It makes just as much sense as it did when written. America should never elect a President that wasn't born and raised here,and I don't think we ever would even if the law was changed.
It is hard enough getting reasonably decent leaders now,the last thing we need is to add those with divided allegiances to the mix.
YTP
2007-11-25 10:10:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Australia has a similar situation with "natural born "which is a good thing due to the political correctness gone mad in Australia.
Many towns were to frightened to put up Christmas decorations in the shopping centres that had a religious theme, and council dinners were excluding pork and ham. Australia and America have certain traditions that run parallel and should remain that way, rather than new arrivals calling the shots. this is one of the minor reasons for retaining a "Natural born Leader"
Australia just had a change of government on the weekend, and naturally the new leader has all the traditional ideals that our country must retain.
2007-11-26 09:50:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by jemima 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
There have been numerous attempts over the past one hundred-plus years to amend the Constitution and remove that provision. Each of those efforts failed and they should. The greatest number of immigrants flowing into this nation happened between 1870 and 1930. Even so, there was no success in creating support for such an amendment.
I support keeping things the way they are.
2007-11-25 10:35:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I don't really think it made sense in its day. The Natural born rule, was always to keep immigrants down. I think in a country of immigrants, simply having lived in the USA for 7 years and being a citizen should be enough.
2007-11-25 10:11:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by S P 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
Yes, our President needs to be natural born American. It's the law and we don't need some immigrant running for the Presidency. There are plenty of other government jobs they can get.
2007-11-25 10:50:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
The Terminator also came to my mind.
It looks as though it's OK for Big Arny to be Governor, but not good enough to be someones puppet at the top.
Arny did more than make movies, look at his environmental stand that he pushes.
He makes Al Gore and Bush look like a couple of ''Fair Dinkum" sit-on-the-fence observers. From An Aussie, who has just witnessed a change in Government
2007-11-25 10:27:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Whats it matter where they came from? I can understand you may find it bad if they simply arrived in the country. Then ran for president but if they have lived there a while why cant they run? You don't have to vote for them? How long must someone live in the US before they can run? in theory any non Indian in the US is an immigrant.
2007-11-25 20:49:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wonx2150 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
Why not? They still have to be elected and deal with the harsh, extensive, and sometimes racist American public. Even if we let them run, that doesn't mean they'll be elected. All the other answers assume if they run they will win: let the American people choose, maybe we want a non-natural born American to be President. I hope Americans would vote on the best candidate, and that includes a mix of allegiances/ intelligence/charisma/policies/and looks/beliefs. Let um run. Doesn't mean I'll vote for them.
2007-11-25 10:14:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by C.S. 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
It depends on whether you define natural born citizens as the founders and 200 years of US courts have -- as simply "born on US soil". If you do, then you are a constitutionalist. If you add "and born to two citizen parents", you are just a birther nut job.
2016-05-25 22:35:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Keep it like it is. I simply do not want a sleeper as president!
2007-11-25 10:14:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋