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representatives of this nation of immigrants – to begin the process that can result in removing this artificial, outdated, unnecessary and unfair barrier,” Sen.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.
There are pleanty of other positions a person can hold. This is in no need of being changed.
President Schwarzenegger!
Oh Zelda!
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.
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.
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.
Great point!
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.
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.
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.
9: Sandy, where and how do you get these creative interpretations of the the plainest statements people make?
Underpopulated states?
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.
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.
What happens when all the wealth is redistributed?
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.
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.
15,
I’m not sure, peejz; I don’t think that’s possible, nor is it something that I would support.
How much redistribution are you in favor of?
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.
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?????/
Does someone want to pull that Hillary quote she made on the west coast?
Sandy, what happens when Atlas shrugs?
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%?
Re: 20
Doesn’t America already pretty much do that?
We should all kick back and let someone else foot the bill. /sarcasm
Zelda, you missed the part where we’re stingy.
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.
26
I miss a lot of things here.
“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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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!
dg- drive through Michigan with a brand new car, and get back to me on that!
Get back with you on what?
Salt/roads/cars…
“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?
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?
Ding Ding Ding:idea:
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.
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.
Great point.
Sasha- doesn’t the Federal goverment some of the road work in the State Of Michigan?
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.