Why or why not?
2007-03-30 09:10:08 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. Leading this country is something you do not deserve to do unless you were born here.
2007-03-30 09:14:59 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
No, I do not believe so. In order to amend the Constitution there has to be very good cause. One person who may or may not be Presidential material is not a good enough reason to amend the Constitution. At the time that provision was included, it was believed that someone born on United States soil would be less likely to mean our government harm. That not being enough, there is also a provision for not only being born on U.S. soil, but for the amount of time spent actually living here. Nothing against Arnold, I do not believe he means us harm whatsoever - but if anything, that belief of the founders holds even more true today than back then.
2007-03-30 16:24:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the guy, and I voted for him, being I am a Californian, but no. There is something sacred to me about being an American, some kind of pure love of country to want to stay, and keep up the power of freedom. America practically invented the word, and letting a person not born here, become president, I don't feel, would have the same engagement, and love of country (America) as a National. Somewhere in them, they would still harbor a deep love for their own country, from which they came (like Mexicans who are here is USA, legal or not), and may be partial to their native land above us. I am not saying Arnie is, but if we let him, then we would have to let others. I won't take that chance. America means more to me, than an actor.
2007-03-30 16:21:21 · answer #3 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO. People only like Shwarzenegger because he was a great actor. The Constitution should not be amended, it's not worth it. They elected him governor of California without knowing his political views. He even taxed native americans who weren't even citizens of California; they were on their reservations! Arnold messed up more than once by the way.
2007-03-30 16:18:09 · answer #4 · answered by Ian C 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, no, no... The President of this nation should be someone born here, along with meeting the other requirements outlined in the Constitution - 14 years residency, age 35.
2007-03-30 16:17:06 · answer #5 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We should not amend the constitution without a really, really good reason. Allowing a single man to run for President is not a good reason. Moreover, 3/4 of the states will not vote in favor of a dumb amendment instituted for a dumb reason; hence, the amendment would be dead in the water anyway.
2007-03-30 16:14:38 · answer #6 · answered by vt500ascott 3 · 8⤊ 0⤋
No, it would be like opening pandora's box. Arnold may have the best intentions for the US but who's to say that the next man that's buys an election will not?
2007-03-30 16:16:05 · answer #7 · answered by Geo Washington 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No. The founders believed that one office should be heald by a native born American. Most people still agree with ideal. This is just a political arguement because the republicans have no one running who is likely to win in 2008. If Arnold were a democrat, people wouldn't be calling for it.
2007-03-30 16:15:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
No. The Constitution should never be changed for just one person.
2007-03-30 16:18:34 · answer #9 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Heck no! people wiser than ourselves decided it was a good idea to only let people born as American citizens run for president.. and there is no good reason to change that.
2007-03-30 16:18:12 · answer #10 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
For one thing, I HATE him.
For another, it seems to me that in a country of over 300 million people, we can find someone who could do the job.
Or at least one would think so, until one looks at who we've had in that office most of my life.
2007-03-30 23:01:15 · answer #11 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋