Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: M on November 25, 2003, 10:06:02 PM



Title: Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: M 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: M 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Demrepdan 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: dazzleman 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan 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...


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: M 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: migrendel 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: NorthernDog 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Ryan on November 27, 2003, 02:19:49 PM
Well the unthinkable has occurred!!! :O :O
I actually find myself in complete agreement with Monsieur Migrendel :D

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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: M 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Ryan 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 :D

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 :P 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
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 Sen. Hatch and colleagues would be pushing this for Arnold's sake. ::)
"

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.






Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan 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%)


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Demrepdan on November 27, 2003, 04:54:13 PM
My extreme radical statement of the day:
Orrin Hatch should be killed, for being Orrin Hatch.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: migrendel 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Ryan 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 ;D


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: M 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!


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan 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 ;)


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Demrepdan on November 28, 2003, 05:14:17 PM
Hell, I'd pay $100 to see that.... ;D ;)


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Ryan on November 29, 2003, 07:29:51 AM
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 ;D


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: migrendel on November 29, 2003, 09:36:34 AM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Demrepdan on November 29, 2003, 02:59:20 PM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Ryan on November 29, 2003, 03:57:18 PM
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 :D

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!!


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Demrepdan on November 29, 2003, 04:30:09 PM
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 :D
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


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 on November 29, 2003, 05:46:15 PM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: M on November 29, 2003, 06:59:26 PM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Paul on November 30, 2003, 04:54:33 AM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Ryan on November 30, 2003, 02:02:43 PM
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?? :P 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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 on November 30, 2003, 03:17:38 PM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Paul on November 30, 2003, 07:01:33 PM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Paul on November 30, 2003, 07:06:43 PM
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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Ryan on December 01, 2003, 02:23:09 PM
Nym I'm gonna do something rare and apologise; that too for dissing Dean :P

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 :D




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.


Title: Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?
Post by: Nym90 on December 01, 2003, 02:50:54 PM
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.