Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:15:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?  (Read 26419 times)
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 25, 2003, 10:06:02 PM »

Okay, I know and am very excited about the proposed Orrin Hatch amendment that would allow a naturalized citizen of 20 years to run for prez, with the admitted goal of letting Arnold be nominated in 2008. (he was granted citizenship in '84, in time to vote for his hero Ronald Reagan). A lot of people on this forum know a whole lot on politics, and I was wondering if anyone can gouge the chances of such an amendment passing in five years. Who will support it? Who oppose? How exactly ois it likely to be presented? What wil GWB's role be? etc., etc., etc.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2003, 10:25:56 PM »

I doubt that it would pass. Most Dems would probably not go along with it, since it would primarily benefit the Republicans at this point in time. However, long term, the effects would probably balance out, so this is not really a good reason to oppose it. As I said on another thread, it would open the door for Gov. Granholm to be on a future Dem ticket. I personally believe that she would be a great candidate.
That being said, I would support the Amendment. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to vote for anyone they want to for President or for Congress. There should be no law barring anyone from running, whether on the basis of where they were born, their age, or their citizenship status. I think that the American people are smart enough to decide for themselves whether or not someone is worthy of being elected. I oppose term limits for the President or the Congress on the same principle.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2003, 10:37:02 PM »

I agree with you on principle, besides for liking Arnold personally. What is ironic is that term limits were the darlings of the GOP in the Ike era. I don't know Granholm well, I probably disagree with her, but on principle I believe she should have the right to bring her case for election to the public, same as anyone else.
And I also oppose all term limits. Look at the mess in the Ohio legislature! And it was almost sinful to deny Rudi the right to run for reelection for mayor in 2000.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2003, 10:45:57 PM »

I doubt that Schwarzenegger could get the GOP nomination for president though. I think his liberal positions on social issues would hurt him. His governorship would have to be viewed as an absolute smashing success in order for him to have any kind of a realistic chance. Otherwise I think there would be a lot of conservative opposition to him. I think that even in California, where the religious right does not really have all that much power compared to most of the rest of the country, he would have had a hard time winning the nomination over McClintock in a GOP primary.
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2003, 11:34:14 PM »

I doubt that Schwarzenegger could get the GOP nomination for president though. I think his liberal positions on social issues would hurt him. His governorship would have to be viewed as an absolute smashing success in order for him to have any kind of a realistic chance. Otherwise I think there would be a lot of conservative opposition to him. I think that even in California, where the religious right does not really have all that much power compared to most of the rest of the country, he would have had a hard time winning the nomination over McClintock in a GOP primary.
What Nym90 forgets is that most Republicans are moderates. Schwarzenegger may bode well if he stays centered on certain issues. His wife, Maria Schriver Kennedy is probably advising him a good deal on the side lines, making sure he doesn't become a right wing nut and a liability to her family's name and her own future.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2003, 12:16:41 AM »

I disagree that most Republicans are moderate. I think that over time the conservative wing of the GOP, especially the "Neocons" or New Right, have been steadily taking over the party. But, surely there are still enough moderates left in the party to make a key constituency in a GOP primary. It just doesn't seem to me that the Neocons would be willing to tolerate a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-gun control nominee. I think many in the GOP base would only would be willing to consider Arnold or someone like him if they thought he was their only possible chance to win the White House.
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2003, 12:56:36 AM »

Amending the Constitution just so Ahnuld can run? Changing something that has been in place for 214 years? PFFFFPH!! What the HELL?! I would never support this. I saw more reason to get rid of the natrual born citizen law, when people wanted Henry Kissinger to run for President. And they are trying to do it for AHNULD?! The idea that they would spend time and effort on this amendent is ridiculous. OR, if they were to make this amendment, they should boost it up to more than 20 years. That 20 year thing is just made specifically for Arnold, so he could run in 2008. He has been U.S. Citizen since 1983 so it works out fine. They should make it 25 years, or 30 years! Or better yet, forget the whole thing.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2003, 01:27:51 AM »

I agree that if the only purpose of amending the Constitution is to allow Arnold to run, that's obviously a very bad reason to mess around with it. However, I personally agree with the basic principles of the amendment, and one never knows how the political implications will ultimately play out. Term limits for the President were pushed mainly by Republicans after Franklin Roosevelt won 4 terms, but then it ended up hurting them with Eisenhower and Reagan, and not until Clinton did it finally play to the GOP's favor. Likewise, the idea of term limits for members of Congress is a lot less attractive to Republicans now that they are in the majority then they were in 1994 when they were the minority.
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2003, 02:31:57 AM »

I agree that if the only purpose of amending the Constitution is to allow Arnold to run, that's obviously a very bad reason to mess around with it. However, I personally agree with the basic principles of the amendment, and one never knows how the political implications will ultimately play out. Term limits for the President were pushed mainly by Republicans after Franklin Roosevelt won 4 terms, but then it ended up hurting them with Eisenhower and Reagan, and not until Clinton did it finally play to the GOP's favor. Likewise, the idea of term limits for members of Congress is a lot less attractive to Republicans now that they are in the majority then they were in 1994 when they were the minority.
Nym90: Enough messing around with that Sacred Document, the Constitution of the United States of America, the basic premises of which shouldn't be dabbled with. The Founding Fathers had included that natural national origin stipulation as a protective measure. What if the United States develops conflict with the country of origin of the President? Will he/she be willing to take decisive action against their homeland? We should not support the Hatch Amendment or any such Amendment.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2003, 06:48:12 AM »

I don't think the constitution should be changed to allow a particular person, whether it be Schwarzenegger or Granholm, to run.  I also don't think it should be changed to address issues such as the political alignment of either party.

Only if there is a broad consensus that we should allow longer-term naturalized citizens to serve as president should it be changed.  Nobody has a "right" to something that is proscribed by the constitution.

That being said, I don't think this amendment will pass, because it's just not a big enough issue for most people.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2003, 10:41:04 AM »

Swastikagroper would nay win anyway. Can you really imagine an admitted Sexual Deviant winning over rural and southern voters?

But I would love to see him try. Just so the Dems can retaliate for 1984...
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2003, 01:46:11 PM »

But I do think that what is fundamentally right id for the constitution to be changed to allow any naturalized citizen to run. I think Alexander Hamilton should have had the right to run.

As for Arnold's chances, it is true he needs to be brilliant in Kulifornya. But he can hardly fail to be. The economy has reached a low, there and nationwide, and is now picking up. He would have to do something really stupid to hamper its growth.

Arnold campaigned for governor of Kulifornya as a social liberal. Gee, who does that sound like? Oh yeah, that Reagan feller!

Outside of California, many Americans across the political spectrum see Arnold as a joke. They are not really in a position to judge though, are they? Kulifornya clearly saw the situation differently. And Reagan was seen as something of a joke too.

Doc Brown: "Ronal Reagan? The actor? And who's vice president, Jerry Louis?

Doc Brown: "No wonder your president is an actor! He has to look good on TV!"

Actually yeah, a lot of the people who vote GOP for prez are pretty moderate. But not primary voters. Arnold could have a problem there, as could another of my favorite candidates, Rudi.

I have trouble figuriing out what exactly the term Neocon means, it is almost always used negatively and there are few self described neocons. If it means small government, well there's a split in the party- both parties- about exactly how small govt should be. At present, you don't run into too many socialists or too many pure Laissez Faires.

What it usually seem to mean is supporting Wilsonian ideals on foreign policy, the idea that all mankind are created equal and deserve to be free, that we must pursue democracy by any means necessary, even force, and that democracies never war with each other, so spreading freedom has great stdrategic significance, and once all humanity is free, there will be no war.

If that's the case, yes, that point of view is extremely dominant among Republicans, with a few exceptions like Lincoln Chafee. It also has a significant following amond Democrats, usually DLC types. The fact is it is not a conservative viewpoint at all, but a fundamentally liberal one.

The Republican take on foreign policy is the main reason I am one. Otherwise, I probably side with Dems as or more often than not. But I just feel such utter revulsion for anyone who could, for example, deny us the chance to attack Iraq's brutal fascist dictatorship and liberate the nation, whatever our casus belli. In my mind, Bush's determination and his humanism, not his "hawkishness", make him one of the greatest presidents on foreign policy in history.

Schwarzenegger would, of course, kick some terror sponsor butt once he took the White House.

Wanna hear my biggest problem with GWB? He hasn't gone after Iran yet.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2003, 02:45:25 PM »

I would support this amendment, not because of any adoration of Arnold, but because I think it fundamentally right to make naturalized citizens full members of our society. One does not choose their first homeland. It is an accident of birth. Yet one can choose to renounce that country because of a new-found allegiance to this one. If someone comes here, often against intense odds, puts the effort in to become a citizen, and wishes to lead after 20 years, that should be our right. It's a simple part of our national ethic of acceptance.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2003, 10:55:02 PM »

I don't think the constitution should be changed to allow a particular person, whether it be Schwarzenegger or Granholm, to run.  
I agree with dazzleman.  We shouldn't make such drastic changes for 1 individual.  There's only been 43 presidents in over 200 years, so it's not like being President is something most of us get to do!  Our constitution has stood the test of time quite well and should only be amended to correct flaws in the basic document.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2003, 01:19:22 AM »

I agree that there could be potential conflicts with the President's original country of origin, but I would trust that the American people could decide for themselves if this would be enough of a problem to stop the person from being elected. The same objections were raised when Kennedy ran for President, the fear that perhaps he would have more loyalty to the Catholic church than he would to America, and that the Pope would effectively be wielding the power of the Presidency and be commanding Kennedy. As I see it, the bottom line is that we should trust the people to elect whomever they want. Also, I agree with Migrendel that it is discriminatory against immigrants to not allow them to be elected President.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2003, 02:19:49 PM »

Well the unthinkable has occurred!!! Surprise Surprise
I actually find myself in complete agreement with Monsieur Migrendel Cheesy

For one the debate over allowing naturalized citizens to run for the highest office is not a new one by far and the idea that it was started to accommodate Arnold is ridiculous. It is being pushed by BOTH democrats and republicans and led by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Lets lets say if there is ever an "Arnold for President" campaign; Hatch wont be one of its foremost backers. With dozens of promising Presidential candidates for the future, many of who would be far more suitable to Sen. Hatch and the conservative base; it is absolutely illogical to think that Hatch and colleagues would be pushing this for Arnold's sake.

No the issue that they are concerned about is treating all Americans as Americans. To say that naturalised citizens are unfit for certain office is to declare them in some way Second-Class Citizens. This is fundamentally un-American and unacceptable.

The current law makes so sense whatsoever. As things stand several known sympathizers of Al Quaida especially of Saudi origin are US citizens because they happen to have been born here while their parents were working in the US. On the other hand someone whose family came to the US when he/she was six months old, was brought up entirely American and maybe even has long service in the Armed forces is deemed unfit to run for President. Does this make sense to anyone???

There are thousands of Americans citizens who became so slightly late in life but are more loyal and committed to America than many of those born here. Many of these actually serve in the Armed forces and contribute considerably to American society. They account for a large section of the Hispanic population of America as well as Asian-Americans etc
Now I am all too aware that aside from one or two examples all of these would not be able to make a serious run for President in the near future. This is besides the point. It is a question of fundamental rights and privileges of these people that cannot be denied.

If for no other reason the current policy is odious because it assumes that people are unable to make an informed choice for President and must be protected from themselves by regulating who they are allowed to vote for in the first place.

Denial of the right to stand is an affront to both liberal and conservative principles and to the very idea of America herself. Fortunately I believe its days are numbered and one of the least notices but most grievous inequities of our system will soon come to an end.


I would support this amendment, not because of any adoration of Arnold, but because I think it fundamentally right to make naturalized citizens full members of our society. One does not choose their first homeland. It is an accident of birth. Yet one can choose to renounce that country because of a new-found allegiance to this one. If someone comes here, often against intense odds, puts the effort in to become a citizen, and wishes to lead after 20 years, that should be our right. It's a simple part of our national ethic of acceptance.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2003, 03:02:45 PM »

I agree with you, Ryan, but Senator Hatch has said publicly that the reason he started the amendment was to give Arnold a chance to take his case for election to the public.

I personally am a fan of both Schwarzenegger the actor and Schwarzenegger the politician, and would probably support Arnold for president in '08. But yes, I do agree that the constitution should be amended in this way because it is what is fundamentally right. I personally hope it does get passed. But it is a hard thing to pass any amendment, and absolutely has to be bipartisan. The original q was really not whether it was right or wrong, but whether it has the support to get passed.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2003, 03:26:29 PM »

Thanks for the heads-up about the original purpose of the discussion. I'm usually the first one to point that out actually; though I've kinda given up on that of late Cheesy

I was motivated to make my emotional appeal by the fact that a lot of people whose opinions I respect seemed to take a view against the amendment. I decided to make one of a few exceptions to my policy of refraining from advocacy on this site to try and provide logical input that might change a mind or two.  

I hadn't heard that announcement from Sen. Hatch but I'm still going to be difficult Tongue and maintain that even if he did use Arnold as an example of a person who should have the right to run; it is not (as is being made out by some) a partisan move by a few republicans to make eligible a candidate whom they fancy.
I repeat my assertion that, "
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
"

As to the chances of its passing, I feel they are very good as it’s a bipartisan issue and supporters from both parties are likely to increase as foreign born US citizens and their family become informed about the issue and make clear to pollsters their support for it.  

Just FYI about how many the above category are; in September, the U.S. Census Bureau said the foreign-born population in the United States had grown to more than 33 million in 2002, a jump of 5 percent in one year, and accounted for nearly half the country's population growth last year. The foreign-born population accounted for 44 percent of the total U.S. population growth during the year.




Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2003, 03:45:35 PM »

Did you know that 10% of the American public would pay $5 to see Orrin Hatch fight a big mean dog on pay TV?

Over 80% would root for the dog!

(source: a real opinion poll published on TV Nation in 1995. MoE 9%)
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2003, 04:54:13 PM »
« Edited: November 27, 2003, 04:57:08 PM by Demrepdan »

My extreme radical statement of the day:
Orrin Hatch should be killed, for being Orrin Hatch.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2003, 08:39:05 PM »

I cannot understand what all this talk about radical change. This is an amendment to a minor clause of our Constitution and would in no way lead to a siege of its general spirit. When some quarters reiterate that the document is over 200 years old, that's precisely the point. The Constitution should be a document in keeping with the ideals of a people, not a legal museum preserving the now inapposite views of Madison and Jefferson. It's a needed change if we have the chutzpah to call ourselves a fair society.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2003, 05:13:19 AM »

Did you know that 10% of the American public would pay $5 to see Orrin Hatch fight a big mean dog on pay TV?

Over 80% would root for the dog!

(source: a real opinion poll published on TV Nation in 1995. MoE 9%)

Well I first considered being all outraged and upset, then I figured, What if the same question were asked about Ted Kennedy Grin
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2003, 12:33:39 PM »

Tragically TV Nation was axed before they could ask about Ted Kennedy.

As an aside, did you know that the segment when Moore went after Newt Gingrich("Cobb County"), help the congressional Dems recover their moral after the '94 debacle.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2003, 02:40:13 PM »

Orrin's a good guy. Aside from being a prominent conservative senator, is there anything in particular that you dislike about him?

He is rather boring, and I usually agree with him!
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2003, 03:20:32 PM »

It's not just me... 10% of the American public would pay $5 to see him get ripped into little pieces by a mad dog Wink
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 13 queries.