|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467 |
Originally posted by Renee:
I am sorry, but you know what, nobody NOT British will be a British Prime Minister, nobody not Canadian will become Canadian Prime Minister, there won't be a non-French person as the French Prime Minister, and I highly doubt there will be an non-native born American President. People don't want a someone not born in that country to run that country.
Your ignorance disgusts me.
Now I hate America? That is a new one to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by sigma:
So changing the Constitution is okay as long as you agree with it?
Yes, that's what opinions are. But my opinion isn't based in illogical thoughts and misinformation. There are two reasons why only natural-born citizens should be president: 1) The Constitution says so; 2) There is no reason to amend the Constitution to give foreign-born individuals the right to run for president. You'll need better reasons than your version of 'discrimination' to make a change to the Constitution necessary.
Again, your argument assumes that everyone on the planet has the right to run for president, which is bogus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,882
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,882 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by sigma:
The fact that a person is more "qualified" to be President if they were born outside the US to US citizens, live outside the US for 40 years then move to the US and run for President at 54 than someone who moved to the US when they were 3 days old and lived here for 54 years is absurd.
Except for the fact that the Constititution says that's the way it is.
EDIT: Plus this logic assumes that everyone on Earth was born with the right to run for president of the United States, which is ridiculous.
um, not even all US-born citizens are allowed to run for President. i know his because i fall into this category. citizens born abroad may not run for President. a candidate must be born on US soil. (I think this is kind of weak, especially if both parents are US citizens).
I do not see it as illogical that a candiate must be born a US citizen. The logic behind it is that the candiate puts America 1st, and not some other country. Just because he/she has lived here for 40 years doesnt mean much. you dont know where his "true" sympathies in his heart lie. there are plenty of people who have lived here for that long but still maintain loyalist feelings toward their homeland just like there are many Americans who are/have lived abroad for this long and still put American before the country they live in.
as for Arnold being a successful business man? what would make you think that? because he was in movies? the only business he was involved in, that im aware of, was in the Planet Hollywood restaurant chain which tanked.  http://slate.msn.com/id/2086889 Im suprised to see there are any locations still left.
Originally posted by Tourgasm:
Sometimes you can mess up a word so bad that spell check doens't know what the hell you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978 |
I only read a few posts but here's my take:
No way, ever. The president needs to be american born, period. Antonio, I have no urge to argue why I have this opinion, but I just wanted to throw another "No way ever" vote in the pool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Yes, that's what opinions are. But my opinion isn't based in illogical thoughts and misinformation.
So what is it based on? "Because X says so" when basing it on such a dynamic document as the Constitution is about as illogical as it gets.
Quote:
There are two reasons why only natural-born citizens should be president: 1) The Constitution says so; 2) There is no reason to amend the Constitution to give foreign-born individuals the right to run for president.
#1 is negated by your own admission that the Constituion has things that need to be changed within it. It can be changed tomorrow. So "Because the Constitution says so" means nothing as an argument, it is only an opinion and can be changed just as easily. Our Declaration of Independence, a non-changing document, states that "All men are created equal" -- but I guess that only applies to those born within the United States.
#2 is of course also an opinion. Many people on the opposing side of every amendment to the Constituion we've had would argue that there was "no reason" to have them.
If that's the best you can come up with you lost the argument a long time ago. You've refuted absolutely nothing posed to you..
Quote:
Again, your argument assumes that everyone on the planet has the right to run for president, which is bogus.
At least 2 times in this thread, I've countered this "point" of yours.
There are three requisites to being President:
1> Being a natural-born citizen
2> Being of at least 35 years of age
3> Having lived in the US at least 14 years
Numbers 2 and 3 are not discriminatory without basis, as there is a logical reasoning behind requiring a person to be at least 35 years of age and having lived in the US for 14 years.
My only problem is with the phrase "natural-born". Simply make it "US Citizen", as it was for our first 7 Presidents, and it is no longer discriminatory, because all 3 requisites can be met by every citizen of the country.
Does that mean that "everyone in the world" can become President. Technically, I suppose it does -- if they move here, become a citizen, are at least 35, live here at least 14 years before running, and can then convince the electorate to vote for them. Does that scare you? Does that somehow not make them good enough? It was good enough for our first 7 Presidents.
The most pertitent thing is that "every US citizen can't run for President". We're a nation founded on the fact that we're all equal, yet there's an explicit exception written into our own Constitution. Maybe we should go back to another exception of equality in the Constituion and consider blacks 3/5s of a vote because "The Constitution says so".
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
um, not even all US-born citizens are allowed to run for President. i know his because i fall into this category. citizens born abroad may not run for President. a candidate must be born on US soil. (I think this is kind of weak, especially if both parents are US citizens).
Not true.
"Natural-Born" does not mean you were born within the US. It means that you must have been a citizen of the US at birth. The fact that both your parents were US citizens means that you were a US citizen at birth, and therefore are eligible to run for President.
Quote:
I do not see it as illogical that a candiate must be born a US citizen. The logic behind it is that the candiate puts America 1st, and not some other country. Just because he/she has lived here for 40 years doesnt mean much. you dont know where his "true" sympathies in his heart lie. there are plenty of people who have lived here for that long but still maintain loyalist feelings toward their homeland just like there are many Americans who are/have lived abroad for this long and still put American before the country they live in.
So it makes sense that a child born to US parents in France, is educated in France, grows up in France, and who lives in France for 40 years can run for President?
By law even that childs parents could have lived their entire life in France, so long as one spent at least one year in the US.
So you could be a 4th Generation Frenchmen and still be eligible to run for President of the US as long as at least one parent in every generation spent just one year in the US. And yet if you were born in France to French-citizen parents and moved to the US the day after you were born you could never become President, despite living in the US your entire life minus one day.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 768
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 768 |
Quote:
I do not see it as illogical that a candiate must be born a US citizen. The logic behind it is that the candiate puts America 1st, and not some other country.
ok, so anyone who consciously immigrated to US as an adult puts America 2d, is that's what you are saying 
to all who say "no way":
I'm looking at it from a different angle, for sure, but I can't see how one citizen is different from another citizen based on the citizenship of his(her) parents...
someone in your family got off the boat in the past, I'm not sure you are necessaruily a better person just because you did not. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
My (somewhat paranoid) thoughts in restricting the executive office to one of natural US-born persuasion has more to do with restricting the Oval Office from yet another special interest group:
Foreign powers.
We've got enough PACs and far-flung special interests in Washington as it is; allowing a foreign-born President could potentially unsettle foreign relations between the US and other countries, thereby weakening them. Conversely, it could potentially strengthen them between the US and powers that would unsettle things in the other direction.
This is especially true if the ethnic/cultural/foreign ties are more powerful by a non-US born candidate to their birth country than to the US itself. This isn't always easily detected until that person is in a position of power...
I'm not totally against the idea, but nothing is selling me on it, either. I seriously doubt Arnold would be an Austrian puppet in the White House, but one has to think past this single person and consider other situations beyond a rather likeable fellow to others that might try to follow in his footsteps.
I'd love to have the possibility to vote Conan...I mean Arnold in, as his politics are more closely aligned to my beliefs than this administration, but opening the door to one likeable candidate could be a Pandora's Box that is being opened up for all the wrong reasons.
I'd have to say no on non-US born Presidents for now, despite my like for Conan...Arnold.
This certainly could change, though.
Last edited by JaTo; 11/15/04 02:54 AM.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by sigma:
If that's the best you can come up with you lost the argument a long time ago. You've refuted absolutely nothing posed to you..
What's to refute? This discussion is based entirely in opinion. If we were arguing whether the Constitution can be amended, then I wouldn't argue on the side that it can't be. It is my opinion that we should honor the Constitution and allow only natural-born citizens to be POTUS. It is your opinion that we should allow foreign-born individuals the opportunity to run for POTUS, based on the idea that not doing so would be discriminatory. I don't agree with that.
Originally posted by sigma:
At least 2 times in this thread, I've countered this "point" of yours.
There are three requisites to being President:
1> Being a natural-born citizen
2> Being of at least 35 years of age
3> Having lived in the US at least 14 years
Numbers 2 and 3 are not discriminatory without basis, as there is a logical reasoning behind requiring a person to be at least 35 years of age and having lived in the US for 14 years.
And that someone must be born a U.S. citizen isn't logical? Refer to JaTo's post for a reason why it is logical.
Originally posted by sigma:
Does that mean that "everyone in the world" can become President. Technically, I suppose it does -- if they move here, become a citizen, are at least 35, live here at least 14 years before running, and can then convince the electorate to vote for them. Does that scare you? Does that somehow not make them good enough? It was good enough for our first 7 Presidents.
Why pick and choose which qualifications are discriminatory? Why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of age, but not nature of citizenship? To say the magical number of 35 makes you fit to be CoC is about as ridiculous as saying the magical age of 21 makes you responsible enough to drink.
Originally posted by sigma:
The most pertitent thing is that "every US citizen can't run for President". We're a nation founded on the fact that we're all equal, yet there's an explicit exception written into our own Constitution. Maybe we should go back to another exception of equality in the Constituion and consider blacks 3/5s of a vote because "The Constitution says so".
That was one condition under which the Constitution needed to change. We socially evolved to a point where it was unacceptable to restrict the representation of black people. To say that limiting presidential eligibility to natural-born citizens prohibits equality is quite ludicrous. That qualification is not meant to suppress a group, but rather to sustain the sanctity of another.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 768
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 768 |
Quote:
And that someone must be born a U.S. citizen isn't logical? Refer to JaTo's post for a reason why it is logical.
IMHO, JaTo's point of concern, while valid, almost equally applies to the situation when presiden's S.O. is not a natural born US Citizen. The Constitution does not cover this situation, oh my... 
|
|
|
|
|
