NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry if I misspelled the name.

Would you vote for Ahhnold for US presidency? Why or why not?

He"s not eligible so no.

Sorry if I misspelled the name.

Would you vote for Ahhnold for US presidency? Why or why not?

Yew r a cumpleet phaleyur @ speling.

He"s not eligible so no.

What makes you say that? Anyone's better than that puppet Bush. At least Ahhnold would actually make decisions by himself sometimes instead of listening to his advisers unquestionably.

Do you know that in order to become President, you have to have been born in the United States?

Suppose that Arnold was allowed to run (disregarding the regulations for presidency) would you vote for him?

Do you know that in order to become President, you have to have been born in the United States?

there are some people including myself that argues that the 14th amendment invalidates that clause of the constitution.

It would depend on the candidates he's running against.

The current ones, and Bush if he runs for re-elections (but I think only right wing fundies would vote for him)

The current ones, and Bush if he runs for re-elections (but I think only right wing fundies would vote for him)

you're well out in the land of hypothetical lunacy if you're discussing a Arnold v. Bush race in 2008.

Suppose that Arnold was allowed to run (disregarding the regulations for presidency) would you vote for him?

It would depend on the candidates he's running against.

you're well out in the land of hypothetical lunacy if you're discussing a Arnold v. Bush race in 2008.

Fine Arnold vs current candidates without Bush. gee, I only wanted to make this intersting. :confused:

I dont like the way he is running California, so no. (the exception is if he was running against Bush or Hillory or Chavez, they are even worse than he is.)

What makes you say that? Anyone's better than that puppet Bush. At least Ahhnold would actually make decisions by himself sometimes instead of listening to his advisers unquestionably.

He wasn't born in America, so he can't. That's all.

you're well out in the land of hypothetical lunacy if you're discussing a Arnold v. Bush race in 2008.Indeed.

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 PresidentNo person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

He wasn't born in America, so he can't. That's all.

as I said before, while it has never been challenged, Art. II sec 1 may well be void due to the 14th amendment.

there are some people including myself that argues that the 14th amendment invalidates that clause of the constitution.

How so?


As for the original question, I'm not sure. I thought it rather funny when he originally ran for governor, but he's shown a remarkable ability to stand against some of the silliest mandates of the Republican party and actually seems to think for himself. He's done some things I agree with and others I haven't, but at least he's not a party lackey. If it were made possible and he were to run, I'd be more likely to vote for him than most politicians.

Would you vote for Ahhnold for US presidency? Why or why not?

No.

1. Not eligible
2. Last time we voted in an actor we got stuck with Reagan.

Arnold probably wouldn't be as crazy...but I wouldn't take the chance. :p

as I said before, while it has never been challenged, Art. II sec 1 may well be void due to the 14th amendment.
I dunno, it's talking about states' laws. The Constitution trumps all laws and any other amendment that has overulled another part of it has done so in very specific terms.

How so?

Because of this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is both a substantive due process and an equal protection problem. Generally the 14th amendment can be read to state "the rights of citizens of the united states shall not be abridged regardless of who that citizen is, all citizens have equal rights". This is a substantive due process angle.

It can also be read to state "any law which affects one citizen must affect all citizens equally". That's equal protection.

Many, including myself, have argued that in a democracy the right to participate in government, not only through voting, but through serving public office is a fundamental right of citizens. In a democracy we have both the right to vote for office and seek office. And, under the 14th amendment, if one citizen as a right, ALL citizens have that right. And note, the 14th does not say "naturalized citizens", it just says "citizens".

If George W. Bush had the right to run for president, than all american citizens have that right. And Arnold is certainly an american citizen.
That's the substantive due process argument.

The equal protection argument is somewhat simpler. It says "ok, we may not have the fundamental right to un for president, but the law must treat us all equally, and can't discriminate, and if the law discriminates against citizens not born in the united states, well it can't do that, and is therefore invalid.

I dunno, it's talking about states' laws.

Reverse incorporation

Bowling v. Sharpe (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=497), 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

Namely the following:

(a)Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive.

(d) In view of this Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ante, p. 483, that the Constitution prohibits the States from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.

In other words, the imposition the 14th places on the states, through reverse incorporation, the same imposition is applied to the federal government. Bowling v. Sharpe is pretty settledlaw, and it's generally well established that the the principles of equal protection and substantive due process are binding to the federal government as they are to the staes.


The Constitution trumps all laws and any other amendment that has overulled another part of it has done so in very specific terms.

True, but that doesn't mean such a thing is inconceivable that it may still occur. In fact, the drafters may have not even intended such a thing, yet it doesn't mean that this is not a consequence of the amendment as written

Because of this:



There is both a substantive due process and an equal protection problem. Generally the 14th amendment can be read to state "the rights of citizens of the united states shall not be abridged regardless of who that citizen is, all citizens have equal rights". This is a substantive due process angle.

It can also be read to state "any law which affects one citizen must affect all citizens equally". That's equal protection.

Many, including myself, have argued that in a democracy the right to participate in government, not only through voting, but through serving public office is a fundamental right of citizens. In a democracy we have both the right to vote for office and seek office. And, under the 14th amendment, if one citizen as a right, ALL citizens have that right. And note, the 14th does not say "naturalized citizens", it just says "citizens".

If George W. Bush had the right to run for president, than all american citizens have that right. And Arnold is certainly an american citizen.
That's the substantive due process argument.

The equal protection argument is somewhat simpler. It says "ok, we may not have the fundamental right to un for president, but the law must treat us all equally, and can't discriminate, and if the law discriminates against citizens not born in the united states, well it can't do that, and is therefore invalid.

But those restrictions on who may run for president aren't state laws.

Because of this:



There is both a substantive due process and an equal protection problem. Generally the 14th amendment can be read to state "the rights of citizens of the united states shall not be abridged regardless of who that citizen is, all citizens have equal rights". This is a substantive due process angle.

It can also be read to state "any law which affects one citizen must affect all citizens equally". That's equal protection.

Many, including myself, have argued that in a democracy the right to participate in government, not only through voting, but through serving public office is a fundamental right of citizens. In a democracy we have both the right to vote for office and seek office. And, under the 14th amendment, if one citizen as a right, ALL citizens have that right. And note, the 14th does not say "naturalized citizens", it just says "citizens".

If George W. Bush had the right to run for president, than all american citizens have that right. And Arnold is certainly an american citizen.
That's the substantive due process argument.

The equal protection argument is somewhat simpler. It says "ok, we may not have the fundamental right to un for president, but the law must treat us all equally, and can't discriminate, and if the law discriminates against citizens not born in the united states, well it can't do that, and is therefore invalid.
there's one flaw in your argument: it says NO STATE. this meant that the federal government can do whatever it wants.
EDIT: that and the fact that the constitution overrides all other laws, meaning the ammendment doesn't apply unless it states it covers that line

there's one flaw in your argument: it says NO STATE. this meant that the federal government can do whatever it wants.

See above and read Bowling v. Sharpe, I have already discussed that argument.

But those restrictions on who may run for president aren't state laws.

Bowling v. Sharpe, please see above (or below, or perhaps to the side, all depends on how time continuity and jolt's servers are doing today).

there's one flaw in your argument: it says NO STATE. this meant that the federal government can do whatever it wants.


when doesn't the fed do what they want?


ahhnold is ok as polo's go,but no..i would not vote for him.

In other words, the imposition the 14th places on the states, through reverse incorporation, the same imposition is applied to the federal government. Bowling v. Sharpe is pretty settledlaw, and it's generally well established that the the principles of equal protection and substantive due process are binding to the federal government as they are to the staes.
My appologies, I should have framed that better. I mean that since the 14th talks about enacting laws, I took laws to mean legislation. Since no law can, under the Constitution, trump or apply to the Constitution (unless noted), I am not sure you could make an argument that an admendment designed to apply to legislation overides another part of the Constitution.

True, but that doesn't mean such a thing is inconceivable that it may still occur. In fact, the drafters may have not even intended such a thing, yet it doesn't mean that this is not a consequence of the amendment as written
I dunno, that's a pretty thin reed to lean on given the history of constitutional amendments.

My appologies, I should have framed that better. I mean that since the 14th talks about enacting laws, I took laws to mean legislation. Since no law can, under the Constitution, trump or apply to the Constitution (unless noted), I am not sure you could make an argument that an admendment designed to apply to legislation overides another part of the Constitution.

The constitution is a law. Actually it's several. It in fact is no different than any other law, with one exception. It contains a supremacy clause. This means that it is law, however it's a law that can not be trumped by any other law, except by an amendment to itself. However it is, most certainly, a law and indeed, the supremacy clause expressly referes to the constitution as a law:

This Constitution...be the supreme Law of the land

As such it quite meets the definition of law for the purposes of "no law shall"



I dunno, that's a pretty thin reed to lean on given the history of constitutional amendments.


Actually, it's not unheard of at all from precident. The 14th amendment has been held to trump the 11th amendment, even though it never explicitly or expressly states that it does so.

It is fairly settled precident that is if the constitution and a more recent amendment conflict with each other in such a way that both can not exist simultaniously than the newer amendment trumps the older text even if the amendment does not expressly say so.

If it can be argued that the 14th amendment, through the process of reverse incorporation, based on the argument of due process and equal protection conflict with art II sec 1, then the 14th amendment, being newer, trumps it, and the requirement is invalid.

Actually, it's not unheard of at all from preciden. The 14th amendment has been held to trump the 11th amendment, even though it never explicitly or expressly states that it does so.
yes, but that's one ammendment over another, and it very much depends on the way each item is phrased
according to the case you referenced - it says that the rules should apply to the federal government, but it doesn't mean that the federal government HAS to follow those rules

yes, but that's one ammendment over another

From a legal standpoint that is absolutly irrelevant. An amendment to the constitution is part of the constitution, and as such carried EXACTLY the same weight as all other parts of the constitution, except for those parts that have been voided by later parts to the constitution, which carry no weight what so ever.

An argument that states "well, an amendment can void an earlier amendment implicitly but not part of the constitution" is legally nonsensical, as an amendment IS part of the constitution, as much as every other part is.

according to the case you referenced - it says that the rules should apply to the federal government, but it doesn't mean that the federal government HAS to follow those rules

"that case" I references is Bowling v. Sharpe, a United States Supreme Court case upon which over half a century of interpretation is based on. "should", from the mouth of the United States Supreme Court most definitly means has to.

From a legal standpoint that is absolutly irrelevant. An amendment to the constitution is part of the constitution, and as such carried EXACTLY the same weight as all other parts of the constitution, except for those parts that have been voided by later parts to the constitution, which carry no weight what so ever.

An argument that states "well, an amendment can void an earlier amendment implicitly but not part of the constitution" is legally nonsensical, as an amendment IS part of the constitution, as much as every other part is.

"that case" I references is Bowling v. Sharpe, a United States Supreme Court case upon which over half a century of interpretation is based on. "should", from the mouth of the United States Supreme Court most definitly means has to.
maybe i'm wrong, in australia we've had very few ammendments to our constitution and i'm pretty sure anyone who's a citizen can be prime minister or governor-general.
anyhow, i think this question would keep the american supreme court busy for quite a while, trying to figure it out

it's basically a series of fundamental principles, feel free to ask if you want clarification on either one.

1) under the 14th amendment, no state may violate substantive due process (which means it can not deny fundamental rights to any citizen) nor may it violate equal protection (which means it can not selectively deny non fundamental rights to some citizens, it must either offer to all or deny to all).

2) the principles of reverse incorporation, as articulated in Bowling v. Sharpe, states that the federal law can not violate the principles of due process and equal protection

3) a restriction that says non naturalizes citizens can not be president either violated substantive due process (denies the fundamental right to seek high office) or equal protection (allows some citizens to seek the office of presidentbut not others)

Basically it turns to this.

Art II sec 1 is part of the constitution.
the constitution is federal law.
no federal law may violate substantive due process or equal protection
Art II sec 1 violates either substantive due process or equal protection

Conclusion:

Art II sec 1 is unconstitutional

There have been occasional proposals in congress to remove that clause every few years, and each time it gets louder. This kind of thing isn't unheard of. 10 years before Kennedy won the presidency the idea of a catholic president sounded absurd. It wasn't that long ago that the idea of a black or female president would be laughed at. Now we have a black man and a woman being considered seriously as the next president.

Of the Medal of Honor winners in our nations history, almost a third we're foreign born. So this country is telling us, these men that went above and beyond the call of duty for their country, thank you very much, but your not american enough to be allowed a chance to be President of the country you risked your life defending. We spread democracy around the world, believe in equal rights, freedom of speech, we tell our children they and every other american can be whatever they dream to be because they live in the world's greatest country.

If we deny so many of our citizens the right to be President of this country, it is the biggest hipocracy. There is nothing whatsoever that makes a foreign born american less of an american then us. It is discrimination. It is disgusting. Everyone time i think about that one fact i'm embarassed to call myself an american.

Anyone who calls themselves an american, a supporter of equal rights, a supporter of personal freedom, a supporter of everything this nation stands for, should be against this law.

Back on topic: I would vote for Schwarzeneggar if i he was the best candidate, like every other election. Of what i've seen so far he seems pretty good.

it's basically a series of fundamental principles, feel free to ask if you want clarification on either one.

1) under the 14th amendment, no state may violate substantive due process (which means it can not deny fundamental rights to any citizen) nor may it violate equal protection (which means it can not selectively deny non fundamental rights to some citizens, it must either offer to all or deny to all).

2) the principles of reverse incorporation, as articulated in Bowling v. Sharpe, states that the federal law can not violate the principles of due process and equal protection

3) a restriction that says non naturalizes citizens can not be president either violated substantive due process (denies the fundamental right to seek high office) or equal protection (allows some citizens to seek the office of presidentbut not others)

Basically it turns to this.

Art II sec 1 is part of the constitution.
the constitution is federal law.
no federal law may violate substantive due process or equal protection
Art II sec 1 violates either substantive due process or equal protection

Conclusion:

Art II sec 1 is unconstitutional
Ok, I'd say you make a good argument for it. But, as you said, SCOTUS hasn't sung on this one yet.

(And oddly enough, I seem to recall during the last round of make Arnie the prez, everyone was saying that an amendment was needed).

Suppose that Arnold was allowed to run (disregarding the regulations for presidency) would you vote for him?

No, restrictions on who can run aside, he's as much an opportunist as any of he others and has less experience in the field. If I'm going to vote for one of the opportunistic, unethical, political whores in the current political scene, I want one who knows what he/she is doing.