Do u think the constitution should be changed? Does it matter if a presidential candidate was born in a different country, but served his time in America??
2007-09-22 16:34:55 · 26 answers · asked by JpCreation101 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Do not drink so much and avoid being a Reagan.
Else you might confuse movies with reality more often.
2007-09-22 18:07:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
We should not change the Constitution to nullify the requirement that a US President be a US citizen by birth. Though some naturalized citizens, like Schwarzenegger, may have a keen grasp of American heritage and governance, the threshold should not be lowered just to accommodate a select few of the naturalized citizens, because changing the Constitution would affect ALL naturalized citizens, and there are a number of naturalized citizens that still have divided loyalties between America and their nation of origin. Many naturalized citizens are still trying to find their way through the American experience, and they haven't fully assimilated yet. We do not need to allow persons who potentially have divided loyalties to be qualified to run for US President. Preserving this Constitutional safeguard is more important than clearing the path for one exceptional foreign born person to run for President.
2007-09-23 00:20:27 · answer #2 · answered by williamsonworks 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. there is a very good reason for the Constitution being what it is. And thats because we dont need some enemy of the United States making a long term plan to take over the country by getting a youngster citizen ship and having him run for President.
2007-09-23 07:46:02 · answer #3 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think we should change any of our Constitutional Laws. Our founding fathers had much more common sense than our power hungry politicians of today.
I do think some of them should be clarified though - like babies being citizens when neither of the parents are not. What kind of nonsense is that?
We need to clarify our laws to mandate one or both parents be citizens to have a child become a natural born citizen, just like most other countries.
This means ending the anchor baby law by ending the automatic citizenship of a baby upon birth to an illegal alien. The US Constitution does not support this. It was speaking about slaves which existed at the time the US Constitution was written - so made sense at that time.
Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what a mockery our current Senators are making of our laws. We need a complete overhaul of our Senate, not our US Constitution.
As to Arnold? I like him. He seems to be a nice person. But we have a US Constitution written to protect the sovereignty of our country - and should not be "bent" just because we get a nice guy every now and then.
2007-09-23 00:09:19 · answer #4 · answered by Naturescent 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Absolutely. The original fear was that a foreigner would try to sabotage the office, and was probably true. England would stop at nothing back then.
There are a great many people in the United States that chose to live and work here, become citizens, because they love the Country.
How about the late Bob Hope? Traveled the globe with the USO performing for our troops, hosting college football specials, got his start in Chicago, made his way on film, tv, and radio, performing with the Rat Pack...the man completely loved America. But, he wasn't born here so he couldn't be president.
However, an illegal in America has a child, they are a natural born citizen. Assuming they continue to live here, that child will be eligible to be president. It is time for a change. There is no reason why someone born outside the U.S. should not be allowed to be President. Place some stipulations on it, have to be a citizen for 20 years or something.
I'd be far more worried about someone like Ari Fleischer, former Bush press secretary. He has dual-citizenship. He is legally a citizen of two countries at the same time. Where does his allegiance lie? He doesn't even use his first name, Lawrence. Yet he is eligible to be President, he was born in New York.
Michael Moore, who clearly, at least on the outside, hates America, can be President.
2007-09-23 01:04:43 · answer #5 · answered by E. F. Hutton 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
You're at the tail end of a long of people who have asked this question before you. But one more time, just for you:
With the MILLIONS of potentially eligible candidates in this couintry, there is no reason at all to change the Constitution for this reason. Besides, our federal Constitution, unlike some state constitutions, requires a very strong majority vote for a change. Offhand, I believe it takes a 75% vote, so there would be very little chance of passage.
Some states, like Missouri, take only a simple majority, which can lead to abuse like the badly misrepresented "stem cell research" bill that was passed in 2006 by many people, including medical doctors, who admitted that they never read or understood the full intent of the bill, or the potentially unlimited taxation that could result for its passage. The campaign for votes was funded almost entirely by one private special interest group that would be the primary beneficiary when the bill was passed.
2007-09-23 00:37:53 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
As I recall, Governor George Wilcken Romney (father of the current 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney) faced the same hurdles. George W Romney was born outside the USA also. He distinguished himself in several other ways.
Your question would not be a change of law. It would be a Constitutional change. Other than his talent as an entertainer, I have yet to see any reason to vote for him for dog catcher. His wife's connection to the Kennedy's is cause for concern as well.
2007-09-23 00:54:36 · answer #7 · answered by Jeff H 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The Constitution is clear. I adore Arnold and think he would make an awesome Prez. But if we change that rule, it would open up the door for every Castro, Foxe, Calderon, Hussein, and Bin Laden (etc) to try ... the law exists for a reason. That reason is still pertinent today.
2007-09-22 23:42:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
While I uphold the idea based on the possibility of others that would be a real mistake to allow them grounds to run for the Presidency, it would be nice if exceptions on a case by case basis could be made. I think the Arnold would make a very good president.
2007-09-22 23:52:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yes, if Arnold runs for President in a dress.
2007-09-23 01:11:07 · answer #10 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No. we do not need to change the Constitution. He does not need to run or be The President
2007-09-22 23:40:57 · answer #11 · answered by 1st Buzie 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋