Let Foreigners Be President
Give Foreign-Born Citizens A Chance To Run For President
When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, the fact that he was not born in the United States was largely ignored. He was born, of course, in the Arizona territory, but at the time of his birth in 1909, Arizona was still three years from statehood.
We point this out because there are bills in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate that would change the constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to become president. The bills received little press until Arnold Schwarzenegger assumed the governorship of Calfornia and proved to be a popular Republican politician.
So Congress is now taking a closer look at how a naturalized American could attain the highest office in the land.
“It is time for us – the elected representatives of this nation of immigrants – to begin the process that can result in removing this artificial, outdated, unnecessary and unfair barrier,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during a hearing in October.
I do not think Article II Section 1 needs to be altered in any manner. Yes, I know some will argue that it was first written to keep those who were not loyal to America from being elected to the highest office of the United States and they believe that threat no longer eixsts – - but no good can come from changing the Constitution in this way.
January 6, 2005 - 08:00 AM on January 6th, 2005
There are pleanty of other positions a person can hold. This is in no need of being changed.
January 6, 2005 - 08:06 AM on January 6th, 2005
President Schwarzenegger!
January 6, 2005 - 08:11 AM on January 6th, 2005
Oh Zelda!
January 6, 2005 - 08:14 AM on January 6th, 2005
Anyone have an idea what this may mean for candidates with dual citizenship? Leader of this country, and say, subject of the British crown.
(sigh) Today they want to change the rules for Arnold to run (whether he wants to or not). Tomorrow they’ll want to change it back when a…less desirable foreign-born person wants to run.
January 6, 2005 - 08:20 AM on January 6th, 2005
January 6, 2005 - 08:21 AM on January 6th, 2005
4-That is a good point. I am sure this isn’t the first time this has come up, nor will it be the last. The argument for changing the constitution does not stand up. As I said, there are plenty of political offices that can be attained by a foreign born citizen of the USA. I would rather see an amendment for senators. Age limits.
January 6, 2005 - 08:36 AM on January 6th, 2005
I’m okay with the minimum ages, since I’m old enough to hold any elected office. The problem I have with these committees is that people I can’t vote for are chairing committees that affect the rest of us. So invariably, and especially in the Senate, each state is supposed to have equal representation. But some states are more represented than others.
Taxation without representation? Try legislation without representation. That’s what I’m having the problem with.
January 6, 2005 - 08:56 AM on January 6th, 2005
Great point!
January 6, 2005 - 10:22 AM on January 6th, 2005
7,
Sasha, are you referring to the disproportionate legislative clout of underpopulated states in the Senate? When it comes to the Senate, a Kentuckian or Montanian has more say than a New Yorker or Californian through his or her Senators.
I have no problem with amending the constitution in this way as long as it is legislated. There are many problems with the prospect of a President Arnold, but his birthplace is not one of them.
January 6, 2005 - 10:26 AM on January 6th, 2005
Sandy I think he made it pretty clear that he doesn’t elect the senators that are on the committees that determine what is best for him. And he already made the point that some states have more representation than others.
January 6, 2005 - 10:37 AM on January 6th, 2005
7,
I don’t think I understand why Sasha says he can’t vote for senators who head committees. I didn’t vote for any of the executive and advisory positions, excepting president and vice president, who make far more important and challenging decisions.
January 6, 2005 - 10:43 AM on January 6th, 2005
9: Sandy, where and how do you get these creative interpretations of the the plainest statements people make?
Underpopulated states?
January 6, 2005 - 11:05 AM on January 6th, 2005
11: Sandy, you need to go back and take a look at why we have a bicameral legislative body, and why we have three branches of government.
Underpopulated states. I can’t believe you said that. So, if other people are to be believed, you not only believe in redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of populations.
This is what I’m talking about:
I can only vote for the two senators from my state. Some other senator is the head of a committee that makes the decision to block judicial appointments in my circuit. The judiciary nominees in other districts are appointed without a fuss.
A senator in another state is the chair of the transportation committee. The federal highways in my state are falling apart because my state is not a priority. But the state that the senator who heads the committee is from has no problem making the rest of us pay for the smooth-as-marble roads in his state, and additional funding for that clusterboink we call the Big Dig.
This would also apply to voters in other states if my senators are committee heads as well.
I eagerly await your misunderstanding.
January 6, 2005 - 11:49 AM on January 6th, 2005
13,
OK, Sasha. I didn’t know what you were specifically referring to. So would you want to scrap such committees, or have each state control its resource allocation of federal dollars?
Re: ‘underpopulation’; I didn’t realise I had typed that until now. An awkward phrase, perhaps what I meant was ‘less populated’.So I remain in favour of redistribution of wealth (to an extent), but not populations.
January 6, 2005 - 11:55 AM on January 6th, 2005
What happens when all the wealth is redistributed?
January 6, 2005 - 12:25 PM on January 6th, 2005
14: An interesting proposal, but no. We are a republic with a strong democratic tradition, and I’d rather it remain that way. What I object to are these power silos that exist within the system.
Yes, the House and Senate are able make and break their own rules, but in my opinion, our lawmakers are abdicating their responsibilities by giving their power to others.
January 6, 2005 - 12:34 PM on January 6th, 2005
I am listening to this “oxygen thief” Barbra Boxer race baiting…. interesting. Don’t expect the Democratic party to do any better, until the get rid of POS like her.
January 6, 2005 - 12:34 PM on January 6th, 2005
15,
I’m not sure, peejz; I don’t think that’s possible, nor is it something that I would support.
January 6, 2005 - 12:44 PM on January 6th, 2005
How much redistribution are you in favor of?
January 6, 2005 - 01:08 PM on January 6th, 2005
19,
I would consider myself to be in favour of higher taxes on upper income Americans (say, $300,000+) and slightly higher corporate taxes (by closing loopholes rather than raising the rate). As a believer in a government that not only provides for the basic needs of all citizens who cannot fend for themselves but can do that, I am disturbed by the rabid fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration. Redistribution that I would support would be through legislated government channels, not through mob justice. But that won’t happen in the US anytime soon, in fact, just the opposite is happening at this time.
January 6, 2005 - 01:17 PM on January 6th, 2005
sandyb..you are a psycho…the top 5% of all wage earners pay 50% of the taxes…should they pay 100%??? How much is enough?????/
January 6, 2005 - 01:17 PM on January 6th, 2005
Does someone want to pull that Hillary quote she made on the west coast?
Sandy, what happens when Atlas shrugs?
January 6, 2005 - 01:19 PM on January 6th, 2005
We do provide the basic needs for those that won’t fend for themselves Sandy. Why should we keep rewarding those that choose to live off of society? When you cut the loopholes to the businesses, who do you think picks up the slack? What percentage of payroll income tax should someone making $300,000/yr pay. 55% seems rather high as it is. Would you go as high as 70%?
January 6, 2005 - 01:24 PM on January 6th, 2005
Re: 20
Doesn’t America already pretty much do that?
January 6, 2005 - 01:26 PM on January 6th, 2005
We should all kick back and let someone else foot the bill. /sarcasm
January 6, 2005 - 01:27 PM on January 6th, 2005
Zelda, you missed the part where we’re stingy.
January 6, 2005 - 01:51 PM on January 6th, 2005
24,
Yes and no.
22,
You evoke Ayn Rand and accuse me of being an extremist? That passage in Atlas Shrugged where the captain sinks his aid ship to India because the mission is immoral seems a bit trite now, eh?
Peejz, you have truly dragged me into an intellectual quagmire. I am not referring to those who ‘choose to live off society’. My point is that the government, under George W. Bush, cannot pay for itself. Somethings got to give.
23,
I don’t understand your point about who picks up the slack when corporate tax loophole are closed.
January 6, 2005 - 02:03 PM on January 6th, 2005
26
I miss a lot of things here.
January 6, 2005 - 02:05 PM on January 6th, 2005
“Redistribution that I would support would be through legislated government channels,”
To me that just makes you a social programs proponent. Not that different then many Democrats.
January 6, 2005 - 02:15 PM on January 6th, 2005
Sandy, we can survive and we will survive. Those that choose not to fend for themselves are a big part of the equation.
If you take the loophole from the corporation, what is the draw to keep them in this country? If you take the loopholes away from the Big 3 automakers, do you honestly believe the plants would remain open in this country? I highly doubt it.
I blame both political parties for the mess we are in with Social Security and welfare benefits. The pork spending by both parties must come to an end. Both sides pad a bill and work out deals to get what they want and it must stop.
January 6, 2005 - 02:15 PM on January 6th, 2005
I’m sorry to embarrass some of you (Reilly, peejz) but I absolutely agree with you about NOT changing the Costitution.
I would like to point out to sasha, that even though you did not elect the Senator of this committee or that, your senators (the ones you can vote for) sit on several committees and one or both of them may even chair a committee of their own.
Do senators play games? Sure. “Vote against my bill and see how fast your bill gets killed in my committee!”
These senators have to work with each other one way or another.
What usually happens is a senator will cut deals to support, say, a highway in one senators state in exchange for better funding for something else in his own state.
The majority party controls the leadership and the committee appointments.
Here’s something else to remember. Money for roads in my state could mean jobs and economic growth. Money for roads in your state is “pork”.
January 6, 2005 - 02:16 PM on January 6th, 2005
29,
You’re right to an extent. I am also in favour of many other reforms that will never see the light of day as well.
January 6, 2005 - 02:19 PM on January 6th, 2005
dg- I think this is twice we have agreed!:shock: Don’t get me started on the spending for roads though! Am I right Sasha? I have never seen such a waste in all my life.
January 6, 2005 - 02:23 PM on January 6th, 2005
Basing public policy on the supposed (and safely so) expansionism and profiteering of corporations is not something I think the government should be doing before all else. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are leaving anyway. That’s a globalizing economy; if anyone thinks the US should be exempt from that, then they are a protectionist. The belief that all, or most American companies will leave is not one, I think, is based on fact.
I think you are right about faulting both parties for the social security problems, though only two narrow solutions to the problem are on the table at this point: Bush’s, and the Democrats (nothing much at all).
January 6, 2005 - 02:51 PM on January 6th, 2005
33: Preach! my sista! We have have more trucks passing through from Canada than you can shake a stick at. Come the spring thaw, you have to attach safety nets under your vehicle to catch anything that rattles loose.
January 6, 2005 - 03:00 PM on January 6th, 2005
And what about the fact that we use salt rather than sand, in order to protect the roads:shock: Protect them from what!? I have no idea what they are using on the roads today, but it certainly isn’t the tar of 30 years ago! Oh that’s right, it’s supposed to be better!
January 6, 2005 - 03:20 PM on January 6th, 2005
31: dg, I did take the point you raised into account.
In #13, second to the last sentence I qualify my statement with “This would also apply to voters in other states if my senators are committee heads as well.” I don’t like it either. My senators are not accountable to you, so why should they have more influence in matters that affect you, beyond the power that comes with the office, than other senators?
Why is it so great to be on the appropriations committee?
Surprise! I’m in agreement with you.
January 6, 2005 - 05:01 PM on January 6th, 2005
36:
The salt is bad for the soil and the water (i.e., the environment). It has nothing to do with the roads.
37:
The senators can influence the leadership for positions on one committee or another. High seniority senators have a better chance of getting on the committee they want as does someone with less seniority.
I don’t know of any other way it could work, though. The entire senate votes on most bills ultimately, but committees have to be set up so that hearings can be and opposing views can be heard. The committee then votes on rather to send it on to the entire senate where it gets on the calendar.
It would be virtually impossible for the entire senate to hear all introduced bills. Nothing would ever get done.
…Hey! Maybe that would be a good thing!
January 6, 2005 - 06:22 PM on January 6th, 2005
dg- drive through Michigan with a brand new car, and get back to me on that!
January 6, 2005 - 06:23 PM on January 6th, 2005
Get back with you on what?
January 6, 2005 - 06:24 PM on January 6th, 2005
Salt/roads/cars…
January 6, 2005 - 06:35 PM on January 6th, 2005
“Salt/roads/cars: ”
What is it about “Salt/roads/cars:” I should get back with you on?
Federal money only pays for federal roads. Your state is responsible for the rest — which is most of the roads in the state.
Is that what you mean?
January 6, 2005 - 06:38 PM on January 6th, 2005
I believe Peejz is illuding to what the salt that the put on the roadways does to your new car’s finish, am I geeting warm?
January 6, 2005 - 06:42 PM on January 6th, 2005
Ding Ding Ding:idea:
January 6, 2005 - 06:47 PM on January 6th, 2005
Ypu see DG, you liberals are so wrapped around making everything so complex, more than it has to be. Peejz was simply stating that salt on roads leaves nasty deposits on a cars clear coat and you try to spin it into some wierd crap about tax payers and state subsidized roadways.
Just loosen your thong a bit. You’ll feel better.
January 6, 2005 - 08:00 PM on January 6th, 2005
38: It makes you wonder though, doesn’t it? If there could be a better way of Congress to take care of its contstitutional obligations without all these committees.
Which reminds me–and I think this will illustrate the point I’m trying to make. We had an AFB up in Oscoda, MI. With the military cuts in the ’90s, some tough decisions had to be made. But guess what? Our folks in DC didn’t want to get their hands dirty making the tough call, which is part of the oath they took. They appointed a blue ribbon committee to make the decision to close which military bases. Of course, people in my state and others got vocal about the bases getting closed, our lawmakers hid behind this panel that was not elected by us.
I ask you (rhetorically), how much butt-kissing, bowing, scraping, knob-polishing and genuflecting does someone, not on a certain committee, have to do to get something out of committee and onto the floor for a vote? I bet a lot of good legislation (and if it’s good it doesn’t matter from which side it originates) never see the light of day because of the games that go on.
As for the last part of your comment, you know it! But if they don’t do anything, they shouldn’t get paid. And their benefits should take a hit as well.
January 6, 2005 - 08:03 PM on January 6th, 2005
Great point.
January 6, 2005 - 08:06 PM on January 6th, 2005
Sasha- doesn’t the Federal goverment some of the road work in the State Of Michigan?
January 6, 2005 - 08:06 PM on January 6th, 2005
January 6, 2005 - 08:08 PM on January 6th, 2005
45: The road salt also corrodes the underside of your car. My windshield got thwacked today by a good sized piece of rock salt that got kicked up by a car in front of me.
January 6, 2005 - 08:12 PM on January 6th, 2005
Peejz—
As to the best of my knowledge, the INTERSTATE highways are funded federally.
January 6, 2005 - 08:19 PM on January 6th, 2005
Hence the fact that it took nearly 15 years to get a stretch of the highway down just outside of Lansing:roll:
January 6, 2005 - 08:23 PM on January 6th, 2005
Sorry to say but for some reason, the conditions of our highways,freeways,ect. seem to be last on the govts list of priorities!
January 6, 2005 - 08:27 PM on January 6th, 2005
Yes, the fed is responsible for the interstates, but (and M-DOT could explain it better and more accurately) the state decides what is going to be fixed or built. I think M-DOT is directly responsible for M and US routes. Take that with a grain of salt though.
January 6, 2005 - 08:30 PM on January 6th, 2005
Navy sis- I think the problem is that the workers are shoddy at best and the materials are substandard!
January 6, 2005 - 08:31 PM on January 6th, 2005
53: Think BIG DIG. After billions over budget and years behind schedule…it leaks.
January 6, 2005 - 08:32 PM on January 6th, 2005
That thing will never be complete! But fat Teddy is gettin the job done:roll:
Hey did you check out the newest posts at dogsnot? They had me in tears!
January 6, 2005 - 08:34 PM on January 6th, 2005
Whatever the reason it suck! For lack of a better term. The freeways here in Ca. need to be overhauled!
January 6, 2005 - 08:36 PM on January 6th, 2005
Sasha, you are the GReat and POWERful OZ, aren’t you?
January 6, 2005 - 08:37 PM on January 6th, 2005
Ouch. The thought of just one highway down out there is enough to wish for more snow. But over the last 25 years, we have seen an increase in cars and a decrease in a quality product. John Kerry would have built us new roads:wink:
January 6, 2005 - 08:42 PM on January 6th, 2005
Peejz–
You can thank your laborers unions for that one. Run by liberals aren’t they?
January 6, 2005 - 08:42 PM on January 6th, 2005
You forgot sheltered all the homeless, fed all the hungry,single handedly overhauled our public school system and patched the ozone.:lol:
January 6, 2005 - 08:44 PM on January 6th, 2005
62—
Don’t forget about making the cripples walk again…..oh did I say cripples? How totally un PC of me:twisted:
January 6, 2005 - 08:46 PM on January 6th, 2005
politician by day, SUPERdem by night..restoring our nation faster than a speeding bullet!
January 6, 2005 - 08:46 PM on January 6th, 2005
Oh yeah I saw it. This is the image that comes to mind when you go to Dog Snot looking to start some trouble.
January 6, 2005 - 08:56 PM on January 6th, 2005
January 6, 2005 - 08:56 PM on January 6th, 2005
59: (blush) You are such a sweetie, navy sis.:smile:
55: A couple of years ago they rebuilt a good long stretch of US-23. A long hot summer of multimile, single lane back-ups, trying to look past the road worker with the mullet, no front teeth wearing the “No Fat Chicks” t-shirt that didn’t quite cover his own gut…
Less than two years later, the whole thing fell apart because they used a sand that was too alkaline in the concrete and made the road bittle.
January 6, 2005 - 08:58 PM on January 6th, 2005
Sasha- That is happening all over the state. And do the taxpayers pay twice?
January 6, 2005 - 09:02 PM on January 6th, 2005
Sasha, I just call’em like I see’em1
January 6, 2005 - 09:05 PM on January 6th, 2005
Nay sis, Kerry was the man with the plan. the problem was he wouldn’t share it.
January 6, 2005 - 09:12 PM on January 6th, 2005
70-He could reveal his secret identity! sheesh!:lol:
January 6, 2005 - 09:13 PM on January 6th, 2005
71-*couldn’t
January 6, 2005 - 09:15 PM on January 6th, 2005
Ya know, peejz, I already have to roll drunks to support my lifestyle. No I believe they went after the construction company and insurance. It was supposed to last 20-30 years, mind you.
January 6, 2005 - 09:19 PM on January 6th, 2005
Sasha—
You’re a bouncer huh? You one of those guys that watches Road House on your day off, fondling yourself?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I’m just messin with ya. This room gets too tense sometimes. Gotta lighten it up every now and then.
January 6, 2005 - 09:21 PM on January 6th, 2005
I was never a bouncer, per say, but I worked in many clubs before and ended up havind to roll quite a few drunks myself. It was fun, but every now and then, I would run into that Big bad ass red neck that would take like six guys and four cans of mace, and a stun gun to bring down.
January 6, 2005 - 09:21 PM on January 6th, 2005
Now,now you are both 2 intelligent GROWN men, let’s not resort to belittling each other!
January 6, 2005 - 09:29 PM on January 6th, 2005
Uh, no. I beat up drunks steal their money as they exit bars to help make ends meet.
January 6, 2005 - 09:33 PM on January 6th, 2005
oh, okay……
I’ll just uh….give this rum and coke to some body else…….yeah
(Looking around)
January 6, 2005 - 09:35 PM on January 6th, 2005
Me…ME..Me!
January 6, 2005 - 09:36 PM on January 6th, 2005
Snatch started it!!:razz:
January 6, 2005 - 09:38 PM on January 6th, 2005
Right on…Romper room! I see Sasha and Snatch and Shiloh!!!!:lol:
January 6, 2005 - 09:41 PM on January 6th, 2005
Hey, come on, I’m just a little guy. I’d bet Sasha would beat my ass all up and down the yellow brick road.
I’m a munchikin.
January 6, 2005 - 09:42 PM on January 6th, 2005
75: I have a 6 D-cell mag lite with the jaw breaker handle and a 3-foot length of heavy chain. Just in case some attitudes need to be adjusted.
January 6, 2005 - 09:44 PM on January 6th, 2005
RE: #46
“…how much butt-kissing, bowing, scraping, knob-polishing and genuflecting does someone, not on a certain committee, have to do to get something out of committee and onto the floor for a vote? I bet a lot of good legislation (and if it’s good it doesn’t matter from which side it originates) never see the light of day because of the games that go on.”
A lot of legislation dies because of politics, but there would be no way every member of congress (435 Congressmen; 100 Senators) could read and hear witnesses to every bill that is introduced. It is impossible. All bills are entitled to a public hearing. The committee system is the only way to give as many bills as possible the opportunity of a hearing.
You have the right to testify before congress about any legislation you wish. Do you have time to babysit every bill you want passed? Of course not. That’s why we hire lobbyists.
Lobbyists are hired by whatever special interest to babysit legislation through both houses of congress. The more money you spend, the more bills you can push (or kill) with your hired team of lobbyists.
Lobbyist can take legislators on trips or to dinners or whatever to encourage passage or defeat of a particluar bill.
Unions, Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood the ACLU, all have lobbyists. But they have less money than big corporations, so guess who has more lobbyists in Washington? And guess who has more money to spend on lavish gifts and entertainment? What isn’t covered by the state, is written off by the lobbying firm as a business expense.
My view has always been that whoever has the most money can most influence government. Big corporations have the most money and they support Republicans over Democrats 17 to 1. They have more money, which allows them to hire more lobbyists to pass more laws that WE have to live by.
Consider this; the pharmeceutical companies have 623 lobbyists for 535 members of congress. It’s no wonder drug costs are so high. It’s the same with oil companies, bankers, utility companies, etc.
Just follow the money.
January 6, 2005 - 09:45 PM on January 6th, 2005
Nice Sh*t stick. I know a few libs around here who need an attitude adjustment:twisted:
January 6, 2005 - 09:48 PM on January 6th, 2005
I’m taller than Mike Kilo, but I’m wiry.
January 6, 2005 - 09:59 PM on January 6th, 2005
(I said it was rhetorical, dg. Now you’re making do more typing.)
Yeah, I know; and we’ve gone all through that a few times. I’m not naive about the political process, trust me. I just don’t like it. I’ve worked in several regulated industries, and I know we need more statesmen and fewer politicians.
January 6, 2005 - 10:25 PM on January 6th, 2005
27: No, Sandy, that’s not what I’m talking about. What happens if or when the people who feed the machine decide to no longer feed it? What if all the people who could afford to do so disengaged, for a year or two, from any and all endeavors for which they could be taxed?
When/where did I call you extremist?
January 6, 2005 - 10:30 PM on January 6th, 2005
Mike Kilo’s pretty stout. Almost as much as me.
January 6, 2005 - 10:42 PM on January 6th, 2005
I go close to 6′6″
January 6, 2005 - 10:43 PM on January 6th, 2005
Dang and I thought my husband was tall!