In many other countries around the world, non natives can run for leadership positions in their governments. Often there are stipulations like age, number of years living in the country, clean record, etc.
So why not have this same law in the USA?
Isn't it the 'land of opportunity'?
How has the present law protected us from having some terrible Presidents?
It hasn't.
2007-08-24 11:14:51 · 20 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Most other positions within the U.S. government are fair game, but the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and we cannot have his loyalties split. Say Schwartzenegger did win the presidency (he's not really that good of a governor, by the way), and Austria declared war against us for some reason. We need to know without a doubt where the President stands.
2007-08-24 11:19:58 · answer #1 · answered by Beardog 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure, we claim to be the land of opportunity. I think it would make the US a bit more worldly since the president might even come from a 3rd world country. He or she could make it a goal to open the US' eyes to the world. But this is very unlikely... It would be nice for once to not have a white upper class male that doesn't care about the world.
2007-08-24 11:29:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, i would not support that change. when one sees a crowd of protesters waving the flag of another nation, and if one of these people with obvious anti American views were elected, how could we know they would really present the majority rather than a smaller group they feel more alliance to?
can you give me specific of the other countries you mentioned as i am unaware of any leaders born in country's other than the one they represent.
you have posed an interesting question and as the populations ethnic majority changes, we may be facing this issue as a real possibility in the future.
2007-08-24 11:43:57 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
In fact, if we did go to the trouble of re-writing that bit of the Constitution, I'd consider increasing the residency requirement, to keep people like Bill Richardson away from the office. You don't want divided loyalties from your President.
2007-08-24 11:18:35 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, it was put there for a reason, and a good one!
We sure have had terrible presidents, Bush, Reagan and Nixon, but they have no allegiance to any other country, no matter how bad they are!
The constitution leaves who is elected to the voters, and occasionally they are really dumb, except if you are rich!
2007-08-24 11:19:35 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I would not support a change in the constitution, even if I liked the "non-U.S. born" citizen that it would help.
2007-08-24 11:20:23 · answer #6 · answered by risingwolf1 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You'll get Arnold Schwarrzy, scary thought!
2007-08-24 11:24:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The Constitution is a good document, if only our leaders chose to follow it.
2007-08-24 11:26:48 · answer #8 · answered by El Duderino 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That was put into our constitution for a damn good reason. No I will never consider changing it for anyone. Not even Jesus Christ.
2007-08-24 11:19:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Maybe, but they would have to have some ridiculously long residency first...like 25 years or something.
2007-08-24 11:37:02 · answer #10 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋