i'm having trouble finding good points for this debate. i'm only finding reasons to change the requirement. your help is appreciated!!!
2006-10-24 16:25:24 · 5 answers · asked by barnacle1988 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I could give you a few. Particularly with the advent of electronic voting. They've already had a hacker prove how he could rig the elections in a matter of minutes....so...
let's say we let anyone be the President. You're assuming that we should allow a person who came here as a kid and grew up in our schools and colleges and worked his way through the Senate and such to become popular enough to get on the ticket.
But how do we make that provision without exceptions and keep some whack job from Europe...or worse...Great Britain from coming over here with a huge campaign fund and becoming our President....or even a Saudi Prince...those guys have more than Bill Gates....what happens to our diplomatic relations when a person born in another country becomes our leader?
2006-10-24 16:47:30 · answer #1 · answered by Bonecrusher 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only natural born citizens are allowed to run for president in order to guarantee loyalty to the state. Naturalized citizens has that indelible loyalty to their country of origin due to bloodlines and could easily revert allegiance.
2006-10-24 23:35:55 · answer #2 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
requirement ? in what way ? how could that be changed ? hold on I'm trying to find an answer .I'm lost all the others got elected !!!!
2006-10-24 23:41:06 · answer #3 · answered by martinmm 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only one argument I've heard is that someone born here has no ties or loyalties to other countries.
2006-10-24 23:34:24 · answer #4 · answered by Kainoa 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would you want to change this requirement? It's perfectly fine the way it is.
2006-10-24 23:33:21 · answer #5 · answered by Guppy Geek 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋