Rekna

And i'm not talking Hilary!


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132537,00.html

So there is now a bill wanting to remove the restriction on only American born citizens being able to run for president. Do you think we should still have this restriction? Obviously the threat of someone putting a sleeper in the whitehouse is scary but how likely/unlikely is that?

Now for the second half of the title.

It has been suggested in the past of modifing the 8 years restriction to 8 consecutive years. Do you think this would be a good idea? The 8 years restriction is to prevent one person from getting to much power in the whitehouse. Does being removed for x many years also serve this same purpose?

filtherton

I don't see why it would be a problem. I think we should worry about our president being bought and sold by lobbyists much more than being planted by foreigners.

Rekna

And whats your opinion on the more than 8 years part?

filtherton

I guess if we love someone so much that we want them back after a four year breather i can't see how it would be a problem.

irateplatypus

it's my opinion that 8 years should be the total time allowed in the office. if it's 4 years, a break, then 4 years... that would be fine. no more than 8 total though if you ask me.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Willravel

We will have to see how Arnold fairs in the next election. He won't be running against small people or porn stars. This will be his first real election. He has done some good for California (Caleeeforrnia!), and he has botched a few things as well. A lot of people voted for him because of his film career, of course. The question is will people vote for a president based on a good film career alone? (Insert Regan joke here if you want, but I loved Regan)
As for Hillary Clinton becoming president, I'd be moving to Peru before she was sworn in. The way I figure it, Peru will not be a likely target for nuclear ICBMs in WWIII. Also, I hear Lake Titicaca is beautiful.

Rekna

I wasn't refering to hillary, i was refering to bill

irateplatypus

lol, until i read your first couple of posts... i assumed you were talking about hillary as well.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Rekna

hehe modified the post a little to make it more clear

Ustwo

8 is enough.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rekna

Please comment on both the 8 year limit and the american citizen limit

seretogis

If anything, I feel that term limits should be much shorter across the board. Politicians get too comfortable in their positions.

__________________
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

pan6467

George Washington himself stated, "8 years was long enough for any man to serve".

The most a man/woman can serve is 10.... as a VP who has come into office through death, resignation or whatever of the Pres. Then 2 elected terms as Pres.

Now in '88 to get around this the GOP talked about a Bush/Reagan ticket and then Bush resigning and then being VP again, Reagan being elevated then resigning after 2 years and Bush taking over. It was out there, but I knew people who seriously wanted that to happen.

As for Arnold.... NO WAY IN HELL. I do not believe we should ever change the rule of NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. It's bullshit. First that tells me that we have sunk very, very low to the point we have to find someone from a foreign country to run ours. Secondly, We are deciding to mold the Constitution to benefit ONE man, not our country, not the people BUT ONE man. We do this we make a true mockery of whatever pride and greatness this country has left.

I am sorry if that sounds elitist or prejudiced in anyway.

What I don't understand is these Republicans (not all GOP just the ones that have no future vision and want to change the Constitution to their desires and whims and definitions of how people should live, and what is right and wrong), who say they are so patriotic and demand we follow the Constitution the way it was written, all of a sudden wanting all these fucked up amendments. Pathetic. The only amendment you heard Clinton EVER talk about was a balanced budget amendment.

The only one during Reagan's term (well ERA but that died fast under Reagan), was Line Item Veto.

Why don't we just make the amendment that there can only be a 2 party system? Then we can add every 20 years or so power shall change between parties regardless of the election.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

irateplatypus

to flesh out rekna's thread, i haven't yet commented on the U.S. citizen part yet...

I think that the Constitution should be changed to allow such citizens... but with a few caveats if the position is for a national level position (congress or president)

1. they should be a citizen for at least 20 years prior, as the article mentions.

2. they should hold a state or local level office first.

3. be legally required to sign an afidavit to defend and uphold the constitution before they run. swearing in for the actual office after they've been elected seems too late for that.

4. have immigrated from a country that the U.S. has formal and friendly diplomatic relations.

i know it's a different sort of criteria, but i believe on one hand that they [immigrants] should be given the opportunity but i am also very cautious about its eventual ramifications.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

pan6467

Irate,

Your #4 destroyed Arnold's chances right there.

Austria was not a US friendly country when he immigrated. It was primarily nuetral with leanings towards the Soviets.

I said it before I'll say it again.... if we have to look outside our country to find a leader we are doomed.

It won't stop with that amendment, people will then find a new person in the future who is beloved and has political aspirations, and by setting the precedent they'll change the amendment for that person....

It is fucking ignorant to change the amendment based solely on a popular opinion. Look at Prohibition.... have we not learned a damn thing from that experiment? The populace wanted it at the time.... it was a great event when it passed.... but the people wanting it did not consider anyone but themselves, not their peers not future generations. Just themselves.... and that is what we would be doing.... hell that's what we're doing with this "marriage amendment".

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pedro padilla

what´s really fucked up is that the entire proposal is basically for ahnold. the great republican hope for 08. absolute proof that its all a popularity contest. yeah, peru is looking real good. arnold or hilarity.

Rekna

if were lucky we will start seeing smear campaigns next month....

Rekna

I think any amendment like this, the 8 years, or any power giving amendment (exceptions allowed) should have a clause built into it.

This clause should state this amendment does not go into effect for 30 years. This would insure that the amendment was not a power grab by one party to serve it's current purposes. Since the people in charge in 30 years will be different then the ones now it would minimize the partisinship in such a bill.

sailor

Arnold has a long way to go towards proving that he has anything approaching the ability to run a country... He hasnt done too badly in CA, but he's been there, what, a year?

Anyways, eight years is enough.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

Shizukana

In my opinion, Arnold is more American and has more respect and admiration for this country than most native born Americans do. He's contributed to plenty of charity and national causes during his citizenship here, and if he or any other longstanding and upstanding citizen of the U.S. feel that they could contribute by running for the Presidency, by all means, I feel they should be allowed.

Case in point - my grandmother, mother, and uncle were all born in Japan. My grandmother met my grandfather in Japan and married him while he was serving our country in Okinawa in the Air Force during the 60's. They lived in the U.S. for all but two years of their lives and have been U.S. citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on a U.S. military base and were fathered by a member of the U.S. military, but they would not be able to run for presidency if they were so inclined or able. I think that's kinda silly, personally... I mean, if someone's lived here for so long that they have become interested and willing to take on politics, why shouldn't we let them?

__________________
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw

Willravel

I know that appreciation for freedom comes from a place of less freedom. The law was originally put in place top protect the office of the president from spys, as far as I can conclude. If others know of a more sufficiant reason to keep people of foreign orgins out of the oval office, I'd be willing to consider said reason. Until then, Arnold is less likely to be a spy then Kerry or Bush.

Flyguy

Keep the US born citizen rule. I don't like the idea of foreginers running the place. I don't want a terrorist sleeper or some other fucker who wants to fuck up our country in the white house which could very well happen.

scout

Eight years is plenty. There should be term limits on senators and congressmen also.
Absolutely no way should anyone not born here ever be president.

Halx

I think if anything, it should require citizenship for 35 years (the age you need to be to run in the first place).

I would also support two 8-year stints.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Tophat665

I'm with Halx on this one. If you have come to this country and want to run it, your age vis the age requirement for the presidency (and any other age restricted office, for that matter) should be calculated from the day you got your citizenship.

As for term limits, I really don't think they're as good an idea as people make them out to be. Yes, they prevent complete tyrants from running the country for more that 8 years, but, if we vote them in, is that really a good thing? On the other hand, it also prevents people who have the talent and experience from being elected again. Bill Clinton, protestations from the conservative fringe notwithstanding, was the greatest president of my lifetime; certainly the greatest Republican president since Lincoln. (Sit down. Reagan was a jackass who was in the right place at the right time. Take the cold war away, and he's just another gladhander paying off his campaign contributors.) If he could have run again, we would not be saddled with our current plummeting position in the global community, and would probably still be enjoying a budget surplus.

But let's not make this a referendum about Clinton. He's my favorite, but that doesn't mean he's the only one in this position. Just the only one I can think of.

Now, back to Washington: "8 years should be enough for any man" was informed by two things:

1) The job of president is frickin' hard. Good presidents work 18 hour days, with maybe a couple of weeks off a year (lousy presidents spend an awful lot of time at their ranch). You could watch Clinton aging in office well beyond what would be expected for the time spent. Reagan, of course, slipped right into his dotage early in his second term. Three and a half terms killed FDR. Bush I went from mature to old in 4 years. It's a tough job that more than 8 years of may well kill you.

2) People wanted to make him king. Monarchy was in the air at the time. It was the prevailing myth of sovreignty, just as the will of the people is today. He wanted to avoid all of that, and I thank him for it. It took 140 years before someone bucked the custom, and by the end of FDR's life the world was a different place entirely than when Washington stepped down, and America's place in it had been turned upside down.

I honestly don't believe that we need to worry about this sort of thing. One way or another a president's term is limited - either the voters or death will remove him from office eventually. Seeing the damage Bush as done to this country in four years makes me believe that the length of time spent in office is largely immaterial. Could we term limit the real jackasses to two years but let the really good ones go as long as their health will allow? I don't think so, and intelligent people will disagree on which are which.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

OpieCunningham

I think we need to eliminate second terms and make one 6 year term with a stringent recall system (something more difficult to initiate than the California system).

The reason we need one term is because we need to eliminate candidate campaigning. We'll create a non-partisan organization to organize position statements from each candidate which are specific to each issue. Eliminating candidate campaigning would be impossible with a 2nd term, as the President could simply use public appearences for campaign purposes - virtually assuring re-election against a challenger who would be unable to compete with the President on facing the nation. The disemination of the candidate positions would be available via the Internet and regular mail, free of charge. Non-candidate campaigning (i.e. campaigning not funded or organized by candidates or their party officials) would be acceptable, however advertisements would be subject to similar criteria as all other advertising and legal remedies would be fast-tracked during a campaign cycle. Also, somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 or 8 mandatory, televised debates.

smooth

I was going to post in support of a recall system in place for presidents, like opie suggested.

But I don't agree that we shouldn't have more than one term. Although, at first glance, the argument that presidents should not spend too much time campaigning is persuasive, I think the second re-election campaign has an important function:

how do we know when the US public supports the policies it's president is implementing? While I may disagree with them, the majority of the voting public may actually support what the current president is doing. Even if kerry took office at the end of an 8 year bush presidency (for example), he ought to continue with the policies that the majority of the voting public supported--just like bush should have done with clinton's popular policies.

it makes no sense, in regards to the long-term health and political environemnt of the nation, to whip one's constituency into a frenzy for the first couple of years and dismantle everything the prior president did.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

pan6467

I don't follow you on this.

If you are born on a military base and one of your parents are citizens (whether natural or not) you are a natural born US citizen and can run for president.

So if your dad was serving in Vietnam and you were born in Vietnam you are still a citizen because of your father.

If your grandfather was a citizen, natural or immigrant and married a foreigner, she then becomes a US citizen automatically (although not a natural, but their children would be) regardless of country they reside in.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

student

Maybe they should concentrate on giving all citizens a fair chance to run for president. Any citizen can run, if you have millions of dollars to campaign. Bush or Kerry? These are the choices??? There are plenty of people who could run this country better than either of these two, but they can't even get a chance to get their message out on a level comparable to either of the dems or repubs. I don't think the founding fathers intended democracy to mean the lesser of two evils.

mml

The vast majority of Americans (pretty much everyone except Native Americans) are now or their families were immigrants. We seem to no longer value the "Melting Pot" theory in this country. Diversity and multiculturalism make us stronger, as does the desire for freedom and democracy. If an individual is a citizen of the US for a given amount of time (I have traditionally thought 20 years, but I kind of like Halx's idea of 35 years) and meets all of the requirements of serving as President, I see no reason why that one freedom should be withheld.

I am generally opposed to term-limits, as they infringe upon my constitutional right to vote for the person I want in office. I am, however, torn about the issue when it comes to the Presidency. I think it is fairly certain that Reagan would have gotten another term and the Clinton would have gotten at least one more, so it is a very real concern. Does anyone know if any of our past Presidents have commented on this?

BTW changing the natural born citizen stipulation has also been considered by the Dems, who would love to see Governor Jennifer Granholm:
http://www.michigan.gov/gov

have the opportunity to run for the the highest office in the land.

Paq

pretty much.
basically, if you are born on american soil, then you are american or ar valid for american citizenship. Illegal immigrant swims the rio grande, lands, gives birth on the US side, etc, then that baby is a citizen.

Also, if your parents are citizens with good relations but stationed elsewhere for some reason, then they are american citizens as well. Most likely, they will get a dual citizenship with US and whatever country they were born in. I have several US citizen friends who were born in germany, either on a base or while the mother was travelling.

There are quite a few more rules than that, but that's about the jist of it. If you are born at an embassy, you're a citizen, as embassies are considered naturalized american soil.

obviously, some paperwork is involved

__________________
Live.

Chris

Delirious

I personally never saw any of Reagan's films but I wonder if they were violent and explicit to the point of Arnold's films? (As viewed upon in his time of course)

If they can make such a big deal of Bush and his Vietnam record I'll bet they can find many things to tear Arnold apart on. There is no way he will ever be president.

OpieCunningham

There are a number of reasons this is likely to be less of a concern than you imagine. For one, it addresses two major problems with a two-term Presidency:

1- The last year of the first term is spent almost exclusively on campaigning. This serves only one purpose: to get re-elected. It is a huge waste of time for the country.
2- The effects of the first term do not necessarily drive the acts of the second. During the first term, a President must be far more concientious of public opinion precisely because he must achieve a second term. The second term is, in essence, a free reign. Recall regulations would act as the impetus to listen to the citizens during the single term scenario. There is nothing in a second term which has that power.

As for continuing on the path laid out by the voting public - this is still easily achieved by whomever of the next set of candidates more closely matches the beloved, exiting President. Of course, in both cases (the existing and this scenario), the likelyhood that a new President will follow similar policies to the previous one is not anything close to a guarantee or even something I have seen much evidence of (though, it would depend on how fine a method of measuring policy differences you use).

Ustwo

While I think having the Terminator for president would be amusing, I don't think any laws need to be changed to allow him to run. Where as Reagan was an actor, he was politically active his entire life, even while acting. Arnold is more of an actor who got the idea to dabble in politics.

Even if Hilary Clinton was running in 2008 and the ONLY hope of the Republican party was for Arnold to run, I wouldn't support changing the constitution for it.

Of course 2008 should be Hilary vrs Rudy in my book

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Shizukana

Okay, I'm an idiot, forget about that part of my post. :P I thought for some reason that natural born U.S. citizen meant you actually had to be born here. I know they're still considered U.S. citizens because they were born of a U.S. citizen but I could have sword you still had to be born within the confines of the U.S.

At any rate - the rest of my post still is valid.

__________________
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw

OpieCunningham

Speaking to the thread title - I read it as Hillary Clinton, not Bill.

Assuming Bush wins 2004 - as of today, the probable 2008 match-up will be McCain/Hillary. Assuming Kerry wins, McCain/Kerry. As of today, I would guess that McCain would win in either case. If Kerry does win, it will be interesting to see how Hillary/Obama is handled in 2012. These are long term projections which have as much value as me predicting a hurricane in Florida.

Rudy is a hack - he won't be able to compete with the big guys. Plus he has more baggage than anyone else mentioned in this thread.

Ustwo

True but personally I like him better then McCain, McCain is a camera whore, who will say whatever to keep his face in the public light.

Of course a McCain/Rudy ticket would be unbeatable by anyone, unless they could reanimate the corpses of FDR/JFK.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

It's funny about Rudy. I saw an MSNBC "Heroes and Legends" on him a little while ago and the man is a sleaze ball.

He told the press BEFORE his wife that he was filing for legal seperation. He had numerous affairs while in office with people who worked for him (sound familiar? Clinton gets gutted for it, Newt and Guilliani have their little trysts ignored and told it's no big deal). They played an interview of her coming out of their house and saying she was shocked and that he had told her that they would work on the marriage, that morning.

His first wife was his second cousin (even though the families were close) and when her time had come he told the church he didn't realize they were cousins so he could get annulled by the Catholic Church.

He made his name taking down selected Mafia big boys, while letting others slip through and get more powerful.

They said politically he was very weak, even though he was going to run for senate before he found out he had prostate cancer, and that if 9/11 hadn't happened he probably would not have been looked favorably upon.

They had old friends on saying he was a Democrat and a liberal, who saw the winds blowing and moved to the GOP because it meant a better chance to get ahead.

It's definately a "must see" if you ever get a chance. Personally, I liked Guilliani before seeing this (I'd have never voted for him but I respected him), and while some can claim it was bias journalism every fact they showed proof and his comments on them.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

irateplatypus

yeah, i hope ol' rudy doesn't end up on the GOPs ticket at any time. I'm even less of a McCain fan. A Guilliani/McCain ticket would be my election to for libertarian. but, i digress...

also, i think a presidential term subject to recall would be a bad move. the office of the presidency should be able to execute it's duties with having to worry about constantly shifting public opinion. we're too fickle a people to stick with a winning plan for long.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Ustwo

The press loves McCain because he causes trouble with for the Republicans now and then.

I wonder how long that love would last if he were the Republican presidential canidate.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.