Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?

[M]

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!

[Sibboleth]

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

[Demrepdan]

Hell, I'd pay $100 to see that....

[Ryan]

Bah, U guys are just pissed because he's too intelligent and well spoken for you to pan as a dumb extremist firebrand and now he's even managed to come up with an amendment which BOTH Migrendel AND I can support

[migrendel]

I don't care for all of the amendments he's wanted to tack onto the Constitution, like the Human Life Federalism Amendment, and the Flag Burning Amendment, but this one is a good idea. Even though feeding him to a rabid pitbull would be an amusing thing to do on a dull Friday night.

[Demrepdan]

If they are going to waste time making ANY new amendment, they should abolish the 22nd Amendment. Or at least AMEND it. I think the only terms limits that should be enforced on the President should be a little thing we call elections.
However, I see some people's views, of how the American people may be too stupid, and will keep electing the same person over and over, and that person will posses a GREAT deal of power, like with FDR.
Accordingly, maybe it should just be amendended to 3 term limit instead of 2. Or get rid of it entirely.

   This would make more sense anyway! The only two Presidents who had a VERY good chance of being elected to a 3rd term were Dwight D. Eisenthower, and Ronald Reagan. Both Republicans. Looks like the Republicans screwed themselves over. So why don't they change it now, so President Bush can run a third term?

Whats wrong Senator Hatch? Don't you think Bush can win again? Evidently not, you must think that in order for the Republicans to be elected again in 2008, you must have the strong and powerful AHNULD run.

[Ryan]

Whats wrong Senator Hatch? Don't you think Bush can win again? Evidently not, you must think that in order for the Republicans to be elected again in 2008, you must have the strong and powerful AHNULD run.

Loada crap dude an you know it

Refer my earlier posts on the whole Hatch Arnold thing.

I too disagree with the concept of term limits as currently enforced but I respect the reasons that people support it for. They do have some merit!!

[Demrepdan]

Whats wrong Senator Hatch? Don't you think Bush can win again? Evidently not, you must think that in order for the Republicans to be elected again in 2008, you must have the strong and powerful AHNULD run.

Loada crap dude an you know it

It was sarcasm.....
so yeah..I guess I do know it.

But my overall point was simply that I would rather see the end of the 22nd amendment, something that has been in place for just over 50 years, as opposed to taking out the clause of natural born US citizens becoming President, which has been in effect for over 214 years. Wasting time on this latter amendment is nonsense. And why wait until NOW...to change it?  Natural born citizen law.....you're TERMINATED

[Nym90]

Yeah, I agree that removing term limits on the President would be a better idea. Of course, you'd have the same problem trying to pass that, as Dems would probably oppose it right now, and Republicans would have opposed it when Clinton was in office.
It is fun, though, to speculate about what would have happened if Presidents had been allowed to run for 3rd terms. Would the 3rd term have been an issue? It was a big issue against FDR in 1940, even with the War going on. Now, once the sacred tradition of "No 3rd term" had been broken, maybe it wouldn't have been so much of an issue for Eisenhower or anyone else. It's hard to say how much of an impact that would have had. But, assuming it wasn't a huge factor, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton probably all would have been reelected. Although perhaps Reagan wouldn't have run anyway in 1988 since he was 77 years old. Eisenhower vs. Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton vs. Bush in 2000, though, both would have been great matchups.

[M]

You know what really scares me? The 2% of the American public that wants to see Orrin Hatch rip apart a mad dog. That's just sick!

Seriously, I absolutely agree that term limits are always a bad idea.

[Paul]

I must respectfully disagree with my fellow Republicans on two points which have been brought up on this thread.  1) Presidential term limits  2) Naturalized citizens' ineligibility for the White House.
Idealogically, I agree with the arguements presented that term limits are inherently unfair and that naturalized citizens (who quite often are much more knowledgeable about the dynamics of our political system and history) should, in an ideal world, be allowed to run for President.
Unfortunately, our world is far from ideal, and the President is more than just a representative of the people.  He (or she) is the single most powerful individual on the planet.  The president not only controls an entire branch of the federal gov't, he/she also has the ability to alter the face of another branch of the federal government (judicial), and the power of the U.S. military at his or her fingertips.
Term limits restrict the time in which a single individual can wield such power.
As far as naturalized citizens' gaining the right to run for POTUS, I do feel that it would be fair to allow them to do so...but once again, the ideal and the reality clash.
If a nation that is unfriendly to the United States believed that the leader of the free world would be unwilling or even hesitate to retaliate to an attack, they may be more likely to start war.  I realize that the likelihood of this is quite low, however, in an age of nuclear proliferation and "rogue states" possessing WMDs, our ability to deter attacks is very important.  I do stress that I believe a naturalized citizen would be fully qualified and competent, but the perception of the world is important.

[Ryan]

Paul I respect the measured tone of your post but may I respectfully submit that your last point below doesnt seem to make any sense. Why would an antagonistic foreign country see a naturalized American President as less tougher than otherwise?? This sounds to me more like an excuse than a viable reason.

Would for instance Arnold S seem less tough than dean?? Okay sucky example but it illustrates what I'm saying. A  Presidents perceived toughness and ability to respond to provocation depends far more on their record and persona than anything else. Why do you worry about electing an otherwise excellent President who MIGHT  be underestimated by enemies ONLY cause he is foreign born when apparently many in the democratic party want to nominate a US born candidate who will DEFINITELY have the same effect??

Also if that’s your worry then we also need to prohibit people who have lived abroad for a long time or whose parents are from abroad from standing. After all these people could technically also be perceived as likely to be easier by enemies, isn’t it??

I take it you also worry what if the president was originally from the troublemaking country??? Would he be encouraged to go easy on it?
Dude, I scarcely think that Americans would be electing an Iranian or a North Korean anytime soon. (though I personally would not oppose it if the candidate were good)

That’s the whole point. Americans are fully competent to make those determinations. The Presidential election process is very rigorous and all relevant points about a candidate and the pros and cons of his/her Presidency will be brought up, brought to the public's attention and thoroughly discussed.

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.

Lets place some trust in our democracy and respect on the millions of our citizens who by the accident of birth were born with foreign citizenship but American hearts.

As far as naturalized citizens' gaining the right to run for POTUS, I do feel that it would be fair to allow them to do so...but once again, the ideal and the reality clash.
If a nation that is unfriendly to the United States believed that the leader of the free world would be unwilling or even hesitate to retaliate to an attack, they may be more likely to start war.  I realize that the likelihood of this is quite low, however, in an age of nuclear proliferation and "rogue states" possessing WMDs, our ability to deter attacks is very important.  I do stress that I believe a naturalized citizen would be fully qualified and competent, but the perception of the world is important.

[Nym90]

All good points Ryan, and well stated. However, I disagree that Dean would be DEFINITELY (the caps were yours there, not mine) be viewed as a weak and not "tough". In my view, diplomacy, coalition-building, and respect for the views of our allies are signs of strength, not weakness. However, that is an entirely different thread, of course, and I realize you disagree with my views of what is considered strong or weak...but I just felt it necessary to quibble with your view that he would definitely be perceived as weak. It is definitely a matter of debate as to what international perception of Dean would be, not at all a certainty.

[Paul]

My point, as far as naturalized citizens as President was concerned, was not that a foreign-born Chief Executive would automatically be percieved as weak by all foreign powers; it was that a specific nation may view the U.S. as less likely to retaliate IF the Prez is faced with the prospect of annihilating his country of origin.
THAT said, I believe that this particular Constitutional requirement was rather pointless throughout much of U.S history, and, at some point in the future, the likelihood of armed confrontation with another major country will be so low that the practical or pragmatic reason I have theorized about will be irrelavent.
I realize that this may seem like a "Cold War" arguement to many, but the concept of nuclear deterrance is still an important part of our strategic defense.  If that deterant has even a percieved weakness, we could face quite a disaster.
As far as Dean is concerned...well, I don't wanna tick anybody off too much more, so I'll end it here.

[Paul]

Oh, one other side note (and to stick more closely to the subject), I actually believe that an amendment to the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president would pass easily.  The arguement that I have made IS based on some very long assumptions, and the logic that Ryan (and others) have used to back up the idea is very solid.  Add to that the political backing, and you would have very little problem changing the US Constitution.

[Ryan]

Nym I'm gonna do something rare and apologise; that too for dissing Dean

The reason I feel so motivated, is the whole bunch of folks who have recently joined and been posting pure partisan stuff in forums whose topics are supposed to be neutral. I'm afraid I did the same thing but not intentionally.

I was replying specifically to and trying to convince, Paul, who as a fellow republican, I assumed would share my views on Dean (as an example of a native born American who would be regarded abroad as weak). I forgot that all who read the post would not do so. Sorry about that.

Btw I do believe  what I said about dean but it is definitely for another forum and I'll reserve comments for that

All good points Ryan, and well stated. However, I disagree that Dean would be DEFINITELY (the caps were yours there, not mine) be viewed as a weak and not "tough". In my view, diplomacy, coalition-building, and respect for the views of our allies are signs of strength, not weakness. However, that is an entirely different thread, of course, and I realize you disagree with my views of what is considered strong or weak...but I just felt it necessary to quibble with your view that he would definitely be perceived as weak. It is definitely a matter of debate as to what international perception of Dean would be, not at all a certainty.

[Nym90]

Apology accepted. Fortunately we are all educated, intelligent, civil people here, and while we have very different views hopefully we can all respect each other's viewpoints and try to restrict our arguments to those of logic and reason.
I wasn't trying to be nitpicky, nor did I even have a problem with interjecting your personal views into the debate, I was merely trying to point out what I saw as a potentially factual error regarding how Dean would be perceived.