How can you be a Congressman and be this stupid?

[A18]

Mr. CONYERS introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:40:./temp/~c108mLdDDw::

And here's the amendment:

A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.[/b]

What kind of wording is that? Bill Clinton would be eligible for a third term.

If you're a 20 year old natural born citizen, you would be able to run for president, despite not being eligible for the House of Representatives.

[Alcon]

"Temporary file not found. Display failed."

I'd think this would be a bigger deal...if you could find some article on this it would be nice to get context.

[A18]

Nah. There are all kinds of crazy amendment proposals. One woman wants the Virgin Islands to be able to vote for president.

Type "constitution amendment" in Word/Phrase at http://thomas.loc.gov

This amendment would obviously not pass (and there are about seven versions of every amendment). I just noticed it, and it was stupid so I posted it.

Some nuts also want a constitutional right to a home (no, I'm not making this up) and "equal quality" health care.

[Vincent]

How can you be a Congressman and be this stupid?

Ummmm, he's a congressman.

[Lunar]

How can you be a Congressman and be this stupid?

Ummmm, he's a congressman.

Dude, people like, get smarter when they get 51% of the vote in an election and stuff.

It's not like a 20 year old would win anyway and I don't see why letting people who are affected by the president's decisions and under his sovereignty to have a say in voting for him.

[Democratic Hawk]

Mr. CONYERS introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:40:./temp/~c108mLdDDw::

And here's the amendment:

A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.[/b]

What kind of wording is that? Bill Clinton would be eligible for a third term.

If you're a 20 year old natural born citizen, you would be able to run for president, despite not being eligible for the House of Representatives.

Well, you and I are in agreement on this one Philip. When the 'Founding Fathers' established that part of the Constitution, they did it for a very good reason. The American people should honour their wisdom.

Besides, it's just a cynical attempt to bag 55 electoral votes. Even so, I doubt Arnie would get the nomination in any case

Dave

[Andrew]

And here's the amendment:

A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.[/b]

What kind of wording is that? Bill Clinton would be eligible for a third term.

If you're a 20 year old natural born citizen, you would be able to run for president, despite not being eligible for the House of Representatives.

You'll notice that this proposed amendment says nothing about repealing either the Second Article or the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution; the other requirements for eligibility wouldn't be changed.

[Andrew]

A better stupidity-related question might be, "Why on earth would anyone think this topic has something to do with the 2004 Presidential Election Results?"

[Nym90]

Mr. CONYERS introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:40:./temp/~c108mLdDDw::

And here's the amendment:

A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.[/b]

What kind of wording is that? Bill Clinton would be eligible for a third term.

If you're a 20 year old natural born citizen, you would be able to run for president, despite not being eligible for the House of Representatives.

I actually support it, as I think that there should be no restrictions at all on who can run for President, be it where the person was born, how many terms they've served, or their age. This would be a good first step.

[MODU]

Mr. CONYERS introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:40:./temp/~c108mLdDDw::

And here's the amendment:

A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.[/b]

What kind of wording is that? Bill Clinton would be eligible for a third term.

If you're a 20 year old natural born citizen, you would be able to run for president, despite not being eligible for the House of Representatives.

I don't think you are reading it correctly.  It's not changing the current voting laws as of age and term limits, but just addressing the foreign-born issue.  It won't pass, but I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than there really is.

As far as the founding fathers go, it was more to protect the new union from being torn apart within by allowing a foreign national to gain control of the country and then sabatoge it on behalf of the British or French or someone else.  The founding fathers never foresaw the "globalization of America."  Should we allow someone who has migrated to the US and became a citizen of her the right to run for office?  Sure, why not.  But it won't happen . . . at least not in the near future.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You want to know something really scarry?

If the Democrats win control of the House, Conyers is scheduled to be the chair of the Judiciary committee!

[The Vorlon]

And if the Dems get the Senate Carl Levin takes over Armed services...

Why are Congressmen so stupid...?

It's called Gerrymandering.

IN 2004 in the entire f$%king country there were 18 total races out of 435 where the margin of victory was less than 10%

417/435 => 96% (!) of House races were Double digit blowouts.

If you drop the standard for a close race back to 5% there were 9 races less than 5% in the entire nation.

400+ out of 435 House seats have been gerrymandered in a bi-partisan conspiricy of featherbedding and incumbant protection that the vast majority of Congressmen are almost literally unbeatable.

Getting elected once is just about equivalent to getting elected for life in a ton of these seats...

When the proverbial "Ham Sandwich" has a 98% chance of re-election, you end up with, well, what we have...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Back in the '80's the number of House seats switching each election was usually in double digits.
How things change :-(

Look at how many switched in 1980 and 1982

[elcorazon]

there are a lot of stupid congressman.  Intelligence is not a requirement.  I heard some idiots wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  what nonsense.  Next they'll want to define Sunday as the Sabbath.  

[MODU]

there are a lot of stupid congressman.  Intelligence is not a requirement.  I heard some idiots wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  what nonsense.  Next they'll want to define Sunday as the Sabbath.  

Actually, the Sabbath is a Saturday, if you are following OT teachings.  However, if you consider that Jesus was the implementation of the "new law," then the argument can be made that Sunday is now the Sabbath.  It all depends on which religious teachings you follow (and if you really care about the "Sabbath" to begin with).

[Nym90]

there are a lot of stupid congressman.  Intelligence is not a requirement.  I heard some idiots wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  what nonsense.  Next they'll want to define Sunday as the Sabbath.  

There are a lot of stupid people in this country, and they are entitled to some representation in Congress.

[Alcon]

there are a lot of stupid congressman.  Intelligence is not a requirement.  I heard some idiots wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  what nonsense.  Next they'll want to define Sunday as the Sabbath. 

There are a lot of stupid people in this country, and they are entitled to some representation in Congress.

Haha.

[CARLHAYDEN]

And if the Dems get the Senate Carl Levin takes over Armed services...

Why are Congressmen so stupid...?

It's called Gerrymandering.

IN 2004 in the entire f$%king country there were 18 total races out of 435 where the margin of victory was less than 10%

417/435 => 96% (!) of House races were Double digit blowouts.

If you drop the standard for a close race back to 5% there were 9 races less than 5% in the entire nation.

400+ out of 435 House seats have been gerrymandered in a bi-partisan conspiricy of featherbedding and incumbant protection that the vast majority of Congressmen are almost literally unbeatable.

Getting elected once is just about equivalent to getting elected for life in a ton of these seats...

When the proverbial "Ham Sandwich" has a 98% chance of re-election, you end up with, well, what we have...

True.

I figure that in 75% of the house districts, winning the nomination of the dominant party alone is virtually a guarantee of election.

In the remaining quarter of the seats, if the incumbent is seeking reelection and hasn't done something spectacularly stupid (or has been redistricted), they will win in about ninety per cent of the cases.

[A18]

MODU,

This amendment makes it so that anyone who's been a citizen for 20 years is eligible for the presidency. It does not just remove the native birth requirement.

[elcorazon]

there are a lot of stupid congressman.  Intelligence is not a requirement.  I heard some idiots wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  what nonsense.  Next they'll want to define Sunday as the Sabbath.  

Actually, the Sabbath is a Saturday, if you are following OT teachings.  However, if you consider that Jesus was the implementation of the "new law," then the argument can be made that Sunday is now the Sabbath.  It all depends on which religious teachings you follow (and if you really care about the "Sabbath" to begin with).

sarcasm my friend, sarcasm.

[MODU]

there are a lot of stupid congressman.  Intelligence is not a requirement.  I heard some idiots wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  what nonsense.  Next they'll want to define Sunday as the Sabbath.  

Actually, the Sabbath is a Saturday, if you are following OT teachings.  However, if you consider that Jesus was the implementation of the "new law," then the argument can be made that Sunday is now the Sabbath.  It all depends on which religious teachings you follow (and if you really care about the "Sabbath" to begin with).

sarcasm my friend, sarcasm.

Noted.  Was just providing to you that there is a discrepency in how people view the Sabbath.  A funny parallel to the gay marriage debate. 

[MODU]

MODU,

This amendment makes it so that anyone who's been a citizen for 20 years is eligible for the presidency. It does not just remove the native birth requirement.

No Philip.  Let's go back to what the text says:

SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

It's not stripping away the other constraints of being President.  All it is trying to do is allow foreign-borned citizens to become President.  You still serve upto only two terms, you have to be 35 years old, and so on.

[A18]

That's a different[/b] amendment.

I already told you there are five versions of it.

The one you posted was introduced by some guy named "Mr. ROHRABACHER."

[J. J.]

Assuming IQ scores accurately reflect intelligence and that the average score is 100, we should expect at least 217 Members of the House to have an IQ at or below 100.

[MODU]

That's a different[/b] amendment.

I already told you there are five versions of it.

The one you posted was introduced by some guy named "Mr. ROHRABACHER."

My appologies.  I did not see that there were two different bills saying the same thing on that site.  However, theysay the same thing.  The only thing that is different between the two is that Rohrabachers is more clear in it's intent.  Conyers amendment does not say anything about replacing current laws regarding age or terms.  It only discusses "birth right."  Rohrabacher's version states the same thing, but clarifies the issue which you are so hard-bent on.  Conyers intent isn't to allow 20-somethings to run for President.