"Should the Constitutional qualifications to be elected President be changed?"?

Question

this is a great question please elaborate on it thanks.

Answer 1

No! AMERICAN BORN CITIZENS ONLY! They have a vested interest in the country. Some candidates need to be deported to Russia, Mexico and to the EC where their loyalties are! That would be my answer to over population.
Deportees:
Hillary and Bill
Gore
Michael Moore
Rosie O'Donnell
Bagdad Cindy Sheehan
Jane Fonda
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Barbara Boxer
Jimmy Carter
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
Nambla...

Answer 2

There are three qualifications to serve as president and four qualifications to be elected as president. The three that apply to both serving and being elected are the minimum age of 35, the 14 year residence requirement, and being a natural born citizen. The one that applies only to being elected is the term limit provision of the twenty-third amendment.

I think a colorable argument can be made for modifying any of these requirements. For example, the age requirement is just a number that does not have any particular developmental significance. Why is 35 more appropriate than 30 or 40? As to the citizenship requirement, it was adopted when we were a young country in which the native born population was truly at risk of being outvoted by immigrants who had just moved here. We are now a country of over 300 million with a historically small percentage of immigrants. If there is a brilliant immigrant who would make a good president (and I don't see any out there), why should that person be ineligible. I don't see any difference between someone from a family that moved here when that person was an infant and someone from a family that moved here a year or two before that person's birth.

Answer 3

No, I don't see anything wrong with the current qualifications. I may add something though. I think anyone running for another political seat should give up the one they have when they file to run. For instance, I don't think a current sitting Senator should be able to run for President without leaving her (or his) Senate seat first. It would even the playing field a little more, and lessen the current seat being used to play politics with people's lives to pander for votes.

Answer 4

If only one person could accomplish this and that would be Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is not completely impossible to make the amendment. The big issue is foreigner's could hold office of President. It's dumb if you think about it say for example I was born in the U.S.A , but was raised in Saudi Arabia because my dad and mom lived and worked there...
The Saudi culture would affect how I feel about issues like abortion and politics Say I am with the Saudi way but my birthplace is in the USA. Does that mean I am an American..
definitely one who the people would want. Then take a foreigner like Arnold...he hit the political glass ceiling bu he is the best man for the job. He still can't get it.

Answer 5

200 plus years is hard to change. But I think anything is worth taking a look at if there is a valid argument for change. So far, I don't really see a good reason to change what we have.

Answer 6

NO! I don't want Governor Benedict Arnold! He's already a disaster for CA! The rest of the country may like him but they don't understand what a mess he's made.

Answer 7

changed to what? You wanna lower the age or something? That's yet to be an issue. You wanna change the natural born citizen requirement? Maybe some day, but there isn't support for it just yet.

Answer 8

@Outofland, your source does not get entry to. you in all possibility fabricated a real poll and altered the internet handle to make it look genuine. you in all possibility in simple terms created the info up. you're in simple terms like Fox information.

Answer 9

I don't think so. They've worked pretty well for the past 200+ years. I can't see the point in changing them now...

Answer 10

Yeah, does the Constitution say anything about STUPID?