The forefathers wrote the most magnificent government backbone in the history of mankind. They kept it short and concise in order to limit the role of government. One of the few specific items is that you have to be American born. Why are we even questioning changing the fabric of the constitution? It is not meant to be changed, only added to. Why don't we wipe out the right to bear arms next since so many people are murdered by guns? Bah. The most sacred thing in this country is the constitution and I won't let it be pissed on. I can't believe people are even given this idea creedence. If this passes, I will have lost all respect for the American political system.
I can understand the requirement when the country was young and relatively unstable, but afer 228 years, I think we can risk a foreign-born presidential candidate. How do other civilized nations handle this issue?
Any man written document could be amended. Nothing sacred about that. IMO, the right to bear arms is totally outdated. This is a mature, democratic and open society. There is no need for civilians to have weapons to prevent tyranny. And I don't think it was the forefathers' intent for us to use AK 47 to shoot birds on the weekend either.
The forefathers also believed slaves were property. The constitution is an evolving document that changes with the times.
I would very much like Ahnold to use his popularity & influence to change many GOP social policies. I would very much like him to do this while serving in his current position.
I don't understand. They are no longer foreigners, they are Americans. Granted, one should still be required to have been a citizen and LIVED here for a bare minimum of thirty years. It's not like we're proposing allowing someone who just got off a boat and still has citizenship in another country. IIRC, Arnold's been here since the late sixties.
there is no reason to allow foreign born citizens to become president of the united states. some in the gop are so blinded by their love for arnie and see how popular he is that they want to change this so they can have another "republican" president. if there was some sort of reasonable basis to change this other than to try to get another "republican" president then i would listen to the argument but there isnt. there is not a lack of qualified american born citizens for the job of the presidency and there is no reason to allow foreign born people to be president of america.
First, the choice to recall was seperate from the choice for replacement governer, so really it was Davis against not Davis followed by an election without a true incumbent, though Bustamante could be thought of as a pseudo-incumbent. Second, Arnold took 48.6% of the vote in California. That is with another serious Republican candidate (McClintock) taking 13.5% of the vote. Democratic candidate Cruz Bustamante took 31.5% of the vote. 6.4% of the vote went to the rest of the field, which included Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and joke candidates like Gary Coleman and Mary Carey, 2.8% of that to Green party candidate Peter Camejo. The array of challengers made no difference, and in fact, the only thing keeping Schwarzenegger from winning a substantial majority was McClintock siphoning of 13.5 percent of the votes. Those were the people that thought Arnold wasn't Republican enough, and they would almost certainly vote for him, or at least not vote for the Democratic candidate, were it a two man race. Now, it may be that people thought the Dems in this field were weak, but there is nothing to suggest that Schwarzenegger could not beat a similar Democratic challenger head-to-head in California. Of course, if the Dems lose California's electoral votes, they have no chance at the white house, since the Republicans could give up NM, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Iowa in return and still pull out the victory.
This particular one would be about 100 times better than the chump who just got re-elected. In my opinion, of course. I think he should try a term as Governor of Texas first, however. Let's see... could he resign from his California job, and run against that blithering idiot, Rick Perry, currently our Governor?? Yes, it's a pipe dream, but it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, and would be damn good for Texas. Keep D&D Civil!!
If we were discussing a popular foreign born Democrat who wanted to run for president opinions would be exactly reversed.
sadly, you're point doesn't apply anymore. our society has been moving in the direction to abolish the "two way street" mode of thought, and promote the "have your cake and eat it too" policy.
Heh. Thanks. I have much more faith in the wisdom of the forefathers than I do of the tools in office today. IMO the political situation is totally out of whack today; Democrats and Republicans.
Oh, things are out of whack, no question about it. As for my half-kidding, wishful thinking about Arnold becoming Governor of Texas, it's because Perry is corrupt and incompetent, in my opinion, and Arnold is very intelligent, and a socially moderate Republican. I didn't watch him at the Republican convention. (well, I watched a little, and then I couldn't stand anymore) That was indeed a bunch of "yada-yada" for the party faithful. The fact is that Arnold is too moderate for the current leadership of that party, which is why he's so popular in California. I admire the man. And he had the good taste to marry a Kennedy Democrat. Keep D&D Civil!!
Easier? To make the most revolutionary government doctorine in the histroy of mankind? I think they'd be all over removing the power of lobbyist as well as reforming campaign finance but that's just my hunch. Unfortunately the two current groups have too much vested in this current system to allow it to change. Politics has become a show. I don't now about you, but I couldn't wait for the elections to end. They play off each other more than advertisers play Christmas. And to be clear, I'm not a member of either party. I'm disgruntled all the way round.
