Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?

[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.

[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.