NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that a group has started whose sole aim is to get the constitution amended so that Arnold can run for president.

I hardly found this incredibly surprising, but I for one would find voting for Arnold very difficult. I cannot take him seriously because he still insists on using his old movie phrases. This is not to necessarily say that he would automatically make a bad president, just my opinion.

What does everyone else think?

I really don't have much of an opinion with Ahh-nahld. If he can make Cali. work, though, he's got my vote.

I like what the group is trying to do, but I don't like HOW they try to do it.

I mean...c'mon...if you watched Jon Stewart tonight you'll know what I mean....

AMEND FOR ARNOLD!
And 12 million other Americans



But hey, if he makes my California a better place, he's got my vote. I wouldn't mind voting him as my first ever Presidential vote.


Heh...

Arnold against Clinton...this'll be fun.

Absolutely NOT!
You don't f*@k with the document. Period.
You [they] want to amend the constitution so Arnold can be president? That's just great.
Unfortunately you then set a precident. Let's then, while were at it, amend the second amendmant, and how about the 13th, heck how about the FIRST amendment while you're at it.
No, Arnold can go be president of the EU for all I care. But don't mess with MY constitution. And if this nonsense ever gets serious then any truly PATRIOTIC AMERICAN needs to stand up against it.

I would hate to think that our Constitution could be so maleable as to be able to change it for a single person. It's been around for 228 years with very few amendments needed.

Absolutely NOT!
You don't f*@k with the document. Period.
You [they] want to amend the constitution so Arnold can be president? That's just great.
Unfortunately you then set a precident. Let's then, while were at it, amend the second amendmant, and how about the 13th, heck how about the FIRST amendment while you're at it.
No, Arnold can go be president of the EU for all I care. But don't mess with MY constitution. And if this nonsense ever gets serious then any truly PATRIOTIC AMERICAN needs to stand up against it.

You know that we've amended the constituion 17 times, right?

On a practical standpoint, Arnold has no chance. The Democrats would not allow it because of his popularity, and the Republicans are more averse to foreigners (and his wild lifestyle in the 70s probably turns off a lot of Republicans).

He has zero chance.

However, on this subject, I feel any American citizen should be able to run for president. It's too bad we would need something as large as an amendment though.

The Constitution does not need to amended just so the gubernator can run.

And, for your information, he's NOT making California any better. It's exactly the same as before he took office, if not worse.

He's not a good governor at all, he doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

Absolutely NOT!
You don't f*@k with the document. Period.
You [they] want to amend the constitution so Arnold can be president? That's just great.
Unfortunately you then set a precident. Let's then, while were at it, amend the second amendmant, and how about the 13th, heck how about the FIRST amendment while you're at it.
No, Arnold can go be president of the EU for all I care. But don't mess with MY constitution. And if this nonsense ever gets serious then any truly PATRIOTIC AMERICAN needs to stand up against it.
Ahh...apparently you have something against the very people who wrote the Constitution allowing for a Bill of Rights and future Amendments to the Constitution because they knew of the futuristic changes in social and economic advances?

Truly patriotic...you? Bull****....

Any REAL Patriot would allow ANY American citizen to run for President, provided the person is over 30. (Yes, THIRTY)

The Constitution does not need to amended just so the gubernator can run.

And, for your information, he's NOT making California any better. It's exactly the same as before he took office, if not worse.
And if a President is elected after Bush, you will not see a better America until perhaps 4 or 8 years later.

You know that we've amended the constituion 17 times, right?

27, counting the original ten.

You know that we've amended the constituion 17 times, right?
27, actually. But that's 27 over the course of 200 years, and you have to take into account that one amendment's sole purpose was to nullify another amendment. Plus, none of them have changed any of the prerequisites for office, and there have been only minor changes to the way the system is run. Most of the amendments were adding things that weren't mentioned in the body (namely, the rights of the people).

Absolutely NOT!
You don't f*@k with the document. Period.
You [they] want to amend the constitution so Arnold can be president? That's just great.
Unfortunately you then set a precident. Let's then, while were at it, amend the second amendmant, and how about the 13th, heck how about the FIRST amendment while you're at it.
No, Arnold can go be president of the EU for all I care. But don't mess with MY constitution. And if this nonsense ever gets serious then any truly PATRIOTIC AMERICAN needs to stand up against it.
You, ah, do realize that they made the ability to amend the Constitution for a, ah, reason?

Absolutely NOT!
You don't f*@k with the document. Period.
You [they] want to amend the constitution so Arnold can be president? That's just great.
Unfortunately you then set a precident. Let's then, while were at it, amend the second amendmant, and how about the 13th, heck how about the FIRST amendment while you're at it.
No, Arnold can go be president of the EU for all I care. But don't mess with MY constitution. And if this nonsense ever gets serious then any truly PATRIOTIC AMERICAN needs to stand up against it.

Alright, calm down. While I agree with you that the constitution should not be changed on a whim, it also needs to be morphable to address changes in society. The founding fathers had the foresight to know that changes in society and values may require changes in the document itself. That is part of the reason the US has attained the level of success it currently has as a country.

Most of the amendments were adding things that weren't mentioned in the body (namely, the rights of the people).
Except for the one that expressly took AWAY rights (and was rightly repealed). :p

And if it had passed, the amendment banning gay marriage.

27, counting the original ten.
Aren't the original 10 counted as the Bill of Rights, and are technically not Amendments, but basic things the Constitution need not have said?

Something like that...it doesn't look right up there.

Except for the one that expressly took AWAY rights (and was rightly repealed). :p

And if it had passed, the amendment banning gay marriage.
I stand firmly beside my belief that if the amendment to ban gay marriage had passed, it would have eventually gone the way of Prohibition. The Constitution is there to limit the Government, not the population. Oops... now I've gone and given a compelling reason for an amendment to let Arnold run for president...

Arnold hasn't really made any changes to California except cutting a bunch of stuff in education. He is better than Davis on parole though. But that's about it. And he wants to let the casinos have their way. And he thinks he can get the democrat controlled legislature to vote for his stuff after insulting them. He should go back to acting.

Aren't the original 10 counted as the Bill of Rights, and are technically not Amendments, but basic things the Constitution need not have said?

Something like that...it doesn't look right up there.

It's 27, dude. At least according to my copy of the constitution (I believe that every American should have one).

You know that we've amended the constituion 17 times, right?
Well it was set up to allow for future amendments, if that's what you mean. I'm talking about amendments that refute prior ones and there's only one that I know of which was when prohibition was repealed. A good thing to, as I make a living by making drinks for people.
(Side note - I discovered today that I and my employer are breaking the law. There apparently is still a law on the books in Pennsylvania that makes it illegal for a woman to dispense and/or serve alcoholic beverages from behind a bar, unless she is the tavern owners' wife. Heehee.)

It's 27, dude. At least according to my copy of the constitution (I believe that every American should have one).
... I think I love you. That's exactly what I say every time someone asks why I have a copy of the Constitution. Unfortunately, I gave my copy to someone in my English class and haven't printed a new one out yet, so I'm stuck with just the digital version.

It's 27, dude. At least according to my copy of the constitution (I believe that every American should have one).
Well I consider the first 10 a Bill of Rights, and not technically amendments...but whatever.

And I'd immediatly get my own copy if I were to come across one at an affordable price. A kid can only buy so much with so little.

It's 27, dude. At least according to my copy of the constitution (I believe that every American should have one).

I say 17 because the original 10 were added to the Constitution almost immediately after its ratification. Yes it is actually 27.

Well I consider the first 10 a Bill of Rights, and not technically amendments...but whatever.

And I'd immediatly get my own copy if I were to come across one at an affordable price. A kid can only buy so much with so little.
Google it. You'll get a government site where you can get a free copy.

The Constitution does not need to amended just so the gubernator can run.

And, for your information, he's NOT making California any better. It's exactly the same as before he took office, if not worse.

He's not a good governor at all, he doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

Yes, the constitution would have to be amended. Article II of our constitution explaines the qualifications for the president, stating that he or she must be born in the USA. Arnold was born in Austria.

It is important that Americans realize that we view our constitution much differenly than other nations. We hold our constitution to reverence almost equal to a holy book. Conversly, many nations freely acknowledge that constititions may need revising or even rewriting. This is true for France, which working under a constitution that is under a hundred years old. This is also the case for many European nations.

On second thought, I'll just give you the link:
The Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

Well it was set up to allow for future amendments, if that's what you mean. I'm talking about amendments that refute prior ones and there's only one that I know of which was when prohibition was repealed. A good thing to, as I make a living by making drinks for people.
(Side note - I discovered today that I and my employer are breaking the law. There apparently is still a law on the books in Pennsylvania that makes it illegal for a woman to dispense and/or serve alcoholic beverages from behind a bar, unless she is the tavern owners' wife. Heehee.)

You do know that if the Prohibition Amendment wasn't negated by another Amendment (oh no! screwing with the sacred document!) you'd be out of a job?


I wish he wouldn't keep using his old movie quoutes

Eh, it worked for Reagan.

Unless of course the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment already amended the natural born requirement from the constitution.

Just thinking out loud.

Ahh...apparently you have something against the very people who wrote the Constitution allowing for a Bill of Rights and future Amendments to the Constitution because they knew of the futuristic changes in social and economic advances?

Truly patriotic...you? Bull****....

Any REAL Patriot would allow ANY American citizen to run for President, provided the person is over 30. (Yes, THIRTY)
Oh come on. So you are in favor for allowing a foreign - born citizen to be president, but not if he's 29? WTF? If you're going to change it, change ot for pity's sake. Make the age 18.
Besides, the part of the constitution in question is NOT part of the Bill of Rights. It's from the actual, original body of the document. Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 4.

On second thought, I'll just give you the link:
The Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)
Favorite'd!

Actually The Governator might have a chance, that is, if the constitution is amended. (Also, as someone suggested they could make it legal for persons holding high public offices to run, not necessarily aliens) He belongs to the republican party, but is kind of bipartisan. Idiots will vote for him. A good portion of women will vote for him. And if he runs against Hillary, don't you think that most conservatives and republicans would vote Arnold?

I find the situation quite funny though.

I think that it should be amended. Not because of Arnold, but because, well, is there a real reason why someone who has lived in the U.S. for over 2 decades isn't a citizen enough to run for president? Whereas someone who was born in the U.S. but spent most of their lives overseas is?

There should be a certain amount of time that someone has to have lived here before they're eligible to run, but immigrants shouldn't be excluded.

Oh come on. So you are in favor for allowing a foreign - born citizen to be president, but not if he's 29? WTF? If you're going to change it, change ot for pity's sake. Make the age 18.
Besides, the part of the constitution in question is NOT part of the Bill of Rights. It's from the actual, original body of the document. Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 4.


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

5th paragraph, miss.

The Constitution also formerly said that slaves were considered 5/8 a human being. Think about that.

I think that it should be amended. Not because of Arnold, but because, well, is there a real reason why someone who has lived in the U.S. for over 2 decades isn't a citizen enough to run for president? Whereas someone who was born in the U.S. but spent most of their lives overseas is?

There should be a certain amount of time that someone has to have lived here before they're eligible to run, but immigrants shouldn't be excluded.

There is a certain amount of time you had to live in the US. It is 14 years. I believe Eisenhower (? or some other president at the beginning of the 20th century) spent most of his life in Europe before becoming president.

5th paragraph, miss.

The Constitution also formerly said that slaves were considered 5/8 a human being. Think about that.

3/5 :rolleyes:

You do know that if the Prohibition Amendment wasn't negated by another Amendment (oh no! screwing with the sacred document!) you'd be out of a job?
Or, more precisely, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to take such a job.
It was a stupid amendment and rightly repealed 14 years later. After it's institution gave rise to such evils as the mafia control of liquor, NASCAR and the Kennedy fortune.
I think if you start playing around with the constitution so much, you may as well scrap it and start over from scratch.

5th paragraph, miss.

The Constitution also formerly said that slaves were considered 5/8 a human being. Think about that.

The Constitution never said that. A seperate law did, but never was it in the Constitution. And it was 3/5, not 5/8.

is there a real reason why someone who has lived in the U.S. for over 2 decades isn't a citizen enough to run for president?
Do the words "sleeper cells" ring any kind of bells for you?

The Constitution never said that. A seperate law did, but never was it in the Constitution. And it was 3/5, not 5/8.
3/5, whatever. Still the same in my eyes. How can a human be less than a human? *shrug*

Do the words "sleeper cells" ring any kind of bells for you?

A strip-joint-visiting Islamic towelhead whackjob being elected President is about as likely as George Bush pronouncing "strategy" correctly.

That part is supposed to protect the country from "evil foreigners", but if they are evil and non-patriotic, then they do not get elected. It is quite superfluous.

Unless of course the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment already amended the natural born requirement from the constitution.

Just thinking out loud.
Stop it. You must be a lawyer.
I just read it and you might be right. After all, it's all about interpretation, eh?
Which renders this thread and the arguement it's based upon, totally irrelevant. Which means, if I'm smart, I'll log off and go to bed. But I'm not that bright. So we'll see.

That part is supposed to protect the country from "evil foreigners", but if they are evil and non-patriotic, then they do not get elected. It is quite superfluous.

Shoot, if your not white and a Christian you don't get elected.

Or, more precisely, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to take such a job.
It was a stupid amendment and rightly repealed 14 years later. After it's institution gave rise to such evils as the mafia control of liquor, NASCAR and the Kennedy fortune.
I think if you start playing around with the constitution so much, you may as well scrap it and start over from scratch.

whats your issue with NASCAR?

Article I, Section 2:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

"All other Persons" refers to the slaves.

There is a certain amount of time you had to live in the US. It is 14 years. I believe Eisenhower (? or some other president at the beginning of the 20th century) spent most of his life in Europe before becoming president.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Do the words "sleeper cells" ring any kind of bells for you?

I said a real reason.

Shoot, if your not white and a Christian you don't get elected.
So should there be a requirment for the president to be a member of a minority group?

Article I, Section 2:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

"All other Persons" refers to the slaves.

you know a slave used to be 3/5s of a person when calculating seats in congress and after the civil war it looked like the southern states would control congress cause blacks were now whole people so they didnt let the southern states back into the union f***ed up

So should there be a requirment for the president to be a member of a minority group?

No, I dislike affirmitive action. If a person can't mobilize their minority block to back them up, they probably won't be very good at getting Congress or the World to get things done either.

you know a slave used to be 3/5s of a person when calculating seats in congress and after the civil war it looked like the southern states would control congress cause blacks were now whole people so they didnt let the southern states back into the union f***ed up

They would only control the house by a vast majority. And remember Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land in America. ( i learned a few things in my government class and thats pretty much it..)

you know a slave used to be 3/5s of a person when calculating seats in congress and after the civil war it looked like the southern states would control congress cause blacks were now whole people so they didnt let the southern states back into the union f***ed up

Then where the hell was that Strom Thurmond guy running from? Musta snuck in there...

5th paragraph, miss.

The Constitution also formerly said that slaves were considered 5/8 a human being. Think about that.
MY copy of the constitution has the same words at paragraph FOUR. You must have a new version, issued by the current administration, that I will have to look into at some point.
The 13th amendment kind of rectified that. Think about it.

Then where the hell was that Strom Thurmond guy running from? Musta snuck in there...

was that the guy that went north and the south got shitty and wanted to make a stronger fugtive slave act or was that dredd scott?

you know a slave used to be 3/5s of a person when calculating seats in congress and after the civil war it looked like the southern states would control congress cause blacks were now whole people so they didnt let the southern states back into the union f***ed up

That's not true. The North had 22 million people in 1860, and the South had 9 million. The South could not have controlled Congress if they tried.

was that the guy that went north and the south got shitty and wanted to make a stronger fugtive slave act or was that dredd scott?

Um...Dred Scott.

Strom Thurmond was a racist asshole, though.

Ignore this i got the wrong guy .

That's not true. The North had 22 million people in 1860, and the South had 9 million. The South could not have controlled Congress if they tried.

thats what my school history book says maby they didnt include slaves in the census

A strip-joint-visiting Islamic towelhead whackjob being elected President is about as likely as George Bush pronouncing "strategy" correctly.
:D
Touche.
Just trying to make a point.
So the Democrats may be putting Micky Gorbachev on the bill for 2012?
I just might believe all the Mayan calendar stuff about the end of the world in that year then.

MY copy of the constitution has the same words at paragraph FOUR. You must have a new version, issued by the current administration, that I will have to look into at some point.
The 13th amendment kind of rectified that. Think about it.
What's your point? That your opposed to amendments because they change the Constitution?

thats what my school history book says maby they didnt include slaves in the census


Nope.


"In 1860 the 22 states that would remain in the Union (three more would come in before 1865) had a combined population of 22 million. The 11 states that made up the Confederacy could count only 9 million inhabitants, including almost 4 million black slaves."


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354_9/Civil_War.html#s113

thats what my school history book says maby they didnt include slaves in the census
I say again they would have had control of the house and that would have been it if that was true.....Since north had more states therefore making it in control of senate unless you elected a bunch of slavers as Senators for New york and those states.

:D
Touche.
Just trying to make a point.
So the Democrats may be putting Micky Gorbachev on the bill for 2012?
I just might believe all the Mayan calendar stuff about the end of the world in that year then.

Will Mikhail Gorbachev be alive in 2012? He'll be 92.

:D
Touche.
Just trying to make a point.
So the Democrats may be putting Micky Gorbachev on the bill for 2012?
I just might believe all the Mayan calendar stuff about the end of the world in that year then.

The Democratic Party in its current state couldn't get Jesus Christ elected. However, I believe the Voting Public (i.e. coastal liberals and white Bible-toting midwesteners) will almost always vote American (natural born) over a foreigner, unless that foreigner had a very large voting block behind him (Hispanics for example).

Will Mikhail Gorbachev be alive in 2012? He'll be 92.
Doubt it but its possible.

whats your issue with NASCAR?
Ha! I have none, really. Don't get edged.
JGR all the way. My son likes the #12 car. We live near Penske.
Just that it was born out of running moonshine during prohibition.
Jeez, and I thought more liberals would be barking at me about the Kennedy reference. (He was a moonshine "runner" in case you didn't know).

No one really cares if Ken boy was a moonshine runner...Everyone needs a high paying job!

Ha! I have none, really. Don't get edged.
JGR all the way. My son likes the #12 car. We live near Penske.
Just that it was born out of running moonshine during prohibition.
Jeez, and I thought more liberals would be barking at me about the Kennedy reference. (He was a moonshine "runner" in case you didn't know).

He also slept with half of Washington and his dad was a Nazi who had mystic powers that allowed 20,000 dead people in Illinois to vote Kennedy. But he got shot so everyone likes him.

It is important that Americans realize that we view our constitution much differenly than other nations. We hold our constitution to reverence almost equal to a holy book. Conversly, many nations freely acknowledge that constititions may need revising or even rewriting. This is true for France, which working under a constitution that is under a hundred years old. This is also the case for many European nations.

We, in New Zealand, don't even have a single written Constitution! *gasp*
We have constitutional documents and certain conventions that Government follows, but no Constitution like what the US does or indeed, like in Europe.

Which is perhaps why I don't see the fuss in amending the document, so long as you meet the requirements for amendments, what does it matter.

What happens to people that are born to US citizen parents in a foreign country but that returns to US shortly after born and who lives there the rest of his life. He's not eligible because he wasn't born there????

Yep. There was a case about it when a person was born on an American Military Base, and even then you are not considered natural born. If you are born in an embassy though, then you are natural born.

Hmmm, interesting...
In that case, another question:

Quote:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States"
Does this not already provide for Citizens not born in the United States?
If so, what is the definition of citizen?
And couldn't you redefine citizenship instead of amending the constitution if the definition refers only to being born in the US?

What's your point? That your opposed to amendments because they change the Constitution?
No. My point is that amendments are not supposed to CHANGE the constitution, they are suppossed to BUILD UPON it. That's the whole freaking point.
You might note, or maybe not, since apparently the first time in your life you ever laid eyes on the Constitution was about an hour or so ago when some one gave you a link in this thread, that the Tenth and final article of the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments, for the slow people) reads thusly:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States repsectively, or to the people."
Do you get it yet?

Hmmm, interesting...
In that case, another question:



"a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States"
Does this not already provide for Citizens not born in the United States?
If so, what is the definition of citizen?
And couldn't you redefine citizenship instead of amending the constitution if the definition refers only to being born in the US?

You should read it as:

"A natural born citizen"

or

"A citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution"

Meaning that if you were a citizen of the US when they adopted the Constitution you could run for President. Otherwise no one at that time could have run, since none of them were natural born citizens of the new United States.

You should read it as:

"A natural born citizen"

or

"A citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution"

Meaning that if you were a citizen of the US when they adopted the Constitution you could run for President. Otherwise no one at that time could have run, since none of them were natural born citizens of the new United States.

Haha, oh right, true true.
Too many commas!

The highest office of the land should be reserved for American-born, American-raised citizens. Period. Willy-nilly amendments to any constitution, state or federal, is generally a bad idea.

The gubernator for President is a truly awful idea.

Hmmm, interesting...
In that case, another question:



"a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States"
Does this not already provide for Citizens not born in the United States?
If so, what is the definition of citizen?
And couldn't you redefine citizenship instead of amending the constitution if the definition refers only to being born in the US?
No. Read it again. "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Consititution"
That means , if you weren't born here (or decended from one thereof) or hadn't been naturalized in 1791, you cannot be president. I think it's pretty safe to say that all citizens who were naturalized in 1791 are DEAD!

No. Read it again. "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Consititution"
That means , if you weren't born here or hadn't been naturalized in 1791, you cannot be president. I think it's pretty safe to say that all citizens who were naturalized in 1791 are DEAD!

But has the Constiution been really adopted, eh? ;)

Haha, oh right, true true.
Too many commas!
Right. Grammatical errors and comma splices set this nation up for it's downfall. Lawyers are so picky about shit like that.

No. Read it again. "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Consititution"
That means , if you weren't born here or hadn't been naturalized in 1791, you cannot be president. I think it's pretty safe to say that all citizens who were naturalized in 1791 are DEAD!

*cough*
Yep, Sdaeriji pointed that one out. That comma really shouldn't be there, it's what stopped me. I've been brainwashed by too much statutory interp, you'd think that would have meant I wouldn't have been tripped up that but hey, whatever.



I would laugh heartily if Arnold became president. I don't think a change should be made for one person. I don't think you would get such a change if it was only for one person, amendments to supreme law have to have a fairly large backing, generally. The change should be made because it is for the good of all people of the States.

I do believe it smacks a little of xenophobia.

Why is the US constitution so sacred? At least with most holy books you can argue that they are the word of God, so that's why they're fine the way they are.

Or do you really think the founding fathers got it all right the first time around. I don't know what the requirements are, but it's always harder to make changes to a country's constitution than with a "normal" law.

My random guess is that the requirement for being born in the USA was a safeguard against European interests at a time when they were most surely needed. Making a constitution or some parts of it unamendable is the stuff many dictators do after gaining power.

But has the Constiution been really adopted, eh? ;)
Are you questioning the legality of this nation's founding? (Question away, do it, enlighten me). Don't even start. (Meaning: do, start. Just not here. TG me, that's all). I'm going to bed and all threads die to me when I go to bed.

*snip*Arnold has no chance. . . and his wild lifestyle in the 70s probably turns off a lot of Republicans.
Call me a masocist(SP?) but I just started re-reading this thread.
GB Junior's "lifestyle in the 70's" certainly didn't "turn off" any Republicans from voting for him in 2004, let alone 2000 when the biggest joke in the Republican party was that he got the nomination!. I hate to use stupid internet junk but I am truly LMFAOROTFL!
So all Arnold has to do is call on Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour and start saying that God speaks through him and he's a shoe-in for 2008? Splendid. I'll probably waste my vote on Perot again or something. At least he's a rich bastard with a plan for the common man.

Call me a masocist(SP?) but I just started re-reading this thread.
GB Junior's "lifestyle in the 70's" certainly didn't "turn off" any Republicans from voting for him in 2004, let alone 2000 when the biggest joke in the Republican party was that he got the nomination!. I hate to use stupid internet junk but I am truly LMFAOROTFL!
So all Arnold had to do is call on Jesus Christ as his peronal Lord and Saviour and start saying that God speaks through him and he's a shoe-in for 2008? Splendid.
Yeah, but you can't actually find videos on the internet of Bush engaging in orgies while smoking weed! :p

DUI my ass! The conservatives would never support Arnold! :p

Yeah, but you can't actually find videos on the internet of Bush engaging in orgies while smoking weed! :p

DUI my ass!
There are videos of Arnold smoking dope in orgies?
EF in the constitution!
He should be installed as supreme dictator for life.
I'm out!

There are videos of Arnold smoking dope in orgies?
EF in the constitution!
He should be installed as supreme dictator for life.
I'm out!
HERE'S ARNIE!!! (http://www.thatwasrandom.com/video/pothead_arnie.php)

There's others too of him smoking weed.

I'm still looking for the orgy one...

He was also filmed trying to put a carrot up a woman's butt in the documentary "Carnival in Rio". http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i8arnoldpic1.htm

*cough*
I do believe it smacks a little of xenophobia.

Nope sorry.

It was added because of the problems we had at the time of the revolution and even 1812.

The intent was that you would not be "loyal" to another country if you were born here.....

He was also filmed trying to put a carrot up a woman's butt in the documentary "Carnival in Rio". http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i8arnoldpic1.htm

Well you can be sure he'll appoint liberal judges to the bench then. What's the problem.

Nope sorry.

It was added because of the problems we had at the time of the revolution and even 1812.

The intent was that you would not be "loyal" to another country if you were born here.....

No, no, no that's not what I meant. I meant that the unwillingness NOW to amend it smacks of xenophobia. Times were different then.

Nah dude.

"Uhhh...well, I sure wouldn't wanna arm wrestle him!"
-----George W. Bush

I think that it is possible that amending the constitution to allow someone not born in the United States to be president could be beneficial for a few reasons.
1. If you were born outside the US, but immagrated early in your life (1-9 years old) how are your experiences going to be so much different from most other americans that you couldn't be the figurehead of it?
2. I would argue that people who were born in and have spent some time in other countries may work harder to preserve freedoms we have that people in other countries do not. They would be more appreciative of what others may take for granted.

Well you can be sure he'll appoint liberal judges to the bench then. What's the problem.
There is no problem! I would DEFINATELY vote for Arnie if he ran against a moderate Democrat. I'm just pointing out that he has zero chance in his own party!

Ahh...apparently you have something against the very people who wrote the Constitution allowing for a Bill of Rights and future Amendments to the Constitution because they knew of the futuristic changes in social and economic advances?

...

Any REAL Patriot would allow ANY American citizen to run for President, provided the person is over 30. (Yes, THIRTY)

The founding fathers did not offer the ability to amend for economic advances, only for new laws that protect the rights of an individual (property rights included). The reason for having only natural born citizens be president is to avoid influence from foreign governments, almost all of which blatantly violate the rights of their citizens. Most do even to this day, especially in the economic realm.

This principle is no longer taken as seriously as it once was. It once led to the abolition of slavery and women's sufferage. Over the years it has been thrown to the wayside. Most often the excuse is social or economic welfare. The founding fathers never said one has a right to a happy or successful life. They only guuranteed the right to pursue, or not to pursue, one.

It does not surprise me that amendments are proposed that run counter to the principle of individual rights.

The reason for having only natural born citizens be president is to avoid influence from foreign governments, almost all of which blatantly violate the rights of their citizens. Most do even to this day, especially in the economic realm.
If by foreign you mean Middle-Eastern or African or Chinese, I would agree. If you mean European or Canadian...I think they respect the rights of their citizens far more than Uncle Sam.

founding fathers never said one has a right to a happy or successful life. They only guuranteed the right to pursue, or not to pursue, one.
Actually, it was "life, liberty, and property". In any case, "pursuit of happiness" sounds much nicer.