they were rather liberal (based on their opinions on other articles). I even think that the majority of the people there were against it! So, now I'm curious as to what the people of the Tilted Forum Project think... I get the impression that it's considered somewhat rude to ask for an opinion without stating yours first so I'll just say this. While I think it's funny that they're basically doing this so that Arnold can run for president someday, I think that the current law is ridiculous. What purpose does it serve? What problems does it solve? As far as I can see, it's anachronistic and is more of a disservice than a service. Of course, because I think this law is ridiculous, I also think opposition to the proposed amendment is equally so...

10-10-2003, 02:18 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	No! I dont want arnold as president. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

10-10-2003, 02:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Heh, for once I agree with The_Dude (On the politics board even!), but for different reasons. The United States must have a born and bred American as the POTUS. I don't want some member of the Russian Mafia comin over here with an agenda and fucking up the political system, or something along those lines. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-10-2003, 02:31 PM	#4 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	I was just discussing this with my wife, and while neither of us have a really good reason, we just prefer that an American President be born an American. Knifemissle is right that the law is archaic but it just seems right to me. Does anyone have a good solid reason? I am not convinced that any Russian mobsters are planning on running anytime soon. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

10-10-2003, 03:59 PM	#10 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Naturalized citizens have taken the proper steps to become Americans, and should be seen as such. I think that lordjeebus is right -- either be born in the US, or live here for 35 years, and you are eligible to run as POTUS. Originally, I would think that the intent of the law would be to stop rich foreigners from coming to a newly-formed America and buying up enough votes to control it. I don't think there is much possibility of that happening anymore, or that the President is as all-powerful, heh. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-10-2003, 02:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
bonbonbox Banned	Leave it the way it is. Lower the age if you want, but lets stick with a born and bred United States citizen.

10-10-2003, 03:07 PM	#6 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Sounds like a plan: 2006 1. Fox News talks the constitution amendment up to get Arnie into the White House. Plucky young Fox News investigative reporter Newt Gingrich interviews a Heritage Foundation expert on the US Constitution. Gives plan "two thumbs up". 2007 2. Plan succeeds and Arnie begins his campaign for President. 3. Fox News first to air shocking and totally unexpected Arnie sex scandal with new exclusive evidence. Fox News morning show host Oliver North says "I never thought something like this would ever happen." 4. The New York Post publishes the infamous new bubble und squeak phone transcripts in a special sealed section. 2008 4. Arnie withdraws from race. 5. The foreign born proprietor of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch announces his last minute candidacy for the office of President of the United States. Once again, on behalf of Australia, I would like to apologise for giving you guys Rupert Murdoch.

10-10-2003, 03:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
lordjeebus ‚±‚Ìˆó˜U‚ª–Ú‚É“ü‚ç‚Ê‚© Location: College	I think that if the minimum age to be President is 35, than the Constitution should be amended to allow a naturalized citizen who has been a citizen for 35 years to also be President. I think that the 20 years being proposed by some for Arnold's sake is a little insufficient. After 35 years in the country, I don't think that having been born in the US or elsewhere is going to have too much impact on a candidate's allegiances. And I think that if a candidate really had strong ties to their country of origin, they wouldn't get elected (one hopes).

10-10-2003, 03:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Well, it's still a little early but I'm already surprised at the number of people on this forum who reject this amendment. What I don't understand is why? Naturalized citizens aren't real Americans? They're second class citizens? They can't possibly do a good job or love their country? Remember, we're talking about the US of A. In a way, you're all immagrants! How about this, lets make it so only Native Americans can run for President! That makes more sense than your current law... And lets look at it the other way. It's not like you don't have any home grown unpatriotic nuts, right? I'm pretty sure the US has more homicidal nuts per capita than any other country in the world! Besides, it's not as if anyone can just come into your coutry and take it over with this amendment. At the very least, you have to vote him in! Secondly, the president only has so much power, he can't just do anything he likes. Thirdly, you have a way (I'm sure) to oust a totally incompetent, or malevolent, president. So, where does all your xenophobia come from?

10-10-2003, 03:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
oldman2003 Crazy Location: Over the Rainbow	I learned the hard way. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" and don't give up your rights 'cause you never get them back.... Leave the law alone..it has worked for 200+ years and needs 200 more!

10-10-2003, 06:02 PM	#11 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	I don't think it matters anymore.

10-10-2003, 08:42 PM	#12 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Never mind Arnold. Tony Blair for president.

10-10-2003, 10:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
little limey Psycho Location: Room Nineteen	I think it's only being brought up to get Arnold in office. My opinion: I think that it's good how it is. If we change it we will need to put limits on it that someone else will have a problem with. If we do change it, I think that the person needs to have grown up here. Young minds are a lot more impressionable than older ones. So if you some to America when you are old and become a citizen you get less culture and influenced by the culture less than you would if you were under 13. It's just like kids under 13 learn languages a lot better and usually loose thier accents while adults don't. To me, this is all too complicated to make into a law, so it should stay the way it is. America is not the land of opportunity anymore. Only a rare few are able to make it to the top coming from poverty. Foriegners and citizens alike can just give up hope.

10-10-2003, 11:57 PM	#16 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	No. After considering the pros and cons of the matter, I think that the original reasons for the restriction can still apply, albiet in much reduced form. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-11-2003, 05:14 AM	#19 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Yes, the President should be born in the U.S.. For goodness sake you just don't fuck around with the Constitution. Period. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

10-11-2003, 06:03 AM	#20 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	yeah, there's no real reason to change it. In fact, it makes more sense now than it did then. The only reason some want to change it is so Arnold can be president. To change the Constitution for the sake of one man seems very wrong to me.

10-11-2003, 01:35 PM	#21 (permalink)
tekaweni It wasnt me Location: Scotland	What, running out of local talent then? __________________ If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten

10-11-2003, 02:47 PM	#22 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	You know that recent research has shown that Chester A. Arthur was most likely actually born in Canada, making him not eligible to be president. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

10-11-2003, 10:46 PM	#23 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I think of it more as a "promoting from within" kind of idea. If there's going to be a new President, I'd like him to be an American. I think a lot of people would have a hard time supporting a candidate from another country, regardless of how long he/she has been here. It's nationalism and it isn't going away anytime soon. That being said, I don't think it matters. The American people have yet to put a woman or a minority candidate in the Oval Office, so I think we're all rushing the gun to get Gov. Arnold in the race. It doesn't matter that he's a white affluent male, he is still a "foreigner" in the eyes of many and it's his accent, not his birth country, that's going to keep him out of the White House. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously. Last edited by guthmund; 10-11-2003 at 10:48 PM..

10-12-2003, 02:18 PM	#24 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Man, if you guys really want to do this, get muthafuckin Arnold as president, I am supporting wholeheartedly. It's just too hilarious. Just as I thought the peak of incompetent POTUS'es had been reached. It's beautiful, just beatiful.

10-12-2003, 04:50 PM	#25 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	i could go either way on this one. i have just grown up with the concept that only natural born citizens can be president, at least for an archaic safety net. It just seems right, i guess. however, the idea of living here 35 years as a rule has some validity, at least in that unless a foreign country wanted to train a child as an operative, there wouldn't exactly be a large window for them to become a secret agent, and wouldn't exactly do anyone any harm, hehe. So i guess i'm I'm ok with it. i'm just not ok with Arnold as president. __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

10-12-2003, 08:37 PM	#26 (permalink)
meepa Insane	I think it's a bit outdated myself. Some measure could be taken to rectify the problem, like 35 years as a naturalized citizen like someone said. It's not like anybody can successfully run a presidential campaign, let alone get a majority of those who actually do vote to choose him/her. I think the real problem is that it would offend or upset so many people, not even just the usual conservative types, that most don't think it's even worth the effort.

10-13-2003, 09:56 PM	#29 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I dont think the law is stupid at all. The law is very specific, and is specific for many reasons. Bringing up changing the constitution over some actor is the stupidest thing i've heard... today. I knew this crap was gonna come up the second i heard arnold was running for office - and its bullshit. Who in their right mind would vote for him for president anyway? Its moronic. Just look at what Yassar Arafat has done to the palistinians. He walks in, takes power.. and fucks shit up. Last i knew he wasnt born there, and is only interested in his own power. You really want pricks like him running our country? The leaders we have are bad enough. ....i dunno why i just dont move to Canada. I used to find the idea of moving there funny as hell. Now its looking better and better every day. If they fix that ball-numbing cold thing I may be out of reasons preventing me from moving there. __________________ We Must Dissent.

10-13-2003, 10:10 PM	#32 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I'd be willing to put up with that law not existing in canada. I wasnt born thre, i dont care __________________ We Must Dissent.

10-14-2003, 12:18 AM	#35 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	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. 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. 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. Your definition of "second class citizen" would apply to anyone theoretically. You're under age 18 (different in each state) and cant drive? Well you're baing treated as a second class citizen! Under 21 and cant drink? Second class citizen! Cant buy a gun because you've been convicted of a murder? Well you're being treated as a second class citizen! These laws/requirements are set in places for their specific and meaningful reasons. People didnt just pull them out of their ass.

10-14-2003, 12:17 PM	#37 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	ObieX, b) and c) are in place for good reason: age and length of residency have a bearing on a candidate's ability to be president. How does being born in this country have any bearing on that whatsoever? The truth is that it does not. I'll fix it for you: 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 raised in our culture and understand it's people; their wants, needs, desires, hopes and dreams. It's as simple as that, why does location of birth have any bearing? And to those that complain about Arnold....IF he manages to do a good job in California, then please tell me what is the problem with letting him run for president? No, let me say it again, if he does a STELLAR job as governor, then why not let him run for president. As unlikely as that may be, I don't think it fair to Americans to deny them the opportunity to elect a capable president. EDIT spelling