New Political Discussion

[scrapinpeg]

Now that Kerry has conceded, I hope these spirited political discussions will continue. They've really been enjoyable.

Changing the subject from this election, let me ask this:

If you were a gambling type, what odds would you place on a Constitutional Amendment passing in the next 4 years that would permit foreign-born citizens to be elected President?

State 1) the odds, and 2) your reasons.

[esskreemr]

If you were a gambling type, what odds would you place on a Constitutional Amendment passing in the next 4 years that would permit foreign-born citizens to be elected President?

State 1) the odds, and 2) your reasons.

Odds are pretty good. Repubs would love a threepeat (or fourpeat) and Ahnold would be perfect to woo the moderate democrat side.

My bet, Repubs push it through, the Dems roll over on their bellies because they have to, and it later comes back to bite the Repubs in the arse when some Italian Porn Star is elected President.

[noodle]

odds are good because demolition man predicted it to be so

[darius]

I'd vote for the Governator. If the country wants to tack right, then perhaps we should feed them a wolf in sheep's clothing -- a pro-choice, pro-science, pro gay-rights fiscal conservative would be a breath of fresh air.

Of course, Pat Robertson and "the base" wouldn't stand for it.

darius

[prototoast]

I'll say it won't happen and shouldn't happen. I don't think it's too much to ask that the president be born in this country.

[mrbiggs]

Very low, because no one cares. Ask anyone in the street; they won't even know what you're talking about. So...the odds are very low. It would have to become an issue first.

Originally, one did not have to be born here to become President.

[Epictetus]

It shouldn't happen, and I don't think it will. However, it's not just the Republicans that would benefit from this.

Check out Jennifer Grandholm, the Governor of Michigan. Very strong Democrat, able to reach across party lines without compromising her base, doing an excellent job governing a state that's had it's share of bad luck in the last few years. However, she was born and lived the first 4 years of her life in Canada. She would make an excellent candidate for national office, if it were made possible.

[Epictetus]

Originally, one did not have to be born here to become President.

Actually...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[ls14evar]

I hope that change never gets made. I think its a fair requirement that you need to be born a citizen to be president. Maybe Im paranoid, but I dont like the idea of a foriegner running our country.

[jBirch]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Call me stupid, but couldn't this be read that there are 2 cases for citizenship?

1) A natural born Citizen OR
2) A citizen not natural born.

Seems to me to be saying, 35+ US citizen w/ 14 years (non consecutive) residency.

[Philistine]

Call me stupid, but couldn't this be read that there are 2 cases for citizenship?

1) A natural born Citizen OR
2) A citizen not natural born.

Seems to me to be saying, 35+ US citizen w/ 14 years (non consecutive) residency.

No--they are saying 2 cases for eligibility for President:

1) A natural born citizen; or
2) someone who was a citizen (regardless of where born) of the United States as of 1787.

Personally--I don't think it'll be amended any time soon--not enough public support for such a minor change, and it needs 2/3 of each house of Congress (unless there's a Constitutional Convention) to even get to the states.

--Philistine

[jBirch]

No--they are saying 2 cases for eligibility for President:

1) A natural born citizen; or
2) someone who was a citizen (regardless of where born) of the United States as of 1787.

Personally--I don't think it'll be amended any time soon--not enough public support for such a minor change, and it needs 2/3 of each house of Congress (unless there's a Constitutional Convention) to even get to the states.

--Philistine

Ah, that's the generally accepted notion, but then why the comma? Just general bad grammar?

You could read:

Only a natural born Citizen [at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution],
or a Citizen of the United States [at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution],
shall be eligible to the Office of President

Which means that these rules take effect "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" implying that they were contentious and may likely change in the future.

If they meant:

or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

Don't you think that they would have removed the comma? They were writing a legal document, y'know.

[Rogue]

Some of the written language of the constitution seems to be grammaticaly off. At least by modern standards.
Have you read the 2nd amendement and noticed how poor that sentence structure is?

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While I know what it means and what the founders had in mind, I don't think I could diagram this sentence.

[Philistine]

Ah, that's the generally accepted notion, but then why the comma? Just general bad grammar?
{snip}

18th Century comma use was not standardized.

Not sure about that comma, but there are reams of arguments on whether there is one comma or three in the 2nd Amendment.

--Philistine

[S. Hunter]

Arnold is like Bill Clinton. The republican party really is made of morons if he wins the primary. Why doesn't someone just say it? MCCAIN 2008! If he can get the primay, he'd win in a sweep.

[Soldier]

Colin Powell, anyone?

I can't say for sure, but right now I think I'd vote for him regardless of which party he picked, if he ran.

[S. Hunter]

Mccain/Powel should run as independants, if its Ahnold vs. Hillary, I would give them an honest shot. (Or Powell/Mccain if you really care - I HATE Ahnold and Hillary, and would do nearly anything to see neither of them win)

[darius]

I HATE Ahnold and Hillary, and would do nearly anything to see neither of them win

Why? Arnold is both fiscally conservative, and he doesn't want the government to butt in on anybody's bedroom -- both gay rights, pro-choice, and pro-environment. That's a fairly libertarian-friendly platform.

I've always wondered what happened to the upper-middle-class suburbanite kids in school who couldn't handle being teenagers, and instead became ... goths and wiccans, striving as hard as they could to be disaffected despite a lack of any real problems in their lives. And then I realized -- they became Libertarians.

darius

[Inquartata]

Does "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" mean that no one born in a part of the country that was not then a part of the US is eligible?

[telkanuru]

Re: arnold- Who would have thought that an austrian-born artist who is obsessed with the human physique could gain such a loyal political following